I'm in the market for a big boys camera so I want opinions based on your experience.

I want a DSLR either Canon Eos Rebels or Nikon D3100 series.
I would purchase a kit that includes 2 lenses.
Personal use, not for business

is one better than the other or is it just personal reference?

who has better lenses?

which is more user friendly?

which will actually honor a warranty issue?

some of these kits offer lenses 18-55 then 75-300. Will I miss much in between the two?

I earn my living with cameras. I'm a Canon guy but either will make a fantastic photo. Really, toss a coin when it comes to images both do a great job.

Here is how to pick the one that will work for you. First, find what fits your hand. You want the shutter release and the dials and buttons to fall naturally under your finger such that you can make adjustments without taking your eye away from the view finder. Second,try out and look through the menus, each brand has a slightly different approach to how their menus work kind of like Apple and Windows. They are similar but different.

I like the Canon mid range and pro bodies because they fit my hand and I can make quick adjustments on the fly. I don't like the Rebel series bodies because with their small size they don't fit my paws. Also many adjustments are buried in the menu instead of on dials and buttons. With the Rebel series I have to take the camera away from my eye, work down through menus to make changes I can make on the fly with the next step up in camera. The bottom end Nikon suffers with the same problems. The mid level bodies are much better tools.

The Nikon bodies flat don't work for me. The shutter release doesn't fall under my finger naturally.

Also, take a look at lenses. Buy the best glass you can afford. You're going to have those lens much longer than you will have the camera body.

With dslr Canon for years was the pro choice for many things. Just watch a sporting even and count the white lens you see being used. Those big white lenses are Canons. The last few years Nikon has caught up when it comes to sensors and they are making inroads into Canons market share.

I recently picked up a Canon 70D with some cheapy kit lenses from Costco to take to Mexico to photograph my daughters wedding. The whole setup was less than just one of my better lenses. If it went missing I wasn't going to be too broken hearted. I can say it is an amazing tool and can highly recommend it if it fits your paw.

__________________
Bill Bates

Asking Canon or Nikon is like Smith or Colt. I'm a Nikon owner so I'll recommend Nikon.

Mostly it's personal preference.

I really do think Nikon has better entry level kit lenses. I still have and use the first lens I got with my first Nikon DSLR - and I have a several "good" lenses now.

User friendly is largely personal preference too.

I've heard good and bad warranty stories about both.

The 20mm between 55 and 70-75mm is a couple of steps. It's a non factor.

In most instances, when you're looking at an entry or mid-level DSLR you won't notice much difference in the photos. As Bill Bates said, pick what fits you, not just a name. I personally use Pentax because they fit me (and I can use my 40-60 year old Pentax lenses) but that doesn't mean they would be a fit for you. If you live in or near a large city, look for a camera store that has the models you want to consider and actually hold them.

As far as your question regarding lenses goes, I would look for a kit with 18-135/140 and a 50-250/300 range lenses. The 18-135/140, compared to the 18-55, generally is a much better walk around lens IMHO. You wouldn't lose much between the two lenses you named but with an 18-135 you're covered.

CW

__________________
μολὼν λαβέ

I'm personally biased toward Nikon. For years, I've used Nikon film cameras. Everything from the F3, to the F5. I also very much liked the FE and FE2, and I've also owned the Nikkormats.

When it came to moving to digital, I continued with Nikon, mostly because I already had mount-compatible lenses. I still occasionally use a 20mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.4, and a 105mm f2.8. Those aren't the latest, and they're manually focused, but I really like the images they produce.

In the end, Bill Bates hit it. Get the one that fits your hand. Both have excellent glass, especially in the better lenses.

Both brands are top notch and have been battling it out for decades. So from a quality perspective they're about the same.

I give Nikon the edge for utility as there are a slew of older Nikon lenses that will work with new Nikon bodies. But if I were in your shoes looking at 35mm "style" cameras what I would try to settle on is the sensor size. The models you are looking at have what is known as a "cropped" sensor. They can and do produce astounding picture quality but you may want to consider a full frame sensor. In short, a full frame sensor is the same size as a 35mm negative. The cropped sensors are just that, cropped, or smaller. Just as with film, the larger the image is to start, the better quality you'll have with enlargements, all else being equal.

