What Camera £300?

[Andehh]

I am after a decent entry level/newbie SLR camera. This will be my first SLR and I am hoping to find an acceptable one that will last me the foreseeable future. I am very new to this world, but am fairly technical minded/tech savy so will get to grips with it fairly quickly. I am not actively looking to go down the route of multiple lenses, as it will be used for general photography but with an eye on quality over what a standard digital camera will offer me.

Amazon has the Canon 1100D as the most popular, and at £250 it i under my budget of £300-ish, but if that extra £50-100 will buy me something noticeably better from an armature point of view I would be willing to stretch.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1100D-Digital-Camera...

However.... the below Nikon is only £20 more, has 30% more reviews and has 2mp more (I know this isnt the end all & be all of quality measures)...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Digital-Camera-18-55...


Many thanks in advance!

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 21st May 18:35

[MysteryLemon]

Both will do a perfectly good job of taking pictures and neither is better than the other. Although out of the two, I would personally go for the Nikon because it has a built in AF lamp which the Canon does not and will rely on blinding your subjects with a strobing flash to find focus when it's dim or dark.

[budfox]

The D3100 is all the camera most people will ever need. Spending more wont mean better pictures, you'll just be paying for additional features, most of which are there for greater convenience.

Do shoot RAW though, and grab a trial version of Adobe Lightroom to process those files with.

[Mr Will]

Have a play with them both and see which you prefer. There is very little in it technically (the Nikon has a slight edge) so personal preference is far more important. The other thing to consider is whether you know someone else with a decent amount of kit? If you do, picking the same manufacturer will be beneficial because it will enable you to borrow gear off each other.

The other thing I'd say is don't write off the idea of buying more lenses just yet, the choice of lens on your camera can make far more difference than the body and it's quite possible that you'll want to take advantage of that in the near future.

[Golaboots]

If you go nikon seriously consider going second hand but up a level. Something like the d90 is similar to the d3100 in terms of resolution, iso performance end but adds a larger viewfinder and ability to use the cheaper af rather than af-s lenses.

[TheCarFather]

Don't mean to take over the thread here but what are the differences between the D3100 and D3200? Would one be better than the other for macro shots?

[Simpo Two]

TheCarFather said:

Don't mean to take over the thread here but what are the differences between the D3100 and D3200? Would one be better than the other for macro shots?

Without dabbling in the specs, I doubt it. Macro photography is to do with the lens not the body.

[budfox]

D3200 does a few things a bit better and has a higher pixel count. I would suggest that for 99% of users they are no different.

[escargot]

I managed to bag the canon from Amazon for 209.99 - very very pleased with it. A mate of mine has the Nikon and reckons its a great camera. In summary; toss a coin.