The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by mightyacorn

I'm thinking it will be a DX sensor, but would love it if it were a FX sensor.

Both Canon and Nikon are going that way and I imagine it would be easier to design and support one sensor size. It would be nice if Nikon made a bold advance over Canon and start the switch to full frame. We shall see what they have planned at Photokina.

My hunch, if I know Nikon ( :wink: ), is that the D90 will be DX. Their upgrade to the D90 though, will be FX. The D60 type I do not see switching over to FX, especially since they don't put an AF motor in the body.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by GTRacer

Ken Rockwell is lying. That simply isn't true.

A lie is something that someone knows isn't true, but they say anyway. Exactly what does Ken Rockwell saying that he knows isn't true?

See ya
Steve

[GTRacer]

Originally Posted by bigshot

A lie is something that someone knows isn't true, but they say anyway. Exactly what does Ken Rockwell saying that he knows isn't true?

See ya
Steve

That Nikon's are more optimised for action shots - auto modes are pretty much identical across both brands.. What the hell are all those pros sports photogs doing with their Canon 1D's then?

[Hayduke]

Originally Posted by lan

It is true in my opinion also. Nikon's better metering, better flash, auto-iso = better auto camera.

Hayduke,

If you take a look at specs, it doesn't actually mean anything. The performance of the camera depends on your ability to push yourself and it to the limits and your own personal take on what's "good".

Do you know your photographic intentions? That can dictate what tools you should use.

I primarily like to take nature shots. I am an avid hiker. My dogs and I head out into the forest almost every evening. A couple times a year I like to go on multi-day backpacking trips. Usually we head to the mountains--although we're heading into the giant hole north of here(Flagstaff, AZ) in September--so large landscapes are a pretty common subject for me. I also enjoy stitching together many shots into large panoramas using the computer. Here is an example:
I realize I lost a little on the corners, but I didn't want to crop it any further. It looks really good printed on paper 28" tall. I think it's about 9 ft long

My reason for wanting a DSLR is because that's about all this CoolPix can do well. I really want to do macro photography and nice wide angle shots from unusual angles and such. I try them with the P&S, but they never come out like what I'm envisioning. P&S cameras don't offer any control over DoF or exposure.

Another interest is HDR images. This area seems like it would fit well with the aspects of photography I like. The shots are usually a landscape/cityscape of some kind, and then there is post processing work on the PC. Some of the examples I've seen are stunning.

Of course I'll also want to be able to take portraits, but I realize that different subjects need different lenses.

Basically I'm trying to figure out why when I compare equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, the Nikons are more expensive. While I don't believe that more expensive is always better, most of the time there is a reason they cost more (let's not bring Bose into the discussion please hehe). Nikon must be offering something to justify the higher prices. Is it the lenses available?

In regards to lenses then, is there really a big difference between them? My plan is to save up some money and buy higher quality lenses, ie fast (2.8 at least), fixed aperture, sharp, low aberration etc. So if I'm buying the high end lenses for either brand of camera, are they really any different?

My plan is to buy a decent DSLR body and then start collecting nice lenses. Once I have most of the lenses, flashes, other "stuff" I find myself needing, I'll consider upgrading the body. My theory is the lens technology won't change as much as the body. I always hear people saying how much they love their Nikons, but when I read reviews, the Canons seem to offer more for the money.

Nikon has "better metering, better flash, auto-iso". How can it have a better flash? I thought Canon did better then Nikon with high ISO digital imaging. I like the idea of good metering. Even though I want more control over the picture, I tended to shoot my 35mm camera in AP mode mostly. I liked to play with DoF, but I can't do that with the P&S.

Sorry to sort of hijack this thread and make all these long posts, but I figure this is the group that should know why I should choose Nikon over Canon. I know these sorts of loyalties can get sensitive, so please don't take any offense to anything I say. Most likely it is just coming out of my own ignorance

[lan]

Originally Posted by GTRacer

That Nikon's are more optimised for action shots - auto modes are pretty much identical across both brands.. What the hell are all those pros sports photogs doing with their Canon 1D's then?

Sports is only one type of photography and not as challenging as the other ones.

I believe people chose the 1D's because of the lenses. Canon's mega telephotos with IS are excellent, cheaper, and more available.