Another curveball, if you're buying a camera you intend to keep for a while you may also want to look at mirrorless models. They are compact with good size sensors and are also interchangeable lens capable. Some model offer an electronic viewfinder that attaches to the "hot shoe" if you want the feel of shooting with a 35. (Check out the Fuji!)

Dig into the internet a bit, there are alot of dedicated photo sites with tons of free knowledge, just like here with firearms.

Good luck and happy shooting!

I've been using Nikons continually for 35 years. I still have a few manual lenses and film bodies that still get some use. I enjoy their digital stuff and the high end lenses are truly great. I mostly shoot my kid's sporting events and family activities. I shoot the animals and sights around the yard and always take at least one body and several lenses when on vacation.

Of course the Nikon v Canon debate is similar to Chevy v Ford. There are pluses and minuses for each. At the level you're looking, I don't see a real advantage between the two. They will both take great pictures and both will have similar limitations in low light, versatility, speed, settings, etc. I have ALWAYS had great factory support and quick repairs from Nikon.

For top-notch reviews of all things Nikon Camera, google "Ken Rockwell". He does amazing reviews on bodies, lenses and accessories.

__________________
paws for friendship

I think when you are dipping into DSLR either one would be fine - in fact, I might even suggest a used "pro" type DSLR like a Nikon D300s or even a D200 (can be had for $300 or so - be sure to check the shutter activations - less than 30,000 would be good as it should go 150,000). I'm a Nikon guy for about 50 years so take this for what it's worth.

If you really get into it, your main expense will be lenses - I still use my Nikkors that I bought as a teenager back in the 60's on my digital bodies (D200, D700).

__________________
Lou

Olympus 4/3, just to be different.

But then as now, I believe that if you want to take photography seriously Nikon is the way to go.

After the days of film, I've had many digital cameras and the Nikon was the best hands down. I have never owned a DSLR though.

These days Canon pretty much dominates the pro fields in photo jouranlism, sports and wildlife photography but Nikons do take good photos.

75% of Professional Photographers used Canon DSLRs to Cover the Super Bowl

__________________
Bill Bates

Just to add - 55mm-75mm is a footstep in either direction so don't worry about zoom as much as aperture (f-stop) of the lens. Photographers pay dearly for a "one stop" advantage (e.g. an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor is about $600 while an 85mm 1.4 Nikkor is $1600+). Fixed aperture primes (non-zooms) are a nice way to start and you will usually get better quality than with a cheap kit zoom lens.

__________________
Lou

Lots of good advice has been given. The lower end Nikons and Canons are very similar, and what feels better in you hand, and control lay out preference is important.

Personaly, I am a fairly serious Nikon shooter. I enjoy using my older Nikon digitals, like the D2Xs, but in digital cameras, like computers, newer is better. Digital sensor performance and auto focus has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years, and a new Nikon D3100, a consumer camera, will offer more resolution and better low light performance than my D2Xs, a camera that was a top of the line, $5000 pro camera just 8 years ago. Matter of fact, the newer D3200 might be an even better choice. Newer, better sensor. Better movie mode.

When you buy one (Nikon), they are available in kits, with lenses included. The 18-55 and 55-200 are popular kit lenses, and are very nice for the money. The 55-200 is available with VR (vibration reduction), and is worth spending the few extra bucks for, as it enables you to hand hold the camera and clear pictures in lower light with telephoto lenses. Another thought, if $$ is a consideration, is to also look for a clean, used, AFS Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens. It will allow a lot more light into the camera, hence higher shutter speeds, and provide good performance for things like kids, who don't like to sit still.

Another nice thing with Nikon Is you can find older, manual focus Nikon lenses that will work great on your camera, for not a lot of money. Canon changed the lens mount on its cameras when they went to auto focus, making their FD manual focus lenses un-useable on their newer AF bodies.

