[Arainach]

Quote:

Hmm.. I was thinking more the Tamron/Sigma 18-200s for Pentax but I guess the Nikon is an exception.

True, I forgot about the Tamron Lens. I would agree that it tries to do too much and comes out less than satisfactory. I haven't tried the Sigma, but I'd presume it's the same way.

 

[mneuwiueyagaobcf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach You have to feel them both to make your decision. Things I'd consider: (1) The Canon Rebel XT (EOS 350D) is much smaller than the Nikon. TOO small for me, and I'm not the only one to have said so. The Nikon feels much more natural to me. But you really have to hold both to judge for yourself. (2) The Canon kit lens sucks, plain and simple. VERY visible distortion across the spectrum. The Nikon Kit lens is surprisingly good. Some minor distortion at the wide end, but less distortion than most sub-$400 lenses. If you're buying body-only, of course, this doesn't matter. It also focuses very fast, even in low light. (3) The Canon costs more. About $200 more on average. It offers 8MP instead of the Nikon's 6.1MP, but you really don't notice a print quality difference until you double the megapixels, so it's rather irrelevant. The Nikon's sensor is also larger, which helps the quality. (4) The Nikon tends to be less grainy at high ISOs (like 1600). (5) If you already own Canon or Nikon lenses, stick in your brand, of course.Have you ever seen the shots that come out of the Nikkor 18-200VR? The lens is a gift from the Gods for 99% of day-to-day shooting. Ken Rockwell's Revew of the lens has some sample pictures, but even those aren't the sharpest or cleanest I've seen come out of the lens. The galleries at Nikonians are filled with 18-200VR shots. Check them out sometime.

Arainach - you are obviously biased towards nikon

and there are some inaccuries in your post.

The 350D has better ISO 1600 than the D50 or the D200 for that matter. The canon CMOS has inherently lower noise (grain) than the Sony CCD used in Nikons. Both will give you nice 8x10 prints at ISO1600 in any case.

The canon Kit lens does not "suck, plain and simple". Know its limits and use it within those and you get awesome pictures. Stick a polarising filter on it and shoot between F8-F11 outdoors. For a $100 lens it is very good value.

 

[Jim_T]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mneuwiueyagaobcf Arainach - you are obviously biased towards nikon and there are some inaccuries in your post. The 350D has better ISO 1600 than the D50 or the D200 for that matter. The canon CMOS has inherently lower noise (grain) than the Sony CCD used in Nikons. Both will give you nice 8x10 prints at ISO1600 in any case. The canon Kit lens does not "suck, plain and simple". Know its limits and use it within those and you get awesome pictures. Stick a polarising filter on it and shoot between F8-F11 outdoors. For a $100 lens it is very good value.

Just thought I'd jump in and agree here. From what I've seen, Canon has better high ISO performance, noise-wise. Also, while the difference between 6 megapixels and 8 is not great, it's always nice to have a little leeway for cropping - better to crop an 8 meg picture down to 6 than a 6 down to whatever.

 

[dj_mocok]

Actually I just tried the Nikon D200 with ISO 1600 tonight. It's paired with a very old manual 1.8 Nikon prime (at least between 17-20 years old lens).

I didn't see any noise and the results were amazing in low light. Very sharp and smooth.

 

[AdamP88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok Actually I just tried the Nikon D200 with ISO 1600 tonight. It's paired with a very old manual 1.8 Nikon prime (at least between 17-20 years old lens). I didn't see any noise and the results were amazing in low light. Very sharp and smooth.

I think the issue got overblown a little. The Nikon isn't bad at 1600, but Canon is noticeably better.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whorehay http://www.siphoto.com/?nikonD2H.inc They also have other top of the line cameras

Thanks for the link.

But again, in response to Nikon VS Canon. Our stringer was just by here today dropping off sports photos and let me know that the Houston Chronicle, one of the finest newspapers in the world (and something of a competitor), just dumped all their Nikon equipment and replaced them with Canon cameras. I think that says alot.

 

[mneuwiueyagaobcf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang Thanks for the link. But again, in response to Nikon VS Canon. Our stringer was just by here today dropping off sports photos and let me know that the Houston Chronicle, one of the finest newspapers in the world (and something of a competitor), just dumped all their Nikon equipment and replaced them with Canon cameras. I think that says alot.

It's quite clear that canon has most of the Pro market. Just watch the world cup (biggest televised sporting event in the world) and you see about a 10 to 1 ratio of pros shooting matches in favour of canons. This is testament to Canon's marketing genius. Nikon has been great for the consumer though since you can still use those awesome AI lenses from the 70s and 80s on your modern cameras.

 

[c0mfortably_numb]

I sill use my Canon EOS 650 (was one of the first pro full auto) film camera, I still prefer film over digital, Im not a pro by any means, but if I go out shooting I take either my manual Pentax, one of my manual range finders or the Eos..

I just took this a few weeks ago with the eos and a 70-210 tele APO lens, It's not as sharp as in person do to my POS scanner

 

[chadbang]

But if you really love Nikons, here you go... I'm selling one of our two 400mm Nikon lenses. We hardly used it because our chief photographer, a woman, found it too large to carry. It's basically mint, except for one dumb scratch put on it while mounting a tripod. More of a blemish. If you want to buy the directly from myself and the newspaper, send me an offer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1