Quote:
Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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
|
What a great response. Thanks!
I'm already pretty comfortable in Photoshop. I'm sure there are some skills I'll need to develop specific to using the RAW images, but I have used it to tweak my digital pics from the P&S for awhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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 shoot 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. ^_^
|
My plan is to buy a consumer level body for now, but to invest in some high quality lenses over the next couple of years. When I have the lenses I need for 90% of my photography, I'll upgrade the body. I would really like a full frame sensor, but they are just too expensive right now. I'm leaning towards the Rebel 450d(XSi) because it comes with a better then average kit lens. In a few years, I suspect the full frame sensors will have dropped in price.
My theory is that lens technology doesn't change as quickly as the DSLR bodies, so any investment in lenses now should serve me well for many years. The bodies however, digital especially, are advancing rapidly. In a couple more years I expect the sensors to be twice as good as those available today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.
|
I don't know too much about flashes yet. I tend to take nature photos. When I use the flash, they always look washed out and crappy, so I've learned to just avoid the flash whenever I can
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A lot of great points here, but I'd disagree that Nikon's handle noise better than Canon's. Except in the D300, D700, and D3 (perhaps) I think Canon's CMOS sensors keep more detail and less noise than Nikon's CCD based cameras - these include the D40 through the D200. As for sharpness, you could be right; but I think lens selection will really make the difference here.
Speaking of lenses, I'd say that Nikon and Canon have equally competent selections. To be fair, Canon has some quality L lenses that you just can't find in Nikon's lineup (I'm looking at you 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L) but all in all, I'd be happy with either brand.
|
That's what I thought too. Canon has the better reputation regarding low noise at higher ISOs. I do take pictures in low light, so that is something I am considering in my decision.
...
I'm going to go to the mall this weekend and play with some cameras. I got to take out my daughter in law's 350D yesterday, and I had a great time. I haven't had a chance to even look at the pictures yet, but it was nice to have some of the control I remember from my film days yet be able to take 100s of pictures without worrying about the cost of developing them all
Especially since they were mostly for learning. I went for about a 90 minute hike and I think I took around 100 pictures!
It did feel a little smallish in my hand. From what I've heard, Nikons fit larger hands better, so I'm curious how one will feel. On the other hand, I love to go backpacking so size and weight are things I have to keep in mind. That's one area that Canon beats Nikon. The equivalent Canons are usually lighter then the Nikons. I'm going to decide first based on functionality, but all things being equal, I would choose the lighter camera.
I'll come back and let everyone know what I decide
Thanks again for all the input.