There's plenty more to action than sports and we're not only talking only the pro body range.

Auto modes are not identical and that is from my experience.

[GTRacer]

Originally Posted by lan

Sports is only one type of photography and not as challenging as the other ones.

Sports photography involves changing lighting conditions. If Canon's auto modes were inferior to Nikon's (metering plays a large role in this), then Canon wouldn't be #1 in that area - regardless of their lens lineup. Canons practically perform every bit as well as Nikons and vice versa. What Ken Rockwell said was very inaccurate and it's sites like his that lead to many myths being perpetuated.

[lan]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

I primarily like to take nature shots.

I really want to do macro photography and nice wide angle shots from unusual angles and such.

Another interest is HDR images.

Basically I'm trying to figure out why when I compare equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, the Nikons are more expensive.

In regards to lenses then, is there really a big difference between them?

Nikon has "better metering, better flash, auto-iso". How can it have a better flash? I thought Canon did better then Nikon with high ISO digital imaging.

Canon's body's tend to have better high ISO and better detail retention. For nature, that can be nice to have. But that means little as you're dealing with a system. If you're underexposed, the image will the noisy regardless when pushed up. If your lens isn't focal aligned perfect, you won't be getting maximal detail either.

If you like wide, the Canon 5D is nice and it's the lowest full frame option. Although it's an old camera, you don't need much for nature shots or macro as everything is manual and/or slow paced. Of course how wide you want to go is up to you. Any of the zoom lenses which start at 10 to 12mm is fine for many people on crop bodies in case 5D is still too expensive.

When I say better flash I mean flash metering not literally the unit.

HDR can be done with any camera that you have full manual control of.

I believe Nikon has better stabilization in their lenses. As for the lenses themselves, I wouldn't worry THAT much about them unless you're willing to spend a LOT. I think Nikon's latest zooms are excellent, 14-24 and 24-70. There are excellent 3rd party lenses for either Canon or Nikon which are good.

Nikon's can use old lenses if the body has AF motor. Canon has pro level f/4.0 zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) which are rather attractive and priced okay. You save yourself the cost and the weight especially if you're going to shoot f8 and greater anyway.

I just use both. Problem solved.

[lan]

Originally Posted by GTRacer

Sports photography involves changing lighting conditions. If Canon's auto modes were inferior to Nikon's (metering plays a large role in this), then Canon wouldn't be #1 in that area - regardless of their lens lineup. Canons practically perform every bit as well as Nikons and vice versa. What Ken Rockwell said was very inaccurate and it's sites like his that lead to many myths being perpetuated.

If you don't have competition, you'll be #1 by default. They're riding on history and their great lens selection in mega telephoto range. There was a time when Nikon wasn't doing so well. Don't assume there can't be better now.

You're not going to convince me since I've shot thousands of photos and know the results. What Ken Rockwell is saying in this particular case is something I agree with. I've owned, rented, or gotten my friends P&S, consumer, medium, and pro level DSLR cameras for both and that is my observation.

[Towert7]

Just picked up a Nikon 80-200 F/4.5n on Ebay.
It's quite an interesting lens!
So sad my D50 can not meter with it. Perhaps if I ever get a D300/D700/D3 I'll have more fun with it.

From what I've seen so far though, it's quite the lens.

[OverlordXenu]

Hayduke, try to find a local camera store that rents cameras. Rent a Nikon and canon in your price range, along with a 35mm f/2 lens for both of them. See which one seems more natural to you, better in your hands, whatever.

Nikon and Canon cameras are extremely similar...they match each other pretty well. Right now, Nikon is leading on the "low-end" FF market, ie. the D700 vs. 5D. Nikon and Canon glass is extremely similar, too. None is better than the other, they're just different.

Now, Canon does have the 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2, which Nikon lacks. And another lens or two, but Nikon has the 14-24mm f/2.8. Etc.

The camera matters ****. Don't worry about it. Instead of getting a camera right now, why not get a couple of books about art, lighting, composition, etc. I've found that books like that always help my photography more than a new lens or body.

On another note, I'm considering trying some macro photography. I was thinking of getting that AF-D 105mm macro lens and a teleconverter, but, I remembered macro bellows...Anyone care to explain macro bellows vs. macro lens? Thanks...