[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sports is only one type of photography and not as challenging as the other ones.

Sports photography involves changing lighting conditions. If Canon's auto modes were inferior to Nikon's (metering plays a large role in this), then Canon wouldn't be #1 in that area - regardless of their lens lineup. Canons practically perform every bit as well as Nikons and vice versa. What Ken Rockwell said was very inaccurate and it's sites like his that lead to many myths being perpetuated.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif I primarily like to take nature shots. I really want to do macro photography and nice wide angle shots from unusual angles and such. Another interest is HDR images. Basically I'm trying to figure out why when I compare equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, the Nikons are more expensive. In regards to lenses then, is there really a big difference between them? Nikon has "better metering, better flash, auto-iso". How can it have a better flash? I thought Canon did better then Nikon with high ISO digital imaging.

Canon's body's tend to have better high ISO and better detail retention. For nature, that can be nice to have. But that means little as you're dealing with a system. If you're underexposed, the image will the noisy regardless when pushed up. If your lens isn't focal aligned perfect, you won't be getting maximal detail either.

If you like wide, the Canon 5D is nice and it's the lowest full frame option. Although it's an old camera, you don't need much for nature shots or macro as everything is manual and/or slow paced. Of course how wide you want to go is up to you. Any of the zoom lenses which start at 10 to 12mm is fine for many people on crop bodies in case 5D is still too expensive.

When I say better flash I mean flash metering not literally the unit.

HDR can be done with any camera that you have full manual control of.

I believe Nikon has better stabilization in their lenses. As for the lenses themselves, I wouldn't worry THAT much about them unless you're willing to spend a LOT. I think Nikon's latest zooms are excellent, 14-24 and 24-70. There are excellent 3rd party lenses for either Canon or Nikon which are good.

Nikon's can use old lenses if the body has AF motor. Canon has pro level f/4.0 zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) which are rather attractive and priced okay. You save yourself the cost and the weight especially if you're going to shoot f8 and greater anyway.

I just use both. Problem solved.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sports photography involves changing lighting conditions. If Canon's auto modes were inferior to Nikon's (metering plays a large role in this), then Canon wouldn't be #1 in that area - regardless of their lens lineup. Canons practically perform every bit as well as Nikons and vice versa. What Ken Rockwell said was very inaccurate and it's sites like his that lead to many myths being perpetuated.

If you don't have competition, you'll be #1 by default.

They're riding on history and their great lens selection in mega telephoto range. There was a time when Nikon wasn't doing so well. Don't assume there can't be better now.

You're not going to convince me since I've shot thousands of photos and know the results. What Ken Rockwell is saying in this particular case is something I agree with. I've owned, rented, or gotten my friends P&S, consumer, medium, and pro level DSLR cameras for both and that is my observation.

 

[Towert7]

Just picked up a Nikon 80-200 F/4.5n on Ebay.
It's quite an interesting lens!
So sad my D50 can not meter with it. Perhaps if I ever get a D300/D700/D3 I'll have more fun with it.

From what I've seen so far though, it's quite the lens.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Hayduke, try to find a local camera store that rents cameras. Rent a Nikon and canon in your price range, along with a 35mm f/2 lens for both of them. See which one seems more natural to you, better in your hands, whatever.

Nikon and Canon cameras are extremely similar...they match each other pretty well. Right now, Nikon is leading on the "low-end" FF market, ie. the D700 vs. 5D. Nikon and Canon glass is extremely similar, too. None is better than the other, they're just different.

Now, Canon does have the 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2, which Nikon lacks. And another lens or two, but Nikon has the 14-24mm f/2.8. Etc.

The camera matters ****. Don't worry about it. Instead of getting a camera right now, why not get a couple of books about art, lighting, composition, etc. I've found that books like that always help my photography more than a new lens or body.

On another note, I'm considering trying some macro photography. I was thinking of getting that AF-D 105mm macro lens and a teleconverter, but, I remembered macro bellows...Anyone care to explain macro bellows vs. macro lens? Thanks...