Both makers have had good and bad reports of service, though I believe as in anything, it is exaggerated on the internet. With Nikon, I would advice buying a genuine Nikon USA import model, not "Grey market", thru an unauthorized importer, as Nikon USA repair will not stand behind them.

Larry

I've used Nikon F1 and Canon A1 35mm and both are fantastic. With digital, things are a bit different. I designed, tested and worked with CCD imagers for many years and here are some things I look for.

Dark imaging. All CCDs work well with good light. The measure of a good CCD is how well it works in low light. Due to the microscopic geometries involved, cell to cell leakage and uneven efficiencies create a myriad of problems. Take a photo of absolute black (lens cap on) and then look for white or colored spots. Every spot is a bad pixel. Do the same with very dim, dim, and medium light. You don't want a spotty image or one that appears splotchy. A good imaging chip will provide images that just appear dark and may be able to be fixed with photoshop.

Light overload (cell saturation) CCD cells are like little buckets that capture photons of light and recombine them into electrons that create the tiny voltages that make up an image. These little buckets are very close to each other. Bright light can fill a bucket to overflowing and then the excess electrons can spill into adjacent buckets creating large washed out areas. You want an imager chip that can take in quite a bit of light without spillover. On a bright sunny day with white clouds and bright reflections, you don't want to sacrifice sharpness due to cell overload. So, take a photo of a square grid under bright light conditions and small thin lines. You're looking for lines that break up or disappear anywhere on the image. A window screen is a good subject with direct sunlight on it.

Shutter Delay One of the biggest annoyances I have with DSLR is shutter delay. I want the photo when I dipress the shutter button. Not a half second later. I want it now. For fast moving images and those shots that just can't wait, having a shutter that takes the picture after the event has passed is worthless. Airshows, sporting events, nature, etc. don't wait for your camera to make up its mind when it will do what you asked it to do. I want it now. Right now.

Other than that, as others have posted, they are both excellent cameras and will make you happy. Like picking a new handgun, find one that fits your hands easily and comfortably, has features you can find and use effortlessly and is intuitive to use. Then, have fun taking photos.

Attached Images

canonA1-2.jpg (68.7 KB, 33 views)

With current generation of sensors from both Canon and Nikon fast lenses are not as big a need as they once were. The high iso performance with the latest cameras is simply amazing. Just a few years ago photos taken at 800 iso were barely useable due to noise (grain for us older film guys). Now you can shoot at iso like 6400 and 12800 and have a pretty grain/noise free image. That means you can still have decent shutter speed at smaller apertures in very low light.

There are other reason than more stops of light for wanting a fast lens but low light isn't the issue it was just a couple of years ago.

These were quick test shots taken handheld in low light at f5.6 and 6400 iso.



sorry about the subject but for a shadows noise test it works.



but without a fast and expensive lens you will never get this look.





if you click and take the elk photo up to full size you can see the grain/noise in the background. It was taken 800iso today it would be grain free.

__________________
Bill Bates

I'm going to jump in with the big boys. I've been using Canon for 20 plus years, so therefore I'm a Canon guy. Like others have said the choice comes down to personal choice.

One question is what brand do your friends have? If you the same brand they do they can help you with all the whistles and bells the new cameras have these days. Also they may loan you a lens from time to time. I let a few of my close friends borrow a lens from time to time.

Some folks my disagree but I'm not a kit kind of guy, necessarily. What are you shooting? Landscapes, wildlife or just general picture taking. General pictures, a kit with a 28-135 lens or so would be great. If you are going for wildlife, get a body only and the your zoom lens of choice. And the same is true for landscapes.

Years ago it was all about the glass, lens, I 'm not sure that is the case today since everything is digital and there is some great software out there to help with your short comings.

Thanks to everybody, I appreciate it.

And the discussion continues!! I've been a Canon man all the way back to when I helped pay for college doing weddings. Started with a TL (50/1.8) in jr/early high school and then with my senior high purchase of an F1, an FD50 (1.4), a 28 (I think), a 135ish and a zoom mentioned below. Also carried a Mamiya RB67 (I think, after all it was the 70's ) for the studio shots. The question was the same then. Canon or Nikon!

