Have been a Nikon user for many years. Started out with a D40 as my first DSLR and recently got a D3100. Hadn't had it anytime before the sensor went bad. Had to make a decision: Is it worth the $200 to repair or should I consider putting that repair $$ into a new camera? Am exploring the options right now and would appreciate any advice, suggestions, helpful comments. Most of my photography is wildlife and landscape as I spend much time hiking and being in the outdoors, but would enjoy getting into some portrait shots since we have a grandbaby. Recently purchased Lightroom 5. Thank you in advance for your input.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon or Canon?
- Thread starter Hiker Gal
- Start date
Solution
MinAZ
Veteran Member
Is the camera still under warranty? That is the first option I'd explore.
Anyway if I was in the market today, I'd probably start with a Nikon, because they seem to have the edge at this moment. But who knows what will happen in the future when the next round of upgraded cameras get released?
AlphaTikal
Senior Member
What does the brand matter? Put Sony in the list too. Or do you own any lenses or accessories? Then don't change brand. How much do you want spent?
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
Sounds like you need something more robust. Maybe a used D7000 or a Fuji Xt1.
And I'd certainly check into the warranty if you didn't have your camera long before the sensor failed.
Not sure the D3100 is worth repairing at the percentage of the replacement cost.
If you decide on a new camera, how many lenses do you have? If a lot, stay Nikon. If the cost of replacing those is not great, look at the lenses you need/want to pursue your interests. The sensor wars will always shift and all the major brands give terrific results. However, the lenses can be quite expensive to replace. So I would base a decision more on glass than sensor.
I would also wait until after Photokina 16-23 September to see what is announced. Or take advantage of deals being made to reduce the stock which will be obsolete after.
If you decide on a new camera, how many lenses do you have? If a lot, stay Nikon. If the cost of replacing those is not great, look at the lenses you need/want to pursue your interests. The sensor wars will always shift and all the major brands give terrific results. However, the lenses can be quite expensive to replace. So I would base a decision more on glass than sensor.
I would also wait until after Photokina 16-23 September to see what is announced. Or take advantage of deals being made to reduce the stock which will be obsolete after.
How much total will you spend? This is an important consideration.
I actually was at the same crossroads and had a similar question. I seem to have outgrown my entry-level camera and was looking to go to a high end canon or nikon next.
Some random facts that help you decide.
• Currently Nikon's sensors (made by Sony) are way ahead of Canon's. Even the biggest Canon fans won't deny this. This translates into better, faster autofocus... larger dynamic range... better iso performance in low light... less noise... etc.
• Low light performance (in the shady woods) and good autofocus (if you photograph moving wildlife, especially birds) are especially nice.
• I've heard a few people suggest though that the best super-telephoto lenses are Canon's. 300mm and up. They're sharper and lighter. You can compare various ones at this site with the dropdowns:
Loading…
www.the-digital-picture.com
Those are what I'd want for wildlife photography, even if it's casual. I currently carry around a 150-600 lens for hikes. It's about 5 pounds but with a good lens strap you don't even notice it unless forced to hold the lens for a few minutes on the same subject.
For landscapes, many people think wide angle (and Nikon's wide angles are known to be the best) but some feel telephoto is ideal for these. But we're not talking 600mm telephoto, more like 200mm, in which case either brand will do fine.
What sealed the deal for me is the d810. It's a groundbreaking camera. 36 megapixels and various pro features. It's not cheap at roughly $3,000 and yet it's about half the price of nikon or canon's top tiers (d4s, 1dx) and the image quality is just as good or arguably even better. So I'm jumping ship to Nikon. If you already have Nikon lenses then IMO this is a no-brainer.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Stop following the crowd. Try Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji or Panasonic. Below the professional level all these companies offer cameras that are better in many ways than the big 2.
L
Lightpath48
Guest
Assuming you already have at least one Nikon lens, you can find either of these bodies very reasonably priced, and they'll be one and two generations beyond your D3100 in capabilities and image quality. I've seen D3200 bodies going for under $400. Nikon's sensors are better than Canon's. Unless you find something about a specific Canon that seems better, I'd go with Nikon.
I wouldn't spend the money.
If you have Nikon lenses get a Nikon DSLR replacement.
If not, both Nikon and Canon have excellent cameras for wildlife photography with very fast tracking and focusing.
007peter
Forum Pro
Hey Hiker Gal.
I just bought a Nikon D3100. This is my 1st Nikon DSLR coming from owning 4 different canon DSLR in the past 9 years. These are my own impression (your mileage may vary):
Canon AF + operation just feel faster to me. The best way I can describe it is that:
Canon have better MOVIE mode with full Manual override. You have full manual control over shutter-speed, iso, and aperture and you can change them during filming. You can't do this with Nikon unless you buy the fancier D800.
Canon have better Pre-Flash. My biggest annoyance with Nikon is the nearly useless AF ASSIST LAMP. It is TOO BRIGHT, always blinding my subjects eyes into squinting eyes. It is really annoying having Nikon AF ASSIST lamp shining on you like staring into a flash light. The best way I can describe to anyone who hasn't own one is to watch this video:
Very Annoying Nikon AF Assist Lamp
so I am forced into 2 hard choices:
Nikon have better AUTO-ISO, but with some [quirk*]. Nikon give you the ability to set both the CAP on High Iso and the minimum shutter-speed for auto-iso. I find this feature quite useful since my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 do not have image stabilization. I set my to minimum 1/30s and produce great result in lowlight. With Canon under aperture mode, it can dip into 1/5s resulting in blurry images. With Nikon, that is one less thing to worry about. [Quirk*] nikon D3100 do not give me access to AUTO-ISO under PSAM mode, only under PIC scene mode. However, the the EXIF from photograph taken PSAM mode indicate AUTO-ISO was used. Strange! hugh. Very annoying, but as long as it work.
