Sounava if u can tell the differences.
See below...
Thanks for your advice
and I too am super confused between the 3100 and 5100
is the 5100 worth the extra 8k(here in chennai)
and since the 5100 is brand new I hear it is trading at a premium
I'm sure dSLR s arent like mobile phones whose prices drop every 2 weeks
so when can I expect the price to drop for this baby
Well, the D5100 is indeed worth the 8k. [See below]
The introductory price was 38k. Prices will reach at around 33k at max, that too after around 10months.
Stretch your budget to 40 K and get the D90 (body) + 50mm 1.8. You can add to the lens line later.
This is also a good advice, but the total budget is going towards 46k. Plus the 50mm acts as 90mm in APSC sensors. So not at all suitable for most purpose. It is good for portraits though.
You can also consider Canons but they have smaller sensors and may not offer the same picture quality especially after they pack more MegaPixels. Video quality of the Canons however would be better.
Slightly smaller sensor = true. Other things = not true. Relation between sensor size, number of pixels etc cannot be generalized to all cases, especially in case of DSLRs. They can be compared with point and shoot vs DSLR though. I can elaborate slightly more if you want.
yaah D5100 have some more features but would not effect a starter anyways..
What I have learn in these 5 months of DSLR is that body just doesn't matter
personal technique and lens r major factors...spend least on body and save for lenses...my advice
Body doesn't matter is not entirely true at this age. It was true in the film era. Actually some concepts of film photography era are trickling down to the digital age, though they do not hold true in the present scenario.
For example this "body doesn't matter" thing. In the film age, all that mattered was light entered through lens, fell on film. So the lens + film mattered. Body was out of the question as far as "image quality" was concerned. But in this age "film" is replaced by "sensors" <-- this is a major factor. Image sharpness, low light performance, dynamic range, colour reproduction everything depends on the sensor + processor combo.
[Other factors are trickling down too; like 50mm is "normal". Well it IS normal, but in APSC it acts as 75mm in Nikon and 80mm in Canon which is not at all Normal, rather short telephoto. Use 35mm lens to get close to "normal" in APSC sensored cameras, but you will not hear anyone say that in the same frequency as they speak about 50mm]
Ok now the main part:
D3100 vs D5100
There are certain nifty small things in D5100 which are not present in D3100 and those are definite drawbacks.
1. ISO values: In D3100, ISO values are 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc.
In D5100 you get ISO's in 1/3rd increments. So you also get values like 250, 320, 500, 640,1000, 1250 in between the standard ones. This definitely helps. Once you use it you will understand.
2. ISO is not shown in the viewfinder of D3100.
3. There are on-demand gridlines in the viewfinder of the D5100 which helps in composing images esp in keeping the horizon flat.
4. The cheap (650/-) wireless remote does not work with D3100. I regularly use the remote with my D5000 and is really a boon.
5. The screen: super awesomeness in the D5100: 920,000 pixles vs 230,000 in D3100. Plus the swivel feature <-- helps in awkward angles when composing with the viewfinder is not an option.
6. Not to mention the Sensor: The sensor in D5100 is the same as in D7000 and it is being touted as the best APS-C sensor ever. You will be hardpressed to find any noise even at ISO 3200.
7. There are some limitations in the flash also which I exactly don't remember.
8. Active D Lighting can only be OFF and ON in D3100. It can be Off, Auto, Hi, Med, Low in D5100 <-- this helps in many situations.
9. Intervalometer in absent in D3100. [Continues to take pictures at a predefined interval <-- time lapse videos are done using this]
10. Cannot remember anything more at this moment. So you see, it is definitely worth the extra amount if you can stretch for it.
