[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentamcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're right, why switch to Nikon. They are both excellent and I know Canon like my own hands. I'm curious why the Canon Rebel XTi is 10 megapixel and the 30D is only 8. Wouldn't the Rebel take better photos?

That made me cry a little

 

[BryanP]

Both are good in their own ways. If you plan on doing some high-ISO work, then the recent Canon DSLRs (with at least the DIGIC II) will do well.

I've shot with both Nikon and Canon. I really find no significant difference other than the fact I am more partial to Canon for some of my sports work since I have better access to their gear.

However, I have extensive experience with many Nikon bodies and lenses ranging from the D1x all the way up to the D2h (never got to use the D2x/s), and can really say it's all about what you want to do.

Many switch to Canon so they can experience full-frame with the 5D or even the more expensive 1Ds series.

I switched to Canon because I did a lot of night photography where I couldn't use flash, as well as high speed sports photography.

However, for high-ISO shooting, up to the D80, I would definitely say the high ISO shots appear much less noisier (I'm talking about 800/1600), with the Canon cameras.... even with an old Rebel I used (which doesn't have a DIGIC II as well).

Their algorithms have overall been pretty great, but Nikon's getting there.

Overall, again, it depends on your work. I've had pictures published in magazines and newspapers done with both. The real deal breaker for me was the versatility of being able to shoot high-ISO if needbe, as well as a larger variety of lens.

It woulda been great at the time for example to have Nikon stock a 70-200/4L for the people who couldn't afford 2.8 lens but needed that range with great optics and build.

 

[3x331m]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanP /img/forum/go_quote.gif Both are good in their own ways. If you plan on doing some high-ISO work, then the recent Canon DSLRs (with at least the DIGIC II) will do well. I've shot with both Nikon and Canon. I really find no significant difference other than the fact I am more partial to Canon for some of my sports work since I have better access to their gear. However, I have extensive experience with many Nikon bodies and lenses ranging from the D1x all the way up to the D2h (never got to use the D2x/s), and can really say it's all about what you want to do. Many switch to Canon so they can experience full-frame with the 5D or even the more expensive 1Ds series. I switched to Canon because I did a lot of night photography where I couldn't use flash, as well as high speed sports photography. However, for high-ISO shooting, up to the D80, I would definitely say the high ISO shots appear much less noisier (I'm talking about 800/1600), with the Canon cameras.... even with an old Rebel I used (which doesn't have a DIGIC II as well). Their algorithms have overall been pretty great, but Nikon's getting there. Overall, again, it depends on your work. I've had pictures published in magazines and newspapers done with both. The real deal breaker for me was the versatility of being able to shoot high-ISO if needbe, as well as a larger variety of lens. It woulda been great at the time for example to have Nikon stock a 70-200/4L for the people who couldn't afford 2.8 lens but needed that range with great optics and build.

Well said !

 

[Joshatdot]

I want to save up for a Nikon D40

 

[daveip]

if you want a change from the canon system to the nikon system i HIGHLY recommend the fuji s5 pro. new type of sensor and they dynamic range of the RAW files is HUGE due to the new type of sensor they use. only a 6.1meg sensor but there are actually over 12meg of sensors on there. 2 for each pixel.

read the reviews ... if i were to buy another camera body (on top of my d50) i'd save for an s5 without thinking of another. d200 build quailty with top notch nikon optics and an amazing fuji sensor.

and if you're going canon ... seriously consider the 70-200m L lense. very useful for weddings!!!!

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Save up for a 5D

I just cant justify almost $3k for a Canon 20D with a bigger sensor. I think I will wait until the prices drop to $1.5k for a used one.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveip /img/forum/go_quote.gif and if you're going canon ... seriously consider the 70-200m L lense. very useful for weddings!!!!