Nikon have better Sports Mode I find Nikon PIC sports mode surprisingly useful and very accurate. It take better sports photo without having to learn all the setting and tricks. I also find Nikon's 3D tracking fabulous as well as the smart Dynamic AF area that auto-expand the AF area. The low-end Canon DSLR do have Dynamic AF, if you set your focal point in the center, it doesn't survey the surrounding AF points to see if subject has move into other spots. Only the more advance Canon 7D and 70D have the newer AF that support similar dynamic AF. I'm surprise a lowly Nikon D3100 have this, good job.
Nikon have newer update prime. Nikon introduce a series of AF-S prime during the last 5 years. Where as many of my canon were designed back in 1990's. I love my Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 for just $199. It doesn't suffer from nasty bokeh fringing that was plaguing both my old canon 35mm f/2 (1990's) and 85mm f/1.8 (another purple fringe monster)
In summary: I prefer Canon Camera but I like Nikon lens more (particularly the prime)
I bought a used D3100 just for the $199 AF-S 35mm f/1.8G. Great lens, a must buy.
I just bought a Nikon D3100. This is my 1st Nikon DSLR coming from owning 4 different canon DSLR in the past 9 years. These are my own impression (your mileage may vary):
Canon AF + operation just feel faster to me. The best way I can describe it is that:
- Canon lens seem to SNAP into focus
- Nikon lens seem to GLIDE into focus
Canon have better MOVIE mode with full Manual override. You have full manual control over shutter-speed, iso, and aperture and you can change them during filming. You can't do this with Nikon unless you buy the fancier D800.
Canon have better Pre-Flash. My biggest annoyance with Nikon is the nearly useless AF ASSIST LAMP. It is TOO BRIGHT, always blinding my subjects eyes into squinting eyes. It is really annoying having Nikon AF ASSIST lamp shining on you like staring into a flash light. The best way I can describe to anyone who hasn't own one is to watch this video:
Very Annoying Nikon AF Assist Lamp
so I am forced into 2 hard choices:
- Faster AF in lowlight with everyone suffer from squinting eyes or
- Slower AF in lowlight (lower keeper rate) but with eyes open
Nikon have better AUTO-ISO, but with some [quirk*]. Nikon give you the ability to set both the CAP on High Iso and the minimum shutter-speed for auto-iso. I find this feature quite useful since my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 do not have image stabilization. I set my to minimum 1/30s and produce great result in lowlight. With Canon under aperture mode, it can dip into 1/5s resulting in blurry images. With Nikon, that is one less thing to worry about. [Quirk*] nikon D3100 do not give me access to AUTO-ISO under PSAM mode, only under PIC scene mode. However, the the EXIF from photograph taken PSAM mode indicate AUTO-ISO was used. Strange! hugh. Very annoying, but as long as it work.
Nikon have better Sports Mode I find Nikon PIC sports mode surprisingly useful and very accurate. It take better sports photo without having to learn all the setting and tricks. I also find Nikon's 3D tracking fabulous as well as the smart Dynamic AF area that auto-expand the AF area. The low-end Canon DSLR do have Dynamic AF, if you set your focal point in the center, it doesn't survey the surrounding AF points to see if subject has move into other spots. Only the more advance Canon 7D and 70D have the newer AF that support similar dynamic AF. I'm surprise a lowly Nikon D3100 have this, good job.
Nikon have newer update prime. Nikon introduce a series of AF-S prime during the last 5 years. Where as many of my canon were designed back in 1990's. I love my Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 for just $199. It doesn't suffer from nasty bokeh fringing that was plaguing both my old canon 35mm f/2 (1990's) and 85mm f/1.8 (another purple fringe monster)
In summary: I prefer Canon Camera but I like Nikon lens more (particularly the prime)
I bought a used D3100 just for the $199 AF-S 35mm f/1.8G. Great lens, a must buy.
Solution
dad_of_four
Veteran Member
Every time a Canon is sold, they kill a puppy
HornOUBet
Senior Member
The MOST IMPORTANT consideration........
HornOUBet
Senior Member
The decision depends on if you have lenses worth keeping and using AND if you expect to get a body only, body & 1 lens, 2 lenses etc for your $1000....without this info you will not get good advice if good advice is really what you seek.....
I do not own one but you could get a Sony A6000 APS-C mirrorless with a couple of lenses for $1000..... The Olympus OM-D E-M10 would cost a little more with 2 lenses probably.... lots of options, most of them pretty good ones....
I shoot Olympus, Canon, Fujifilm but in your shoes I think I would give the Sony a try with only a $1000 budget (unless you already have the Nikon lenses you need....)
I do not own one but you could get a Sony A6000 APS-C mirrorless with a couple of lenses for $1000..... The Olympus OM-D E-M10 would cost a little more with 2 lenses probably.... lots of options, most of them pretty good ones....
I shoot Olympus, Canon, Fujifilm but in your shoes I think I would give the Sony a try with only a $1000 budget (unless you already have the Nikon lenses you need....)
bladerunner6
Leading Member
Did he buy it with a credit card with warranty extension in the last two years?
Or from Costco in the last two years?
kamalalwani
Member
hahahaha you made my day
This is a slight exaggeration, but it really is the case that every time someone buys a Canon, a marketing MBA at Canon is confirmed in his suspicion that you can sucker consumers with obsolete image quality in 2014 and still keep all the market share. Only when people stop buying Canons will those MBAs at Canon have a reason to give their R&D departments some badly needed share of the profits.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum