[lan]

The S100FS is nearly $700 though. Certainly you wouldn't be saving much money. Did you just need extra reach?

 

[wquiles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif The S100FS is nearly $700 though. Certainly you wouldn't be saving much money. Did you just need extra reach?

Pretty much all of my photos are posted and/or sent by email resized at 800x600 (max at 1024x768), plus yes, I need something like a 200-300mm lately as my 24-105 F/4 "L" was not long enough for the shots I am trying.

The nice lens to buy is of course the 70-200 F/2.8 IS (which I tried on my Rebel XT last year), but that was a "very" heavy combo, and I would certainly not be willing to carry it around as often. I am "hoping" that the S100FS will the something I would carry with me almost always as right now the Rebel/"L" lens stays home most of the time

Of course, I will not know for sure until the Fuji gets here and I play some with it. After all, you can read all of the reviews, but until you use it, you will not "know" if the camera is a keeper or not

 

[lan]

Why is the Rebel and 24-105 staying at home? Because it's too big and heavy?

If you crop to 1024 or 800x600 all the time, you could just crop your images.

 

[wquiles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why is the Rebel and 24-105 staying at home? Because it's too big and heavy?

Yes, the combo is a little bit on the big/heavy side for me and my wife - although we do like the photos we get from it. We hardly ever use it outside the house - maybe to a kiddie b-day party or something, but mostly stays home. I travel a lot for my job, and I would never take it along either due to the weight/size.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wquiles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, the combo is a little bit on the big/heavy side for me and my wife - although we do like the photos we get from it. We hardly ever use it outside the house - maybe to a kiddie b-day party or something, but mostly stays home. I travel a lot for my job, and I would never take it along either due to the weight/size.

I'm surprised you don't just get the Nikon D40/D60 and their Nikkor 18-200VR lens. It'll weigh roughly the same as that fuji you linked to, but you get SOOO much more.

Then you are not limited by the camera or the lens choices if you so desire to fool around later on. Probably the best budget small DSLR on the market, and a nice lens to boot.

Add to it a SB-400 flash for 100$, and you will have an infinitely better setup than the Fuji for child photography.

 

[wquiles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm surprised you don't just get the Nikon D40/D60 and their Nikkor 18-200VR lens. It'll weigh roughly the same as that fuji you linked to, but you get SOOO much more. Then you are not limited by the camera or the lens choices if you so desire to fool around later on. Probably the best budget small DSLR on the market, and a nice lens to boot. Add to it a SB-400 flash for 100$, and you will have an infinitely better setup than the Fuji for child photography.

If the Fuji does not cut it, the Nikon/18-200 definitely sounds like a good combo to try - thanks

The Fuji should arrive this coming Thu/Fri, so by next weekend I will have some early view of how the Fuji does (or not!).

 

[Hayduke]

I have a question for all you Canon folks...

Why do you use Canon equipment vs Nikon?

Towert might think this question sounds familiar

My 35mm film camera is a Canon AE1-Program. I love the camera, but I never liked dealing with film. When I was younger and had access to a darkroom at school, it wasn't too bad. I kind of like the act of developing negatives and making prints, but I was only good at B&W. The couple times I tried color didn't come out too well Basically, film is too expensive for me. Not that I couldn't pay for it, but I would like to be able to take as many photos as I want without worrying about developing costs. I like digital because it let's me take 1000 photos for the same price as 1 photo.

After using several digital P&S cameras the last few years, I'm really missing the control of my "real" camera. I've never really been satisfied with the results from the P&S cameras I've had. As a result, I'm going to buy a DSLR.

I'm not in a hurry, so I want to take my time and make as informed a decision as possible. Since I'm not real committed to Canon (I only have a 28mm, 50mm, and 70-200 zoom for the AE1-P), I'm considering Nikon as well. I asked on the Nikon thread why I should choose that brand, and didn't really get the concise answer I was hoping for. So I'm asking the folks here.

Why Canon vs Nikon?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.


Edit: I just realized my old 35mm lenses won't work

They are FD and I need EF. Oh well. Now there really is nothing tieing me to either brand

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why Canon vs Nikon?

Others can certainly answer this question better than I can, but my understanding is that the main argument for Canon is the availability of a wider range of high quality lenses, especially the L series lenses. Although they're quite expensive, you get good value from most of them. I'm sure there are other pro-Canon reasons as well, I'm just not very well versed on the subject.

I think the Nikon crowd has strong preferences for some of the features of the Nikon camera bodies themselves and finds it awkward to shoot with Canon cameras once they're become acclimated with the fit and feel of a Nikon. But again, I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

 

[nineohtoo]

I personally shoot Canon at the moment because it was a cheaper alternative for me. I simply couldn't find a cheap D50 to replace my broken one. I only use my sigma 30mm f1.4, so I figured sell my Nikon mount to get a Canon one. However, I still haven't sold my nikon mount 30mm, or my SB-600. If the D90 can give some of the high ISO quality of the D300(I'll settle for less FPS and AF points/tracking), I'll sell my 350D setup and go back with the D90. Yeah canon's 40D successor will be out, but I'm sure it won't be in my budget. Here's some deciding factors that I'd go over:

Ergonomics: Simply opinion, but I like how Nikon's hold in my hand compared to Canon, especially at consumer levels. They fit my hands better. A Canon with a grip helps tremendously though, and is probably why I've been able to stand this past month with one. To be fair, my aunt's 5D fits like a glove, despite me not feeling at home with the controls. I also disliked taking my trigger finger off the shutter to adjust shutter speed/aperture with the rebels. I preferred using my thumb, that way I can still refocus(say following someone on stage) while adjusting settings.

Bodies/sensors?: I think both groups can agree that Canon bodies are noticibley sharper, where as Nikon's handle noise better. A lot of people think Nikon's noise reduction hurts its overall sharpness, but its nothing some PP can fix. Look at Todd Owyoung's ISO 6400 images(ishootshows.com). Very clean and still sharp. I also like the dynamic range in Nikons over Canon. Doesn't matter too much if you shoot RAW though.

Lenses: Hands down to Canon. Options, options options. And cheaper most of the time. Nikon really lacks in primes though. I read somewhere that quoted Nikon saying something along the lines of: only PJ's use primes, and that market is small. Though I don't know how much truth that holds, because I would think a PJ would want the flexibility of a zoom. Plus unless you're shooting with a D300 or better, 2.8 won't be fast enough at times. Canon has a plethora of lenses for that. Nikon may also never have a f1.2 autofocus lens because of how small the f mount is.

Flash:I think Nikon's CLS is far better than what Canon has. However wireless triggers negate that. One can use older and cheaper flashes with pocket wizards or cactus triggers and achieve the same, if not better results(but this extends to Samsung/Pentax and Sony/Minolta).

I'd heavily consider the type of shooting you'll be doing and your budget before buying either system. I think both are good, but I think the "you" part of your photography is gonna be more important than which system you buy into. A lot of my input is from someone who can only afford a consumer body and some decent glass. If you're in my boat, I personally would prioritize learning photoshop, since you probably already know how to use a camera manually well enough. I mean no offense to some people out there, but I've been blown away by people using cheap bodies and or third party lenses, and disappointed with results I've seen from those with much more expensive pro equipment.

If I had to start from scratch with little money and buying used? I'd get which ever is cheaper. The only deal breaker to me really is the fact that Canon has more lens selection, but since I can't even afford most of that(a bag of L's are gonna be worth more than my car!), i'm gonna shoot third party. Everything else i've mentioned is really negligible at my budget.

If I had a lot of money to buy new? I'd get a D700+24-70mm f2.8 and call it a day. ISO6400 @ f2.8 on full frame would probably be what I get on ISO 800 @ f1.4 on crop sensors.

If it helps any, the only shooting I take seriously is concert photography. I love live rock music, and it's a pleasure to shoot it. I love the challenge of capturing fast movement, in low lights, with people to fight with for position and safety. In my case, I just need a fast wide or normal prime(hence my 30mm 1.4), and a body that has decent high ISO. Luckily I can also use that as a walk around and indoor lens. So I can really get by with just one lens. You can see how either system fits the bill for me. Your needs might be different and not as simple. Luckily for me I find most other types of photography boring. Again, I mean no offense to anyone but I'm weird in that I like situations where there are variables outside of my control affecting my outcome(like surfing). However, I do want to get into some strobist fashion photography

 

[Towert7]

Nineohtoo has a lot of very good info.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can also see a difference in the colors produced from a Nikon and Canon on the same white balance setting. It's subtle, but that is a consideration too. I'm used to the Nikon colors, and when I see some similar pictures from a Canon camera they look ever so slightly different (for better or for worse, you decide).

On another note, lets be serious. Even if you start off with a budget lens and a budget camera I think you'll find yourself wanting to upgrade within the first year or so (new lenses to try!). So even though at the moment you won't be getting into some of the more expensive stuff, it's good to keep that in the back of your mind when comparing the brands. See which has a nice upgrade path for you.

So for haha's, pretend that someday you want to use a 24-70mm lens. Go and compared the Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L. See which seems built better, which is smaller, lighter, more compact. Etc etc.
That should be one factor to consider.

Like I said in the other thread, just try them out at your local Ritz and hold each for 30 minutes and use it to take pictures around the store. Compare Auto Focus speed, viewfinders, LCD's, menus, etc etc. See how they feel. Holding what feels like a brick to you for an hour can be a real chore, and that is why having a body that fits your hands is a really nice thing. Weight should also be a consideration.

