Nikon D3100 v D5000 V Canon 500D

Right I'm just about to go and buy my first DSLR, and the Nikon D3100 or D5000 are looking my favourites, as reviews seem to indicate better picture quality.

Apparently the Nikon lenses are a bit heavier, so I presume better build quality (?) and are better quality overall? Two of my friends are DSLR users and encouraged me to go for the 500D as they both have Canons. If the Nikon's have better build quality and are more robust than the 500D that'd definitely swing it Nikon's way. However I read something about the lack of an autofocus motor on the Nikon's?

I can't decide whether the D5000 or D3100 is better? Online opinion seems pretty split.


What's the Hexus opinion?

(EDIT - Not bothered much about Video)

D5000. Gotta dash, might give more helpful reply in the morning!

when you buy a DSLR you buy into a lens system..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobster

when you buy a DSLR you buy into a lens system..

---

What are the major pros and cons of Nikon/Canon?

As an Olympus user I'd say there's not a lot to chose between Nikon/Canon. If you have legacy lenses then it might affect your decision, but starting afresh they both have a modern and good lens line up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redddraggon

What are the major pros and cons of Nikon/Canon?

---

Nothing tbh... Swings and roundabouts. They're both solid lineups.

Nikon has always aimed a touch higher when offering equivalent bodies - see D700 Vs 5DMkII, D7000 Vs 60D or D90 Vs 550D. But then Canon did the 7D, which arguably outspecs the D300s.

Nikon is said to have a slightly superior flash system, but I've not really played around all that much with either.

Canon has historically had the holy trinity of 16-35/4 L, 24-105/4L and 70-200/4 IS L which dominated mid-range glass, but Nikon is fighting back there...

Canon was always the pro shooter's body, until Nikon released the D3 and D3s...

Everybody harked on about Canon's T&S range, until Nikon released theirs...

So really they trade punches and the situation changes with each release of new/improved models. You're going to be very happy with either lineup, and I'd even drop Sony into the mix - their glass is newer and their good stuff is designed by Zeiss and is better than the Canon/Nikon version. Not as much choice, but unless you're wanting T&S or you've got £6000 to drop on something north of a 300mm 2.8 you're not going to miss much there either...

Olympus are dead now, so the only DSLR manufacturer that I'd be wary of reccomending due to a lack of lenses is Pentax. They've got some great stuff, but it's quirky.

D3100 Vs D5000 - good table here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikond3100/

The important stuff is:

3100 has a slightly newer sensor.
Same autofocus.
5000 shoots slightly faster (4 vs 3 fps).
3100 has an ever so slightly bigger viewfinder.
Both single control dial.

Tbh... 3100 looks slightly better on spec. It doesn't give much away and has the newer tech. I'm not a fan of Canon's 400/450/500 etc series, so someone else can fill you in on them.

I think I definitely want to get a Nikon, but other than flipping a coin I can't decide between the D5000 and the D3100. Looking at various forum posts across the internet, they keep banging on about the video capabilities of the D3100, which I'm not too bothered about.

Is the lack of an autofocus motor in the Nikon motors a big deal if I always get lenses with autofocus motors>?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redddraggon

Is the lack of an autofocus motor in the Nikon motors a big deal if I always get lenses with autofocus motors>?

---

No, unless you have old Nikon lenses that you want to use with the body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobster

when you buy a DSLR you buy into a lens system..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

No, unless you have old Nikon lenses that you want to use with the body.

---

Right then, I think I'm going to end up with a Canon 500d afterall. I had a few lenses in mind for purchase in a couple of months, but they aren't "AF-S" so that means they would autofocus with the D5000/D3100. I reckon going Canon would give me less headaches when it comes to lense selections (and everyone I know that has a DSLR has a Canon, so borrowing lenses could come in handy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redddraggon

Right then, I think I'm going to end up with a Canon 500d afterall.

---

Have you held one yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Have you held one yet?

---

The guy who sits next to me in the office has a 500d, and he's supposed to be bringing it in tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redddraggon

The guy who sits next to me in the office has a 500d, and he's supposed to be bringing it in tomorrow.

---

Cool. Good idea to check as the grip fits some people better than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Cool. Good idea to check as the grip fits some people better than others.

---

I was just about to mention this. Considering how much you hold a DSLR, this is really important and often underestimated.

I went with a Canon for this reason. I did plenty of research and came to the same conclusion as everyone is saying here - you're going to be splitting hairs with the differences in most cases. Not only that, but for me I'm never going to be limited by the camera - the real bottleneck is the person holding the camera (me!).

I really preferred the grip of the Canon though - Maybe it's because I have small hands? :)

Yup, I'd get down to a Jessops and hold both in your hand before splashing several hundred without having looked at both and weighing up which feels best to you.

Blindly I think the only reason I'd get a 500D over the D3100 would be if those mates had a nice selection of lens which you could pinch at will.

Other than that, I think the D3100 is the best low end body for a good few years. Apparently the low light capabilities are fantastic for such a camera.

I regret going Canon for 1 reason right now, rear sync flash.
There's no way of getting the camera to rear sync with manual flashes.

and I'm guessing I'll regret it more when/if I move up the camera food chain, as Nikons have better low light performance.