HI, You need help in decide between: Nikon and a Canon. The first thing I will share with is about lens canon make some really lens like 28-135 Is lens you talked landscape,or even with shooting poratiture. The focus point on the Canon camera are just a little bit faster than Nikon. I own a 20D and 40D. I hope help you out scott...
Hi, no doubt I'll get shot down by people here but I felt I should offer my opinion anyway...
I have no experience with the Nikons you mentioned, however I use Nikon film SLRs and I have previously owned a Canon 350D / Rebel XT, and I can offer some thoughts on the comparison. I found the Rebel to be too small for my hands, with an awkward shaped grip that I didn't like, and constantly found the tops of my fingers rubbing on the lens. Not good. I also didn't like (and this went for my 30D as well) that I had trouble using either of the 2 Canons when wearing glasses, and they were only passable without my glasses - my Nikons have a higher eyepoint which makes it much easier to see the viewfinder image..
On the subject of kit lenses, I came to dislike the Canon 18-55 a lot, and from what I hear, on the Nikon side the 18-70 is much better than the 18-55. Personally I'd suggest trying to get whatever you buy without a lens and add the lenses you want after. I would suggest the 50mm f/1.8 or, more expensive, something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which on a cropped body will be closer to a FF 50mm view. This will give you very sharp images in much much lower light than any kit lens or cheap zoom, and you can fulfill your desire to experiment with DOF better as well..
I have heard very good things about the Nikon 55-200, I'd be keen to get one of those if I used digital....
One more thing about lenses - I've vowed to never buy new again when there are so many terriffic bargains out there - my latest score is a Nikkor AF 70-210 f/4-5.6. For $50 second hand I was stunned to see the image quality and sharpness are awesome - much better than my old Canon 70-300 IS USM which cost me like $700 new...
Also, AFAIK there's no reason to prefer CMOS over CCD... either work just fine..
Other things I count in Nikon's favor:.
* Ability to use older MF lenses (can be inexpensive and awesome). Ability to meter with them varies depending on the body you choose.
* Nikon's matrix metering rocks!!!! Seriously, it rocks!! Even on my old 1980's film SLRs have a database of 80,000 image parameters, the system's just awesome, as opposed to my old Canon 30D which I always had to use exposure compensation with..
* Flash in general works better than Canon, including very reliable matrix balanced fill flash, and the unique CLS system..
* Nikon flashes seem a little cheaper than Canon and I believe include a PC socket and a selection of filters for use at times other than high noon (shame on you Canon!).
This didn't really answer your bullet points but I hope it's of use..
One more thing - regarding the 18-200 you mentioned.. I hear people saying good things about it, but just bear in mind that with a relatively slow max aperture on the long end it won't be nearly as much use in low light as something like the 70-200 f/2.8.. So, cheaper and more range but not nearly as good indoors - you'd have to crank up the ISO when indoors. Not knocking the lens at all, just pointing out it's got limitations... The 70-200 2.8 should have better image quality as well - 18-200's a hell of an ambitious range, well done to Nikon for pulling it off!.
Hello! I know this topic was done 100 times, but I have somequestions and hoping someone here can answer them. I am looking forbasic dSLR camera. I will be using it mostly for landscapes,portraits, city shots with little of sports. I want to have more thengreat point and shoot camera, I am planning to experiment withDOF,using mostly on manual settings. I am considering only Nikon andCanon with budget of about $900. I am planning to add better lenses,but that's why my choice of one or other is so important now.
Also Nikon has a bit bigger sensor, doesit mean is better?2) Body - most opinions I read said Nikon is better build, with beterergonomics, even by people who said Canon was better overall, becauseof thir future. Nikon seems more rigid to me, while Canon was betteron features.3) Lenses - genreal opinion is Nikon kit lens (18-55) is better thenCanon same thing. Also some of Canon lenses are only fit to D and EOSseries with uncertain future. I have no clue here, both companiesoffer plenty of choices, Canon seems to have more, but high endlenses seems more exensive then Nikon glass. Also Nikon all around18-200 is lacked in Canon's lines.
Somecommented on bad focus capability, also someone mention problem withcolors. Nikons forum are quiet about any problems with D 40 or 60,but I don't know how much is it camera problem and how much is justbad operations.I hope someone here can address my questions and I am greatful forany advice. Thank You..