If you are shooting over the Church walls from the other side of the county may be, 70-200mm is simply wayyyyyyyyy too long for weddings. 24-105 or the 24-70 are much much better focal range for weddings. How on earth are you going to get group shots with a 70-200mm or get a shot inside a church or reception? You would need to be back against the wall all the time and group shots are out of the question.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are shooting over the Church walls from the other side of the county may be, 70-200mm is simply wayyyyyyyyy too long for weddings. 24-105 or the 24-70 are much much better focal range for weddings. How on earth are you going to get group shots with a 70-200mm or get a shot inside a church or reception? You would need to be back against the wall all the time and group shots are out of the question.

Actually I notice that pro wedding photographers will have the 70-200mm on their second camera body (and most do have FF 5D or 1Ds as their cameras). Some like that extra length not just for shooting from a distance, but to get closeups as well. IMO, the best lenses to have are 24-70/28-75 and 70-200. And then if you want to burn through some more money....some of the gorgeous L primes

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually I notice that pro wedding photographers will have the 70-200mm on their second camera body

That I am not surprise, it removes the needs to change lenses and can just grab it for some quick close ups. I still maintain the 24-70 / 24-105 would be a better all round lens for weddings thou.

 

[kentamcolin]

I can see a 70-200mm being very useful for weddings. Of course you're not going to use it for a group shot. I've only shot a couple of weddings (for friends who just didn't have the money to pay a pro) but most of my photos were of the bride and groom. Some of the best photos were close ups at the alter and I don't like standing right next to them taking pics. 200mm allows me to stand back and not interfere.

Having a larger sensor is exactly the reason I'd get the 5D. I don't see used prices for these being $1500 in the near future. If so, I'll take two!

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin /img/forum/go_quote.gif That I am not surprise, it removes the needs to change lenses and can just grab it for some quick close ups. I still maintain the 24-70 / 24-105 would be a better all round lens for weddings thou.

Certainly, I think the 24-70 is the most versatile: with FF, that means you're wide, normal, and telephoto. But I guess it depends on your shooting. During my cousin's wedding, I noticed one of the photographers only used the 70-200mm on a 5D. She seemed to like to use it to find and shoot candid shots from everyone: guess she didn't want to bother with the time it would take to walk closer with a 70mm zoom. She also was fairly far back from the alter during the ceremony (so I think that might help stay less obtrusive). There was also one more professional, and then my uncle (another pro photographer) pressed a friend to be third photographer (who was using his Canon 1Ds with 24-70).....and then when he saw that I had just gotten a 5D, I became an ancillary photographer as well

So she might have just thought that the wide shots would be covered by others.

 

[65535]

Go cannon no doubts, excellent product.

 

[kentamcolin]

Well for sure I am not basing my decisions on wedding needs, I am not a pro wedding shooter. Landscape & some portraits are 98% of what I shoot. If I end up shooting another wedding I'll have enough gear to do a decent job either way, and I can always rent what I don't have.

 

[Arainach]

At the end of the day, the photographer is MUCH more important than the equipment. Nikon and Canon BOTH make fantastic stuff and the differences are really quite miniscule.

It boils down to which feels better. Pick a price range. Pick a Nikon and Canon body in that range and hold them. One will probably feel natural to you and one will probably feel awkward. You'll be spending a lot of time with the body, so get the one that feels better. Since you've used Canon, you'll probably want to stick with that out of comfort. You can take fantastic shots with EITHER camera, but go with the one that feels best to you.

Me? I'm a Nikon man for certain, but Canon's a respectable company.

Also, don't worry about all the "Full Frame" nonsense. Remember a few key things:

1. Any "differences" that can be seen are at the pixel size, which you'd require a 20x30" print to see.
2. A 70-200 f/2.8 is a hell of a lot lighter and cheaper than a 300 f/2.8
3. Telephotos cost a LOT more than Wide Angles, so in the end it'll be a lot more expensive.
4. Light falloff and edge distortion from Full-Frame lenses is nearly eliminated on 1.6x sensors as well, resulting in much better shots.