Great advice on picking the body already handed out. Glass is the key. Never been a big fan of zooms but I've always had a 70ish to 200ish for the "candid shots".

Still have the TL, F1, and I've picked up a Rebel. Was disappointed all my F1 glass was not useable. I've pretty much duplicated the previously mentioned lens collection.

Buy good glass. All that said, I find the point and shoot being picked up more and more often these days!!!

I'm a Nikon guy My father in law ( who is a great photographer) is a Canon guy. we have had this debate for 20+years but back when they were film its my understanding that Canon used nylon gears and Nikon used aluminum??? hence press photographers used Nikon??? Anyway whatever the case I love my older D50.Either way we have a lot of memories from both cameras. Put it like this they beat the smart phone cameras

thewelshm

I am a longtime Nikon user. I agree that either brand will do well and produce good images.
Ergonomics and camera "feel" is important. You are buying into a lens system, so price and availability might be a consideration. Nikon has done a better job, IMHO, on backwards compatibility and almost any lens will fit newer cameras, although possibly not supporting all features.
Don't discount the "family". I am a freelance photographer with multiple cameras and lenses. My family and friends are nearly 100% Nikon, as they know they will get coaching and have the ability to borrow and try other gear.
Also know that while you will get good images out of the camera, most images from digitals will benefit from some amount of post processing. Reasonably priced , user friendly software is available for either computer format, it is worth learning to use one.
On full frame sensors... I would not concern myself with this excellent and costly format until I truly believed I could not get the quality I need from a "cropped" sensor. They have advantages, but come with a higher price tag on equipment and storage space for images.
I think the biggest plus to the "higher end" cameras, from either manufacturer, is low light performance. Low light performance allows room for many more "great" photos and fewer missed opportunities, also allows reasonable priced lenses to do a more creditable job.
You cant really go wrong, but shoot a lot, analyze the good and bad images so you can get more of the good ones. Practice and familiarity will show up in better images.

Nikon for me. Better and more lenses. Wal-Mart has the D3100 on sale for 388. It's 10.2MP and takes movies! Canon does make better point-and-shoots but when it comes to D-SLR's, Nikon rules.

I've shot both, settled on Nikon (semi-pro). Pick up various cameras and decide what feels best.

The true talent is in the photographer note the equipment anyway.

As far as the above statement about Canon dominating wildlife, journalism, fashion and sports...

They do have slight edge in sports... also photographers take images not cameras...

Same here - with all the Nikon gear I have, I have recently been going to my Fuji X100S for "fun & family" stuff - the fixed (35mm equivalent) f/2 lens is sharp as a tack and the high ISO capability is great - typically shoot at 1600-2000 indoors with no flash. Plus you can stick it in your pocket (ok, a large pocket.)

__________________
Lou

Thought I'd add a little more to my above post. I've done paid sports and portrait work, I like nature and landscapes too.

I can't emphasize enough that either camera will do the job, if you practice, just like with a firearm, practice is the key, take a class and learn how to do it right then practice.

Below is a favorite, shot with a D300 and Nikon 300 2.8 VRI Lens.



The camera is just the tool, it's what's behind the lens that counts!

There is a great deal of good information here thank you to the pros who contributed. I use a Nikon D90 I don't know how that is ranked in terms of quality, but the reason I am posting is, knowing what I know now, my money would go toward a great lens or lenses , The camera body is only a apparatus the lens is what makes the picture. A fast lens is more valuable to me than a hundred buttons I will not use as a amateur.
Sort of like putting a $1000 scope on a Ruger 10/22 bull barrel rather than a $100 burris.

Either will do just fine. It's a matter of personal preference.

I've got an EOS 350D Digital Rebel Xt.

It's a great camera, and the newer ones have a lot more capability, albeit some of it of little or no use to me, such as video.

I'm going to stick with Canon for the foreseeable future, but I wouldn't discourage somebody from buying Nikon.

I recommend that you start reading "Shutterbug" and "Popular Photography". They have very informative reviews. You should also read some of the digital photography forums and talk to people there.

