1200D (T5) or 100D (SL1)

dpfan32 wrote:

Does Nikon offer a 40mm f/2.8 pancake for 150€? No.

They have a 35mm F1. 8 For €199, -  which is actually a more useful focal range + a stop faster

Then they have a 40mm f2. 8 micro too for that price. This focal length is actually a + for the Nikon System and a big one too.

Does Nikon offer a 24mm f/2.8 pancake for 150€? No.

Nope they don't and this is a solid argument. Mirrorless systems tend to have lenses like this though

Does Nikon offer a 55-250mm for 170€? No.

They have a 55-200 and a 55-300mm

Canon is a bit cheaper so that's a small advantage.

Does Nikon offer such a small body like the the 100D? No.

The D3300 isn't that much bigger and actually smaller with the bundled collapsible kit.

you want a small body? get a mirrorless!

Does the 3300 offer such a good video autofocus and silent cheap lenses like the STM lenses? No.

If video is a priority get a Sony or Panasonic. Don't bother with Dslr's.

Does the 3300 have a touchscreen? No.

Nope good point for the 100d

So there are some reasons buying Canon

better dynamic range and slightly better ISO (if any better) on the Nikon? this no entry level cheap-DSLR buyer will ever notice in real life photos.

24mp without an AA filter too for a significant edge in fine detail.

These are strong arguments for the Nikon no way arround it

More he will notice that Canon makes much better looking JPEG in terms of colors.

Nikon has punchier greens for landscapes Canon has nice warm skintones.

No winner just a matter of taste. If one shoots raw and edits in post this has limited value.

This whole sensor stuf thing is overrated, there are many + points for Canon.

A touchscreen and 2 lenses(you forgot the 10-18mm) vs better image quality and performance.  the only thing that is certain that no one should buy the 1200d-1300d