I'm a nikon user that knows quite abit about the high end canon equipment but not so much about the rebels. I do know that the D40 is superb for the price and the kit lens it come with it is very sharp. Therefore out of the box my guess is the image quality would be slightly better with the D40 given the difference in optics..
Looking forward to lens upgrades the consumer grade 70-300VR is excellent but so is the canon 70-200/4 for more money - around $1000. The new consumer grade nikon 16-85VR has no canon peer for performance. Where canon has a big advantage is in pro grade normal primes but these cost in the $1000-$2000 range and probably is not relevent for you. Plus there is lots of rumor that nikon is about to announce a new line up to plug this hole. Canon has nothing that can compete with the new Nikon 14-24 and the new Nikon 24-70 is significantly better than it's Canon counterpart but these lenses are just shy of $2000 and may be irrelevent for you. Canon has some excellent 'junior pro' lenses like the 24-105/4 that nikon does not but again these are not very cheap..
You already pointed out Nikon has an excellent consumer grade 18-200 that canon does not..
The fiercest pitch battle is going on in high end with the incredible new nikon D3 (the best SLR ever made IMO) trying to unseat the established canon 1dmarkIII..
I'm obviously bias towards nikon but in the end these are the 2 most competitive brands and both have excellent product. Either set up will be capable of superb images and it will depend more on what you do behind the camera. You should also go in to a store and handle both to see what feels better in your hands.Jake..
My advice to you is to start with something simple and as you improve your skills you upgrade to something better..
Both brands are excellent. The most important thing is that you get good lenses. Fixed focal lenses are generally sharper and faster than zoom lenses. They're not versatile as zooms are.Don't go spending money getting the best gear. That is not what makes you good..
When I took my first photography class years ago, I bought an Nikon N80 (cheap camera) with a zoom lense that was only really sharp at 85mm and F8. Most of my classmates had top of the line gear, but I was one of the three best students in the class. The moral of the story is that you don't have to spend much to do good work..
You're pictures must say something. Photography is an way of expressing yourself. If this is not what you're after, you could get a Canon G9 which is an excellent camera with some pro features for $450. Otherwise, you can get a Nikon D40x or a Rebel XTi for around $550 and spend the rest on a good lense.The lense that comes with the nikon 18 - 55 is cr@p IMHO.Do your own research...
1) Sensor - Nikon is CCD, Canon mostly CMOS, is there advantage ofone over other? I heard CCD is better in rendering colors, wherasCMOS is cheaper and faster. Also Nikon has a bit bigger sensor, doesit mean is better?.
Canon used to be better. I don't know the situation at this moment in time - check some chart shots here on dpreview and see for yourself..
2) Body - most opinions I read said Nikon is better build, with beterergonomics, even by people who said Canon was better overall, becauseof thir future. Nikon seems more rigid to me, while Canon was betteron features..
It's both a matter of features AND personal ergonomy..
3) Lenses - genreal opinion is Nikon kit lens (18-55) is better thenCanon same thing. Also some of Canon lenses are only fit to D and EOSseries with uncertain future. I have no clue here, both companiesoffer plenty of choices, Canon seems to have more, but high endlenses seems more exensive then Nikon glass. Also Nikon all around18-200 is lacked in Canon's lines. Love to hear your opinions ofquality and value of both Nikon and Canon lenses (will not considerother companies at this time)..
Here you got it wrong. On the Canon all modern (EF and EF-S) lenses will work. On the Nikon D40 only lenses with internal motor will work with autofocus, you have to check..
Now, for me, a big part of the DSLR business are fast primes. On the Nikon D40 no fast prime will autofocus. From what I am told, you also loose DOF preview. So....
If I was you, I'd do the math. Total cost for all the lenses you want Canon and Nikon. Cameras are pretty much consumables, but the lenses are there to stay..
Of course, it might make sense to buy cheaper lenses and upgrade them later. It's up to the person..
4) Accessories - Canon give plenty of software, enable remoteshooting (which I did with Canon A80 before), Nikon software istrial, so I guess $150 more to convert RAW files is in order..
Hmm... I have a good feeling that with any camera you'll want extra software..