Nikon D5100 vs Canon T2I

Hey ,

I know there are few posts here in the past and I've read them all but still im not sure what to choose.

Im planing on using the camera for business ( shooting at events not profesinal photogrpaher) and to begin expanding in the future (lens etc).
I saw that people recommend the D5100 for a better pic and the T2I for video .

When i asked a guy working at a camera store about the lenses he told me that the prices are about the same but the diffrence between the two cameras are : that the nikon can take the old lenses but they would have to be manually focused and the canon can only handle the new ones is that true?

another question is it worth buying the body alone and then a slight advanced lens for around 100-200$ then the one from the kit?

I know that people say that i need to feel the grip of the camera and choose what is better for me but i dont know they feel the same for me except the fact that the nikon has the lcd screen that can change the angle and the option button that can do a 360 full round and the canon dont have that option.
Thank you for your time and i would really like to hear from your experience.

oferm1980 said:

Hey ,

I know there are few posts here in the past and I've read them all but still im not sure what to choose.

Im planing on using the camera for business ( shooting at events not profesinal photogrpaher) and to begin expanding in the future (lens etc).
I saw that people recommend the D5100 for a better pic and the T2I for video .

When i asked a guy working at a camera store about the lenses he told me that the prices are about the same but the diffrence between the two cameras are : that the nikon can take the old lenses but they would have to be manually focused and the canon can only handle the new ones is that true?

Click to expand...

Yes this is true. The very old lenses use a screw drive in the camera to focus lenses. Canon changed their mount so their older lenses do not mount. Nikon kept it the same but the screw drive motor is only in the higher end bodies.

If you plan on collecting very old lenses, consider the d7000 instead since it has a screw drive for the older stuff.

oferm1980 said:

another question is it worth buying the body alone and then a slight advanced lens for around 100-200$ then the one from the kit?

Click to expand...

I think so, but many do not agree. On the Nikon I prefer the 16-85vr. On Canon I prefer the nearly as nice 15-85is. The other option is to get a faster lens for low light light the Sigma 17-50os or Tamron 17-50vc, or the Canon 17-55is.

For others, the kit lens is a good choice due to budget. They are cheap and generally quite good. The Nikon 18-105 is exceptionally good for the money (although not as nice as the 16-85). With Canon the only kit type lens which is good is the 18-55is and the 15-85is. The 18-135 and 17-85 are lacking.

oferm1980 said:

I know that people say that i need to feel the grip of the camera and choose what is better for me but i dont know they feel the same for me except the fact that the nikon has the lcd screen that can change the angle and the option button that can do a 360 full round and the canon dont have that option.

Click to expand...

So what is stopping you from trying them out?

oferm1980 said:

Thank you for your time and i would really like to hear from your experience.

Click to expand...

Ergonomics is important. I bought a t1i (same ergonomics as the t2i & t3i) and regreted it and eventually sold it. Such mistakes are costly, time consuming and just plain annoying. Better to check it out before you buy.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

oferm1980 said:

When i asked a guy working at a camera store about the lenses he told me that the prices are about the same but the diffrence between the two cameras are : that the nikon can take the old lenses but they would have to be manually focused and the canon can only handle the new ones is that true?

Click to expand...

Nikon has been introducing the most popular lenses with built-in focus motors, and you'd have to go back 25 years to buy a non-EOS Canon lens. It's a non-issue.

oferm1980 said:

another question is it worth buying the body alone and then a slight advanced lens for around 100-200$ then the one from the kit?

Click to expand...

You could get a little bit more reach; Nikon makes an 18-105mm, and Canon an 18-135mm. They won't be better optically or offer more speed (brightness).

So ... i need to go with ??????

im talking about thier specs which one will give me the most out of it? better picture?
better lens? for future investment?

oferm1980 said:

So ... i need to go with ??????

im talking about thier specs which one will give me the most out of it? better picture?
better lens? for future investment?

Click to expand...

You won't go wrong on either brand. Both have such a huge list of lenses, flashes, and so on that you will almost always be able to find what you want. Or restated if it almost certainly exists for any brand it exist for Canon and Nikon.

Which one to get is simple:
Which one do you really prefer? Try them and see.

If after that you are still stuck? Pick the Nikon for a slight edge in still images in tough light or the Canon for a slight edge in manual video modes.

It is not like there is a GOOD and and BAD . If there was no one would ever buy the other brand... yet they sell nearly the same amount which is roughly 40% of all DSLR sales each.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

oferm1980 said:

Hey ,

I know there are few posts here in the past and I've read them all but still im not sure what to choose.

