Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is the selection I've been looking at (price lowest-highest).

The Canon EOS 1100D and Nikon D3100 are the cheapest, and might be fine for my needs of amateur photography.

I would pay the little extra if it was really worth it.

What's your opinions and which camera would you recommend?

First - Please, next time write DSLR not SLR when you are talking about digital. As an intermediate amateur photographer I can tell you that it all depends just on your preferences. Do you like buttons on Canon or do you hate them? Do you like software in Nikon? Both Nikon and Canon have some great lenses :)
 
Forget the specs of each body, you need to work out which system works for you.

I've heard a lot of people say it's like testing out a wand in Ollivander's wand shop in Harry Potter - one generally 'fits', and I can't disagree from my recent experience when buying my first DSLR.

Go into Jessops, play with Canons and Nikons, and you should find that you favour one over the other. Specs are irrelevant - both companies make excellent cameras and you'll change bodies more frequently than lenses (good lenses can last decades). Once you buy into a system, you'll probably stick with it for life if you intend to build up a lens collection, so that's what you need to focus on.


As an aside, if you think you'll only buy a body and a kit lens and leave it at that, it's worth exploring mirrorless cameras. There are many competing systems (micro 4/3s is one of the more well known ones) and we don't really know yet how long the mounts are going to be around for (Nikon's DSLR 'F mount', on the other hand, has been around since '59 IIRC), but the size and weight benefits are enormous.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.