My only problem is that I haven't had the money to get the lenses and equipment I need. My biggest interest is macrophotography and I haven't had the money to buy a proper macro lens, ALL of which are expensive.

If I were you, I'd treat it just like buying a gun. Decide what you want to do with it, then make a list of the features you NEED to accomplish your goal, then one of things that would be nice to have. That'll help you decide not just between Canon and Nikon (or Sony, etc.), but between different models of the same brand.

I also agree with Bill. I too am a Canon fan but also own a Pentax and Minolta. It all comes down to personal preference.

Take a look at the Tamron macros. I have a Tamron 180mm macro and it takes a razor sharp photo. It is a little slow to focus but it is way less expensive than the Canon 180 Macro.

__________________
Bill Bates

I've looked all of them, including Tamron. I'd pretty much settled on the Tokina 100mm. It gets good reviews and the price is very attractive.

A lot of people say not to bother with auto-focus for macrophotography, and my experience with extension tubes supports that. If I could get an EOS compatible manual macro, I'd jump on it.

My problem is that I couldn't afford ANYTHING. I haven't had a real job since February of '11. I JUST got my first real job since then, and will eventually get myself the macro equipment I need, including a lens and lighting.

It depends - high end cameras can be purchased with or without the original factory warranty. When purchased as "grey market" or "direct import" items they will be noticeably cheaper. There are other non-obvious advantages to the direct import models. For a detailed explanation of the pros and cons, see
U.S. & Grey Market Products | B&H Photo Video

BTW, B&H is a great supplier of items for professional and serious amateur photographers.

Having used both, my personal preference is Cannon. I have owned Cannons for a long time and never had any issues. Borrowed my brothers Nikon and while it worked good, just didn't feel the same. I felt my Cannon focused (before auto focus) easier.
Like has been said, can't go wrong with either one!

__________________
NRA Life member

A lot of truth here but the parallels to firearms are really striking (pun).

Seriously, you need to strike a good balance and you need to know what you want to do. A body that has a "weak shutter" or a focal plane that's not completely aligned or consistent, or a sensor array that varies, ... isn't going to take advantage of the glass after a certain "quality level" and the same holds in reverse. You may not have the same edge to edge focus, image quality, sharpness, ..... the list goes on. If you're big time into closeup/high detail stuff, time to pull out the wallet! Landscapes and sunsets, eh, there's a lot to play with Unless of course you want big images on the back side!!!!!! Like I said, LOT'S of personal choices, balance of everything is required.

That said, if your point is that more often than not people by a great body and use cheap glass, I'd agree!!!! I always error to more money in the glass, bodies come and go. Look at us old farts after all!!!

There is great info here, thank you.
I did not include this originally but my interest would be different things primarily outdoors. I have no interest in photographing people (weddings, etc.)
I have actually taken several thousand of snaps for business as an insurance appraiser inspecting damaged cars all with pocket point and shoots.

Also I have a Flickr account all taken with my Canon PowerShot ELPH 115 IS

https://www.flickr.com/photos/102904415@N06/

If you are so inclined peruse my page and give me some feedback. Tell me if these are any good or they totally suck. I am really proud of the barge in the ice. Keep in mind these are with a pocket camera.

thanks guys!

Kurt, I took a look at your Flicker account. You have some fun subject matter. Seeing a turkey with a beard got me a little excited. Monday morning is the opening of the Utah Turkey hunt. I sure hope I see an old long bearded Tom.

You're going to love the speed increase and more creative options you'll have moving to a DSLR. You have a good handle on the ELPH so you'll find the menus and Canon's approach pretty familiar with their DSLR. That is plus.

For good photography you have to get passed think about the operation and technical end of using your equipment. They needs to be second nature so you can free your mind to think about the artistic and get that photo on the fly. That is why camera body ergonomics are so important.

Fumbling and fiddling with the camera means missed photos. Go play with some camera bodies. If you find something that feels right but is a little more than you want to spend take a look at the last generation of of that body. DSLR are a lot like computers. Many people dumb the last generation to step up to the new fancier body. Check Canon and Nikon for refurbished bodies. Some can be had for a buy.