Im planing on using the camera for business ( shooting at events not profesinal photogrpaher) and to begin expanding in the future (lens etc).
I saw that people recommend the D5100 for a better pic and the T2I for video .

When i asked a guy working at a camera store about the lenses he told me that the prices are about the same but the diffrence between the two cameras are : that the nikon can take the old lenses but they would have to be manually focused and the canon can only handle the new ones is that true?

another question is it worth buying the body alone and then a slight advanced lens for around 100-200$ then the one from the kit?

I know that people say that i need to feel the grip of the camera and choose what is better for me but i dont know they feel the same for me except the fact that the nikon has the lcd screen that can change the angle and the option button that can do a 360 full round and the canon dont have that option.
Thank you for your time and i would really like to hear from your experience.

Click to expand...

The Canon T2i 550D can take all EF and EF-S lens. I prefer the T2i for image resolution and other features. The best value is the kit lens that comes with the camera (18-55IS and 55-250IS)
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/05/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-t2i

beagle1 said:

The Canon T2i 550D can take all EF and EF-S lens. I prefer the T2i for image resolution and other features. The best value is the kit lens that comes with the camera (18-55IS and 55-250IS)
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/05/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-t2i

Click to expand...

Oh look, a review of the Canon that predates the release of the Nikon by one year, how useful...

oferm1980 said:

another question is it worth buying the body alone and then a slight advanced lens for around 100-200$ then the one from the kit?

Click to expand...

No, if you get the body alone, 100-200$ won't get you anywhere. Get the kit lens + 35mm F1.8 on the Nikon, it's the best deal. 50mm F1.8 on the Canon will feel cramped inside (which is where you'll want the low light capabilities of the lens usually).

All the other considerations are irrelevant for what you want to do, except one : do you have a friend/family member with an extensive collection of lenses from a specific brand you could borrow ? That's always useful and could sway you in the direction of the brand they favour.

as someone else mentioned, if you want the articulated screen in the canon, look at the t3i or 600d. I was tossing up between the same two cameras. Here is a review/video that I found very useful:

In the end I chose the 600d

apiron said:

beagle1 said:

The Canon T2i 550D can take all EF and EF-S lens. I prefer the T2i for image resolution and other features. The best value is the kit lens that comes with the camera (18-55IS and 55-250IS)
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2010/05/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-t2i

Click to expand...

Oh look, a review of the Canon that predates the release of the Nikon by one year, how useful...

Click to expand...

LOL. yep, Ole Beagle totes that review around the beginner's forum on his shoulder as if anyone much pays attention to Popular Photography anyway.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Other than Nikon makes a better camera and much better glass, you'll probably enjoy either one equally. All you have to do it get over the cheap body on the Canon products. Be careful not to peal off the fake leather paper glued to the sides. But really, they are both about the same except for the superior low light sensor in the Nikon. But what the heck, you're not worried about low light situations.

Now, the only real difference is the owners. Whereas Nikon owners tend to be good looking men and women who are both articulate and educated, Canon owners tends to be swarthy people with knuckles that drag the ground and IQs to match the temperature of their developing trays. They also wear pink tutus under street clothes and have the fleas of a hundred camels infesting their private parts on any given day. It's a personal hygiene issue.

Just get the D5100 and stand proud with the rest of us. Also, don't listen to a guy named Hank if he comes around. As much as Bjorn would love to say what I just said, he's got to be careful not to stir up the Canon constituency.

Remember, friends don't let friends shoot Canon.



Photographer unknown

Unlike Nikon owners, Canon owners can't walk on water.



Photographer unknown

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

I was making this decision some time ago, I think it's important to work out what your priorities are and which company will provide the lens you want at a price you want to pay.

For me, Nikon had the 35mm 1.8 and the 18-105 at a cheap price, which attracted me towards it. There are third party lenses available for both that even the field a bit, but I decided to avoid them at the moment because of doubts about inconsistent quality and possible focus problems.

For me, the Nikon felt nicer in the hand and more intuitive to use, but YMMV. The shutter sounded quieter too, the Canon made an odd squeak whcih I didn't like.

I read that Nikon had the better phase detect focus system (through the viewfinder), but am not convinced of that yet. I had a long battle with Nikon with my camera over an obvious focus problem, but that's another story.

If you are going to mostly use the optical viewfinder they're fairly evenly matched, though the Nikon is missing the on-demand gridlines that Canon has.