 

[Hayduke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hayduke, try to find a local camera store that rents cameras. Rent a Nikon and canon in your price range, along with a 35mm f/2 lens for both of them. See which one seems more natural to you, better in your hands, whatever. Nikon and Canon cameras are extremely similar...they match each other pretty well. Right now, Nikon is leading on the "low-end" FF market, ie. the D700 vs. 5D. Nikon and Canon glass is extremely similar, too. None is better than the other, they're just different. Now, Canon does have the 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2, which Nikon lacks. And another lens or two, but Nikon has the 14-24mm f/2.8. Etc. The camera matters ****. Don't worry about it. Instead of getting a camera right now, why not get a couple of books about art, lighting, composition, etc. I've found that books like that always help my photography more than a new lens or body. On another note, I'm considering trying some macro photography. I was thinking of getting that AF-D 105mm macro lens and a teleconverter, but, I remembered macro bellows...Anyone care to explain macro bellows vs. macro lens? Thanks...

Thanks for the advice

I did look around locally, and I can't find anyone that rents equipment

The good news is, my daughter-in-law has a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) that she is letting me "play" with. She only has the kit lens, but I figure I can use the lenses from my AE1 Program. This of course doesn't really help me decide Nikon vs Canon

I'm not really buying a "new" body. This would be the first. I have no DSLR body atm. I got a deal on my old film camera, so I never really thought about which camp to join. Even though I own a Canon, I had always wondered what I was missing with Nikon. Since I don't have thousands of $$ invested in Canon lenses, I'm taking this opportunity to put some thought into which brand to choose.

This isn't a criticism, but I was expecting a very quick answer to "why Nikon?" I guess it's not an easy quesiton huh? lol

Right now, it's looking like there isn't a huge difference between them. I do see that, in regards to the level of body I'm looking at, Canon offers more for the money. My focus of research the last few days has shifted to lenses. I'll see which camp has the lenses I think I will like better.

It really does suck that nobody local rents gear. It would make it soo much easier to decide

I guess that's the price I pay for living in a "small" town.

In regards to the books and such. I'm way ahead of you. I studied a lot about photography in college when I was using the 35mm camera. Great suggestion though, thanks

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif This isn't a criticism, but I was expecting a very quick answer to "why Nikon?" I guess it's not an easy quesiton huh? lol

Exactly!
Not even the pros have a consensus of which is better. Watching the Olympics, I see some with D3's, and some with Canon 1D's.

To be honest, canon has a few things going for it that nikon does not. And to be even more honest, Nikon has a few things going for it that canon does not. Your job is to find out these differences and see which will impact your more on a daily basis and what is more important to you.

What I've discovered is that Canon has a few more exotic lenses still in productions (85mm F/1.2, 50mm F/1.2). If price is a big thing though, this is a moot point because these lenses are PRICEY!
They also have one or two more budget (yet still good) lenses like the 17-40L F/4 or the 70-200 F/4 L for a nice price. With nikon, you don't have these options, and instead you can choose between their more budget lenses, or their more professional lenses. On the other hand, Nikon has a nice little 18-200VR lens that canon doesn't seem to have, though it's DX.
Depending on what you want, this could range from nothing important to very important.

I've also discovered that the Nikons are much more comfortable for me to operate and hold in my hand compared to all of the Canons I've used (especially the 40D brick). That alone was enough to sway me to get a nikon. It just feels more professional and better built. It's also easier for me to operate the camera without the need for me to take my eye off the camera. For some people this doesn't matter, but for others it's a very important thing.

And of course there are differences in terms of viewfinders, LCD's, menus, AF speed, sound, etc.

Find a local mom and pop camera store and try them out (don't need to rent them). You'll be amazed what just 30 minutes holding each camera will tell you that looking online Never will!

Either way though, both Canon and Nikon are great companies, and you really can't go wrong with either. It's simply up to personal preference.

And to be honest, no matter which you pick, there will be days you wish you went with the other brand. ^_^
If I were to start all over again, I'd still go Nikon. I'd get the D80 and a nice lens and start there. Great camera.

Keep us posted on what you discover.

 

[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you don't have competition, you'll be #1 by default. They're riding on history and their great lens selection in mega telephoto range. There was a time when Nikon wasn't doing so well. Don't assume there can't be better now.

I seriously doubt that even the D3 offers a practical advantage over the 1D MKIII - Canon and Nikon are very, very close from a technological aspect.

