Hi I know it�s an impossible question.
As a user of Microstock photos and someone who has been absent from taking photos with a SLR for many years (we are talking film). I was wondering what Camera would be a good one to learn from and not get to disappointed in any limitations.

The two I have been looking at are the Nikon D5100 (always wanted a Nikon) and the Cannon EOS 550D both seem to come with an 18 � 55mm lens.
The type of photos I current buy are mainly beauty (makeup, hair, face etc.) I will also need to take product photos.

I would love to hear any ideas you guys have. Thanks

Both cameras would be equally suitable, all modern DSLRs produce outstanding images.

Canon however are by far the choice of most microstockers and professional photographers generally. Canon tend to develop new technology first, with Nikon playing catch-up, they have more models, more lenses, more specialist outlets and a greater after-sales market on Ebay, etc.

I've had both Canon and Nikon and I like them both. Each does something a little better than the other so it depends on what's most important to you. From a technical perspective neither system is "just better" than the other. IMO it's down to personal preference of what "feels right". For me, Canon has best met my needs.

Sounds like your decision had already been made though. You've always wanted a Nikon, so go get one. You can always change later if it doesn't work out.

I strongly suggest canon simply because of the lens choice you'll have. Especially recomended if you are (like most ppl) on a budget. Two reasons:

1. the world's best price / value modern lens for portraits, the 50/1.8 II

2. shorter flange to focal plane than most other brands... this is a big thing because you'll have a plethora of lenses to use, including some super cheap but L quality old M42 ones (and even nikon lens).... lens are far more important than the camera body.

I ended up with Nikon because at the point I decided to move they had the better camera (D70 vs. original Rebel).  Over time you end up with a lot of money invested in lenses, which makes switching an expensive proposition.  There are specific features of Nikon cameras that I prefer, including cheap solutions for adding GPS.  But in general you'll do well with either Nikon or Canon and can grow as far as your talent and budget permit.  I'd be less likely to recommend another brand, due to availability of lenses, smart flash systems and the like.

I never had a Canon but actually only have the D60 and from last year the D90.. I haven�t enjoyed the way it fits the hand (Canon), some might think the opposite of course, lately have been hearing good and bad related to Canon so I am quite confused, but in terms of quality build I really think that Nikon is better.. Canon are a too light which I didn�t enjoy but in terms of lens and price Canon is quite good/cheaper

This weekend have seen a little of Zack Arias workshop at CJ studio and he put the 5D on the trash talking about the focus on low light and focus points and many things, I was thinking he was only with Nikon but he seems do work with all

Im a bit more gearhead that most microstockers. My opinion is that both Canon and Nikon offer bad value in their cheapest models - but its wise to invest into them because of further growth of equipment. Canon 18-55 is significantly worse then Nikon, actually Canon kit lens is amongst the worst available on the market.

Sensors in all C/N bodies are quality overkill but most lenses under $500 truggle to deliver enough quality to fullfill the sensor needs. In the cheap lenses only Nikon 18-105 is good one or you must check other manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.

Canon has huge problem with basic zoom, all of them are crap and heavily overpriced 17-55/2,8 IS USM is very very big, heavy and results are ...well not really impressive. But Canon has very good 70-200/4.
Nikon has enough good zooms in basic range from cheap 18-105 thru 16-85 up to 17-55 but they lack good zoom in mid tele range, you either have 70-300 or 70-200/2,8 and nothing in between.

I would go for either Canon with Sigma 17-70/2,8-4,0 or Tamron 17-50/2,8 or Nikon with 18-105 or Tamron 17-50/2,8. Forget 50/1,8 - its not bad lens but its much wiser to buy one good and versatile zoom instead of one crappy 18-55 and one good but not very versatile 50/1,8.

Go with whatever most of your friends have so you can swap lenses :-)

Personally absolutely Canon, but I never owned a XXXD body just XXD or Xd bodies which are in my opinion from the handling much much better amongst other advantages.

One of the draws for me, was the fact Nikon's mounting hasn't changed in forever, which means that just about any lens made in the last 20-30 years if not farther back can be used on the Nikon in manual mode.  For example I am using a Nikon 50mm from the early 80's on my D90. And I am pretty certain the same lens would work just fine on D700, or D2X. Unless you really need the auto focus, image stabilization, etc, this alone can save you thousands in lens costs by buying used lens in decent condition. And if you take care of those lens, it doesn't matter when you upgrade to the next body, they should work for the most part.

Body plus 18-105. It's actually a pretty sharp lens for a reasonably priced zoom and 105 is a decent range. If you get the 55 you'll pretty quickly wish you got something longer.

Pentax

+1