[Joshatdot]

I've started looking into DSLR's, and need some opinions/reviews. I would say the budget I am looking for is $450-$550 for the body & starter lens.

I've had some Canon PowerShots before, and I really like their UI and controls, I have not played much at all with Nikon UI/controls.

Other than that I don't know what to look for in DSLRs, besides lenses.

 

[Arainach]

Go into a store and hold both. Buy whichever feels better in your hand; they're both excellent systems.

 

[GAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Go into a store and hold both. Buy whichever feels better in your hand; they're both excellent systems.

Exactly

GAD

 

[episiarch]

If there are particular features you've grown attached to on your PowerShots, check the manuals for each camera carefully to be sure nothing's omitted that you can't live without. At this level the feature sets of cameras like these are approximately comparable, but they're not the same.

I have a D40 now, and pretty quickly I noticed a couple things I'd taken for granted on the Canons which the Nikon didn't have:

- autobracket: Canon can automatically shoot three frames in a row at different exposures, which can be handy for tricky lighting situations

- Depth-of-field mode: Canon lets you aim at subject #1, aim at subject #2, then recompose and fire, and it does the math to choose the focus point and aperture that will keep both #1 and #2 in focus.

Nikon, for its part, has at least one feature I've noticed so far that my Canon didn't:

- auto-ISO: when shutter speed threatens to dip below a threshhold (that you set), the Nikon ups its ISO automatically

The Nikon probably has some other excellent tricks too that my Canon didn't, but that's the one I've really noticed so far.

 

[necropimp]

i asked this same question just before my tax refund came in and ended up not even buying a camera but what i would have bought based on the features i actually use was the Canon... i just couldn't see myself living without autobracket...

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by necropimp /img/forum/go_quote.gif i asked this same question just before my tax refund came in and ended up not even buying a camera but what i would have bought based on the features i actually use was the Canon... i just couldn't see myself living without autobracket...

Why? If you need that much exposure flexibility, just shoot RAW. Personally, I agree that it's a silly feature to cut - my D50 has it - but then again, I never use it on my D50 because, as mentioned earlier, if I'm ever worried my exposure will be at all off (which it essentially never is) I just shoot RAW.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

If you have no existing Canon or Nikon gear to speak of, then it doesn't really matter I don't think. If you're planning on getting really serious (as in spending thousands on equipment) then I'd say go Canon so you can eventually get into L series lenses. They're hard to beat. But if you still aren't sure, then it won't matter a whole lot. Both make great cameras and you'll be fine either way.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have no existing Canon or Nikon gear to speak of, then it doesn't really matter I don't think. If you're planning on getting really serious (as in spending thousands on equipment) then I'd say go Canon so you can eventually get into L series lenses. They're hard to beat. But if you still aren't sure, then it won't matter a whole lot. Both make great cameras and you'll be fine either way.

As of late it seems like lots of Canon users are switching to Nikon over the QC of Canon's lenses..

Anyway, Nikon has a pro line-up that covers all the focal ranges into the tele end. The only advantage of Canon's line up is lots of lenses to fill the gap between enthusiast and pro. 4 different versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for instance.. And a slightly lower price for some of their pro glass.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif As of late it seems like lots of Canon users are switching to Nikon over the QC of Canon's lenses.. Anyway, Nikon has a pro line-up that covers all the focal ranges into the tele end. The only advantage of Canon's line up is lots of lenses to fill the gap between enthusiast and pro. 4 different versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for instance.. And a slightly lower price for some of their pro glass.

This is precisely why you need to go check both cameras out for yourself. Canon folks will never agree with Nikon folks and vice versa. (Except for my roommate who is a Nikon guy and wants to switch over to Canon. Wonder why?

)

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is precisely why you need to go check both cameras out for yourself. Canon folks will never agree with Nikon folks and vice versa. (Except for my roommate who is a Nikon guy and wants to switch over to Canon. Wonder why? )

I'm both

Canon 300D + Nikon D2H

 

[dj_mocok]

The best lenses are not made by either Canon or Nikon. I'm so used to see pictures made by either Canon or Nikon, I had to pick up my jaw when I look at the results achieved by some more exotic lenses.

 

[lobehold]

Canon's strength is high ISO performance of their more expensive models, high-end weather proofed L lens (big aperture, wide angles, and telephotos) and fast autofocus of their top models (many professional sports photographer switched over to Canon).

Cannons definitely have strength near the top, so if you think you're gonna keep upgrading to the top, or if you are looking for specialized glasses like those I've mentioned then Canon could be the way to go. One thing to consider is that Canon's Quality Control is kinda crappy. One side is the sharpness of the lens varies a bit, the other big one is that the lens tolerance is quite bad in 90% of the cases, where the focus ring wobbles and stuff...

Nikon's strength is ergonomics, user-friendly designs, battery life, build quality of the lower end models (glass and body), quality control.

So in fact I would recommend Nikon if you are just starting out and don't look to spend big big bucks (thousands of dollars)

However if you are not looking to have a HUUUUGE collection of lens and wants value I would definitely recommend Pentax for their best-in-the-industry in-body image stablization and awesome value in their limited series lens (their regular lens are nice too).

P.S> I use Canon Rebel XT + 30mm F1.4L + 18-55mm kit lens; When I'm looking to expand my photographic arsenal I think I'll go the Pentax route

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzjia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Canon's strength is high ISO performance of their more expensive models, high-end weather proofed L lens (big aperture, wide angles, and telephotos) and fast autofocus of their top models (many professional sports photographer switched over to Canon). Cannons definitely have strength near the top, so if you think you're gonna keep upgrading to the top, or if you are looking for specialized glasses like those I've mentioned then Canon could be the way to go. One thing to consider is that Canon's Quality Control is kinda crappy. One side is the sharpness of the lens varies a bit, the other big one is that the lens tolerance is quite bad in 90% of the cases, where the focus ring wobbles and stuff... Nikon's strength is ergonomics, user-friendly designs, battery life, build quality of the lower end models (glass and body), quality control. So in fact I would recommend Nikon if you are just starting out and don't look to spend big big bucks (thousands of dollars) However if you are not looking to have a HUUUUGE collection of lens and wants value I would definitely recommend Pentax for their best-in-the-industry in-body image stablization and awesome value in their limited series lens (their regular lens are nice too). P.S> I use Canon Rebel XT + 30mm F1.4L + 18-55mm kit lens; When I'm looking to expand my photographic arsenal I think I'll go the Pentax route

Are those stereotypes still relevant when the D300 has cleaner files and more dynamic range at high ISOs than the 40D (and 5D?), and the D3 has cleaner files than any Canon model?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzjia /img/forum/go_quote.gif However if you are not looking to have a HUUUUGE collection of lens and wants value I would definitely recommend Pentax for their best-in-the-industry in-body image stablization and awesome value in their limited series lens (their regular lens are nice too).

The best-in-industry in-body IS is worse than than worst-in-industry in-lens VR/IS.

 

[lobehold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif The best-in-industry in-body IS is worse than than worst-in-industry VR/IS.

Sure, but what's it going to cost you the other way around? You're paying for VR/IS for every VR/IS lens you purchase, instead of paying only once for the body and reap the benefit even with budget lens. Buck-for-buck wise the value can't be disputed.

Besides the fact that you can't get stablized version of fast prime lens in the wide-to-normal range (50mm and under).

@jmmtn4aj: That's is definitely some new info for me, as I care less about equipment now and just shoot pictures so I guess I'm out of loop for a while.

But it isn't stereotype back when I did my research, back then it was fact.