If you decide you like Canon take a long hard look at the Canon 7D. It getting a little long in the tooth and overdue for an upgrade so the prices are getting good somewhere around $1000 for a body or less for a refurb. Pluses for the body are its focusing system, 8 frames per second frame rate, a larger buffer, HD video, ISO up 12800 and pro build with weather sealing.

__________________
Bill Bates

I was in the same situation, but once I handled both I decided on Canon because of the way it fit my hand. A friend told me about the good deal he got through a company that sells on e-bay, Cameta Camera out of New York. It came with so many extras and the price was just little more than the body and one lens sold at Walmart. Might be worth a look:

Canon EOS Rebel T3i Digital SLR Camera 18 55mm Is 75 300mm III Lens Kit USA 013803134254 | eBay

When I made the leap from film to digital, I found that none of my previous equipment was compatible. From filters, polarizers, flash filters, remotes, and, yes, lenses from 28mm to 1000mm nothing would work. I had a fortune in lenses and optical accessories that instantly became junk. While I still have all of it and still use film for those "must have" shots, I really wish that the manufacturers would have made even a slight attempt in making adapters or adhering to previous sizes so that much of the older accessories would be usable on the new gear.

You really can't go wrong with either, but I like Canon better. They make some great equipment.

__________________
NRA Life Member

I went through that when converting over to digital. For years I used Olympus bodies. They were light, small and solid with great glass. Break downs in the middle of nowhere were never a concern. I held off on digital in a big way until Olympus came out with their new DSLR. Yuppers, my old stuff was going to be paper weights.

Both Nikon and Canon kept their existing lens mounting systems when they went digital. Olympus dumped theirs and went with something new with their 4/3 digital bodies. I was forced to buy both bodies and new lenses.

At the time Canon had a big edge in sensors technology and more lenses with image stabilization. Plus, Canon engineers had worked at trying to replicate a Kodak film look with their internal camera processing and sensors. Their high end glass was a bit less expensive than Nikon's. Nikon was going to be a more expensive investment and the bodies felt just a little bit off in my hand. Once I got my hands around Canon's bodies everything felt pretty natural and it was an easy choice.

I haven't shot film in years, no one wants it. Everyone wants digital files so film has to be scanned which is just one more step in work flow. The newer digitals, even the low end DSLR, have surpassed most film in many ways. It is kind of sad but I guess that is progress.

__________________
Bill Bates

I haven't gone digital yet, but plan to. It 's obviously the norm now. I even have trouble getting film processed and the camera store I used had to close. But with film cameras, a fixed lens of a given sort was usually better than a zoom at that power and I'm glad to see that it's the same with digitals.

But about that huge price difference between a 1.8 and a 1.4 lens...I get that it's a "faster" lens, but is lens QUALITY also better with the more expensive lens? I'd think so, but have wondered.

My Olympus OM-1's use their Zuiko lenses, which are superb.
The late shotgun author Don Zutz also used Olympus and said that he really liked the lens quality. I think I can detect a very slight difference in prints taken with my OM'1's and my Nikon FG, both using the makers' 1.8 lenses. Olympus seems a little sharper. Thanks to the generosity of forum member Bob Bettis, who was going to digital cameras, I now also have Olympus zoom lenses, and I've also used a fixed 135mm with satisfaction. I really prize a pic that I got of a squirrel in a tree with that 135mm lens. It is, of course, harder to hold the camera steady with a long telephoto lens.
In many cases, a rest or tripod is essential.

So: is a famous maker's 1.4 lens really much better quality-wise than his 1.8? For three times the money, I'd hope so!

With some black felt, a piece of black PVC pipe and an old slide/film carrier you can easily make an adapter/attachment for your macro lens to quickly shoot old 35mm negatives and slides. You get your camera's resolution to digitize your old film. Photoshop and other programs can perform the color negative to positive conversions and you can then have your old photos in your digital archives.

