Nikon D3100 kit vs Sony a290 kit + Tamron 18-200mm lens?

The D3100 is a bit better I think, but the Sony + lens, has much more zoom.
But I'm new at DSLR cameras, and the price for the 2 are almost the same. So which would you recommend and why. (Or if you have other DSLR's in the same price class to recommend)

The D3100 is an amazinly priced camera and comes with an 18-55mm zoom. The sony a290 is a good camera and the Tamron lens is amazing.

The D3100 i would say is ideal for beginners as the settings are easy to use and the lens is easy to handle without too much difficulty. However if you want a little more of a challenge go for the Sony. The lens range is a lot more advanced on the Tamron lens than the Nikon but it depends where you want to go with your photography.

If both cameras had 18-55mm kit lenses then the Sony would be much cheaper. The Tamron lens is versatile but picture quality is low. Both cameras are equally capable although the D3100 may be more advanced because it's relatively newer. You won't go wrong whichever way you choose.

It really depends on what you want to do. The Tamron 18-200 superzoom would be extremely flexible, and can be used for nearly anything from sports and portraits to landscapes in bright light. The 18-55 kit lenses have slightly better closeup (macro) performance, but otherwise, I think the 18-200 easily beats the kit lenses.

If you take a lot of pictures in low light (at night or indoors), the D3100 might be better. The Sony a290 uses an older CCD sensor that doesn't perform as well in low light. That said, both cameras easily outperform any compact camera.

Note that the Sony a290 has no video capability. Since I'm more interested in stills, I'd prefer the a290 and the 18-200 zoom, because it's much more flexible. When using the kit lens on my DSLR, I often find myself stuck at the long end, trying to zoom in more. I have a longer lens, but it's a pain to switch lenses around when I want to go from wideangle to telephoto. The 18-200 avoids those problems.