Besides it's a moot point since any photographer worth his salt would use Manual or Aperture priority 99% of the time anyway.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif I seriously doubt that even the D3 offers a practical advantage over the 1D MKIII - Canon and Nikon are very, very close from a technological aspect. Besides it's a moot point since any photographer worth his salt would use Manual or Aperture priority 99% of the time anyway.

It's about usability.

As for full automatic, I'm not speaking of a camera mode but how you use them even in Aperture Priority. There's more fiddling with the Canon.

 

[Hayduke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly! Not even the pros have a consensus of which is better. Watching the Olympics, I see some with D3's, and some with Canon 1D's. To be honest, canon has a few things going for it that nikon does not. And to be even more honest, Nikon has a few things going for it that canon does not. Your job is to find out these differences and see which will impact your more on a daily basis and what is more important to you. What I've discovered is that Canon has a few more exotic lenses still in productions (85mm F/1.2, 50mm F/1.2). If price is a big thing though, this is a moot point because these lenses are PRICEY! They also have one or two more budget (yet still good) lenses like the 17-40L F/4 or the 70-200 F/4 L for a nice price. With nikon, you don't have these options, and instead you can choose between their more budget lenses, or their more professional lenses. On the other hand, Nikon has a nice little 18-200VR lens that canon doesn't seem to have, though it's DX. Depending on what you want, this could range from nothing important to very important. I've also discovered that the Nikons are much more comfortable for me to operate and hold in my hand compared to all of the Canons I've used (especially the 40D brick). That alone was enough to sway me to get a nikon. It just feels more professional and better built. It's also easier for me to operate the camera without the need for me to take my eye off the camera. For some people this doesn't matter, but for others it's a very important thing. And of course there are differences in terms of viewfinders, LCD's, menus, AF speed, sound, etc. Find a local mom and pop camera store and try them out (don't need to rent them). You'll be amazed what just 30 minutes holding each camera will tell you that looking online Never will! Either way though, both Canon and Nikon are great companies, and you really can't go wrong with either. It's simply up to personal preference. And to be honest, no matter which you pick, there will be days you wish you went with the other brand. ^_^ If I were to start all over again, I'd still go Nikon. I'd get the D80 and a nice lens and start there. Great camera. Keep us posted on what you discover.

Thanks Towert7

I'll go fondle a Nikon at the mall.

The only camera store we have in Flagstaff is a Ritz camera

 

[Towert7]

I mentioned that I picked up a very good condition Nikkor 80-200 F/4.5n AI lens. I took a few pictures of it.






It's very light for what it is. Close to 750g, which is about half as light as the current 80-200 and 70-200VR. I had read that the zoom on it is very light and fast, and it sure is! I'm also amazed at how precise the focusing is with it, especially compared to all of the AF lenses I've used. It almost makes a full turn.

Interesting little lens. The shots I've taken with it so far have come out real nice and very sharp! I'm going to keep fooling around with it, weather permitting.

 

[dj_mocok]

85 bucks you bought it for, did you say? That's a damn steal, look at the quality of that lens.

 

[flashnolan]

Can anyone recommend a nice macro lens for my D40? What kind of a price range am I looking at? I want to be able to take some close focal shots of spiders, etc.

 

[dj_mocok]

If static object, get a used macro Ai/Ais lenses, it's really affordable and they are very well made. But the thing is with D40 I am not sure if you can easily manual focus with that small viewfinder. So maybe newer AF lenses suit you better.

If moving objects (not much time to focus around), most lenses even third party ones they generally perform really well. Get Tamron or Sigma if you don't want to pay premium. They are still great if you can get over the "third party" notion.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif 85 bucks you bought it for, did you say? That's a damn steal, look at the quality of that lens.

81$ for the lens, totaling 89$ with shipping. It was a steal.

Sadly, it didn't come with any box or papers, but that's ok.
Thankfully the lens elements are in perfect shape, no mold, and everything is smooth as butter. Aside from a nick or two on the body, it's in amazing shape. The serial number is the highest I've ever seen, so it isn't too 'old'.

The person I bought it from really didn't know what they had. You could tell from the pictures of it that they were not the photographer who used this lens. I asked what version it was, and they had no clue. Thankfully, others asked the same thing and got the same answer so there wasn't much interest in it.