Keep us posted on what you find out after you try them at Ritz.

And, as before, there will be times when you wish you had purchased the other kit. You just need to buy the brand that will help reduce this feeling as much as possible. ^_^

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lenses: Hands down to Canon. Options, options options. And cheaper most of the time. Nikon really lacks in primes though. Flash:I think Nikon's CLS is far better than what Canon has. However wireless triggers negate that. One can use older and cheaper flashes with pocket wizards or cactus triggers and achieve the same, if not better results(but this extends to Samsung/Pentax and Sony/Minolta).

Nice write up into your own personal view and choices for your own uses.

I think Nikon has a good amount of primes.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Wideangle
Nikon | Imaging Products | Normal
Nikon | Imaging Products | Telephoto

Is this really lacking?

Wireless triggers make every flash used with them work in manual and make owning such expensive flashes irrelevent since you never use the automatic features. That's good if you have time and assistants. While I use the manual method myself, I can see how easy it is with CLS like by setting ratios and stuff.

 

[DLeeWebb]

I lurk around here constantly. Trying to learn. I have a Canon Rebel XT with the EFS 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (whatever that means...) I bought it brand new two years ago. It seems to take a pretty good picture. I have no real technical knowledge about photography. However, I enjoy reading what you guys write about Canon cameras and lenses, third-party lenses etc. I don't really understand 95% of your discussion, but I pick up some information here and there. If I were going to purchase another lens or two what Canon lenses, similar to the one that I have in terms of quality and features, would allow me to take hand-held, candid street-type pictures from a greater distance than my current lens allows. What would be the best purchase? Would there be any other basic lenses that I should have as my interest and ability in photography increases?

 

[roastpuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLeeWebb /img/forum/go_quote.gif I lurk around here constantly. Trying to learn. I have a Canon Rebel XT with the EFS 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (whatever that means...) I bought it brand new two years ago. It seems to take a pretty good picture. I have no real technical knowledge about photography. However, I enjoy reading what you guys write about Canon cameras and lenses, third-party lenses etc. I don't really understand 95% of your discussion, but I pick up some information here and there. If I were going to purchase another lens or two what Canon lenses, similar to the one that I have in terms of quality and features, would allow me to take hand-held, candid street-type pictures from a greater distance than my current lens allows. What would be the best purchase? Would there be any other basic lenses that I should have as my interest and ability in photography increases?

Well, for the two lenses, either the 28-135mm IS USM f4-5.6 from Canon, or the 70-300 IS USM f4-f5.6 from Canon. I'm a fast aperture guy, so my lens of choice would be a 24-70 f2.8 or a 28-70 f2.8 zoom (from an assortment of brands), but for most situations outdoors the two Canon zooms will suffice.

What I recommend also, is learning more about the basics of photography, like aperture control, shutter speeds and ISO selection. Something like this: How to Make Great Photographs will be a good primer on getting you to making better pictures. This is just a basic understanding of how your camera works and how you can affect it.

 

[lan]

DLeeWebb, your choices for Canon brand telephoto are 70-300 IS at $550 or if you want the best quality at slightly less range, 70-200 f4 IS at $1100.

With either you have little overlap and can cover a lot of stuff. I wouldn't buy any other lens until you learn your favorite ranges and situations where you take photos.

 

[DLeeWebb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpuff /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, for the two lenses, either the 28-135mm IS USM f4-5.6 from Canon, or the 70-300 IS USM f4-f5.6 from Canon. I'm a fast aperture guy, so my lens of choice would be a 24-70 f2.8 or a 28-70 f2.8 zoom (from an assortment of brands), but for most situations outdoors the two Canon zooms will suffice.

RP, Thanks for the recommendations, I've checked out these lenses at Canon and at B&H Photo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpuff /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I recommend also, is learning more about the basics of photography, like aperture control, shutter speeds and ISO selection. Something like this:How to Make Great Photographs will be a good primer on getting you to making better pictures. This is just a basic understanding of how your camera works and how you can affect it.

Point well-taken, I plan to do just that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif DLeeWebb, your choices for Canon brand telephoto are 70-300 IS at $550 or if you want the best quality at slightly less range, 70-200 f4 IS at $1100. With either you have little overlap and can cover a lot of stuff. I wouldn't buy any other lens until you learn your favorite ranges and situations where you take photos.

Ian, thanks I read a lot of what you post here and appreciate that you would take the time to respond. I am concerned about overlap. the 70-200 f4 IS is looking attractive to me at the moment. I'm not sure what I'm going to buy when, but I would like to know if there is a Canon wide-angle type lens that you would recommend.