I'm a Nikon guy... but I think making a decision comes down to both ergonomics and the shooting menus/controls. I always found Nikon bodies held better... but what always really got me where the Canon menus and navigation. Don't know why, just didn't like them.

The problem with really good glass is that it's heavy. I had a ton of high-end glass, and paired myself down to three primes: 35 1.4g, 50 1.4g and 85mm 1.4g. The first and third of these are especially expensive. But even paired down to these three basic (and AWESOME) lenses... I *still* find that they are more often than not too heavy to take with me. Especially on trips. Lately, I have to carry so much stuff on the plane, the the last thing I want is a heavy camera bag (these lenses are heavy!) that I constantly have to worry about once I am in a hotel. I am a serious photography buff... but the last two years, I haven't taken my camera and rig barely anywhere. Too much hassle. I took it to NASCAR two years ago, got AMAZING photos, but boy it was a miserably long day hauling that stuff all over that monster facility. Like most people I don't print many photos at all, so (sadly) the iPhone is becoming a more and more acceptable alternative for the day-to-day stuff.

Consider mirrorless or if you are going to spend the money for expensive glass, maybe a Leica. If you can really shoot, you can get the images from either of these, with a lot more discretion and less back pain.

This is a HORRIBLE aspect of digital cameras. My little Nikon was better than any other cameras I've had as far as this goes. THAT would be a question I would ask first!

I can't really comment on Canon DSLR's because I've never used them.

I'm a Nikon user myself. I started using a D70 about 10 years ago when the sheriff's department bought me one for use on the job. I liked it so well I bought one out of pocket for myself and I have loved them both.

In February I upgraded to a Nikon D5300 and a new Tamron 70-300mm lens. I love the erogonomics of the D5300, and though it has a smaller size than my D70 it is much more featured, including the wi-fi capability to communicate with my iPhone.

Here are a few pictures I've taken lately with the Nikon D5300, and I'm not really that experianced with it yet.

__________________
- Change it back -

I was in the same boat but decided on the Pentax KR.....It felt perfect in my hand, was a good price with kit lenses,,,and I liked that it was an old school brand...

Pentax K-r Review: Digital Photography Review

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

There is a web site called dpreview go there and you will learn everything you need to know. I use a Nikon D-800 and love it , but Canon is equally good.

Don't know if this is a good deal or not but thought I'd offer it up. Next cycle they'll have a Canon bundle

Nikon D3300 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle

This thread is relevant to my interests (if I could stop buying revolvers!). I've been getting by with an old Canon G6 and have been thinking of taking the plunge with a DSLR kit.

Bill Bates: Thanks for posting informative info and photos - those two macro shots are amazing!

Matt -

That is a very good price for an excellent all around beginners kit. The D3300 is very highly rated for its excellent sensor resolution and high ISO, low light performance. You can also use older, used, relatively inexpensive manual focus Nikon glass on the camera, something the Canon mount cant do with its older glass.

Larry

Looks like they have both beginning today!!! I either missed it or, ... SAME price point, pick your poison!!! Full disclosure, I'm a Costco stockholder

Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle
Nikon]Nikon D3300 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle

I didn't read the whole thread but there is a nugget for you. This forum has some very capable photogs so I am sure there was a lot of good advice. As to Canon vs. Nikon, both are good if comparing apples and apples. Study both lines carefully and make your choice based on what is best for you. Low cost variable ("zoom") lenses will eventually be a disappointment for you, so don't devote too much consideration to them. Also, consider what camera feels good in your hands. You have to hold the camera still anytime it is not on a tripod so it is just like a pistol - harder to hold still if not comfortable to you.

Honestly, neither of the cameras you mention are "big boys" models. If you possibly can, save a bit more money for your purchase and look to a model 2-3 levels up the performance scale.

My son has a Nikon D90 which I consider a VERY nice camera (unfortunately discontinued) but it is proof to me that you don't have to go top-end to get a superior camera. Sometimes the middle ground is perfectly adequate for what you are doing, but usually the entry level equipment is just that. Sooner or later you will want something better - usually much sooner.

All JMHO, of course, but based on a lot of years of camera-tinkering. Good luck with your purchase.