However, if you are going to be using live view, the Canon is much better because it has a live histogram, shows the current settings of the camera, gives an approximation of the image and has a meter. The Nikon does none of these things, making the flip screen on the Nikon of questionable use for me. The only thinkg the Nikon will do is adjust the preview image ONLY if you change the exposure composition in P, A and S mode, but NOT in M mode. As it doesn't tell you what the camera is changing, (ISO, shutter speed or aperture) it is pretty useless for me. The whole point of the flip screen for me was that I could frame and adjust to the correct exposure without looking through the viewfinder. And if I have it on auto ISO I cannot tell which ISO it choses in live view as the display does not change once you enter it. If video is important to you at all, get the Canon.

In the end I decided to concentrate on what was important. I needed a discreet camera that would perform well in low light without flash so in the end I chose the Nikon D5100 for its better performance at high ISO, the Nikon 35mm 1.8 (a good focal length for indoor shooting, though the 50 is good for my needs too). But I do miss the on-demand gridlines in the viewfinder and I miss a useable live-view. I am disappointed with some of the D5100's shortcomings, but I probably made the right choice in the end. Everything is a compromise. There is no perfect camera for me, I discovered.

I would add one thing. I would not expect either the Canon 550/600D or the Nikon D5100 to last for very long or be worth repairing if they break after a couple of years.

Guidenet said:

Just get the D5100 and stand proud with the rest of us. Also, don't listen to a guy named Hank if he comes around. As much as Bjorn would love to say what I just said, he's got to be careful not to stir up the Canon constituency.

Remember, friends don't let friends shoot Canon.



Photographer unknown

Click to expand...

Craig, you just cost me a clean shirt. I laughed so hard my beverage hit everything except the keyboard.

The main reason I don't recommend the d5100 more strongly is just lame manual controls in video. It is otherwise a superb camera and clearly better at stills in the tough lighting situations. Not to mention the low cost primes (35mm f1,8g & 50mm f1.8g and the kit lens (18-105vr) are just better than their counter parts at least for now. The hole in the Nikon lineup is cheap teles. Not an issue for you with that nice 500mm, but bothersome for me with no lens longer than a 300mm without the use of a TC.

That image reminds me, it might have been 5 years since my last cigar. Hmm....

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

my mistake. The D5100 does actually show what it's changing in live vew when you apply EC, just doesn't show the changes in M mode. Video is still sucky though.

cerberusjf said:

my mistake. The D5100 does actually show what it's changing in live vew when you apply EC, just doesn't show the changes in M mode. Video is still sucky though.

Click to expand...

Actually the video is really good. What is sucky is how convoluted it is to change the video settings manually.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Guidenet said:

Also, don't listen to a guy named Hank if he comes around.

Click to expand...

I've used Nikon gear since the mid 60's but after using both systems I now prefer Canon and I definitely will not get on a soapbox to persuade anybody that one is better than the other.

But after owning both I've made some observations about their respective camps........why is it that Nikon users get so offended and defensive when others prefer a different brand while most Canon users could care less about what the other photog shoots with.........?
--
Regards,
Hank

Hank3152 said:

Guidenet said:

Also, don't listen to a guy named Hank if he comes around.

Click to expand...

why is it that Nikon users get so offended and defensive when others prefer a different brand while most Canon users could care less about what the other photog shoots with.........?

Click to expand...

So other than you, who is offended? I've shot several brands too. I could care less what anyone shoots with.

btw: Craigs comments were in jest. You know a form of humor also referred to as ribbing. Feel free to get off the soapbox, you look silly alone up there.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Bjorn_L said:

So other than you, who is offended?

Click to expand...

Apparently you must be otherwise you wouldn't have responded

Bjorn_L said:

btw: Craigs comments were in jest. You know a form of humor also referred to as ribbing. Feel free to get off the soapbox, you look silly alone up there.

Click to expand...

Soapbox......? I consider Craig my old friend but I'm not a regular here anymore and only stopped by to see what he's been up to, and my comments were also in jest, and he knows it........
--
Regards,
Hank

but it's a real pain. Proper manual control and more sound control would be much better. But video is better and easier with a camcorder anyway.

Hank3152 said:

Guidenet said:

Also, don't listen to a guy named Hank if he comes around.

Click to expand...

I've used Nikon gear since the mid 60's but after using both systems I now prefer Canon and I definitely will not get on a soapbox to persuade anybody that one is better than the other.

But after owning both I've made some observations about their respective camps........why is it that Nikon users get so offended and defensive when others prefer a different brand while most Canon users could care less about what the other photog shoots with.........?

Click to expand...

Hank, it was a joke. I put lots of winks and whatnot there. I don't care either.

The OP was complaining that nobody would tell him which one, so I decided to do so in the most biased and silly way possible. No offense, I promise.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile