DSLR - Canon v. Nikon

[Brocktoon]

I know, it's an age-old rhetorical question, but one that bears repeating. To preempt the obligatory "the search function works" comment and assist others curious about the subject, the following threads were useful and relevant:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ht=canon+nikon

As highlighted in several of the above posts, http://www.dpreview.com/ is an excellent resource. For my experience and knowledge level, it's a bit techy. I always leave the site swirling in a haze of technical terms that I don't understand.

OK, pursuant to a comment in one of the above threads, much like skis, it is easier to proffer camera advice with background info about the shooter. Here's my situation. I'm pretty much a photography novice. What I know is self-taught. I've read the manual for my Nikon N65 and a basic photography book. Right after I read it, I had a lot better understanding of aperture, shutter speed, filters and stuff like that. I take much better photos than the average point-and-shooter but am far from an accomplished amature photographer.

My goal is to take really good photos of my kids (portraits and action shots) and also take the thing skiing (I skied Solitude with BobMc in Feb and he had his D70 around his chest the whole time - didn't seem to limit him a bit). I'd like to eventually learn more about lighting, filters and other more advanced aspects of photography. So, I want a little room to grow with the camera I choose.

I bought the N65 a few years ago right after I had my first kid. I was disgusted with the shutter lag of my hp 2.0mp digital camera and reverted to my old 35mm to get better photos. Those didn't actually get me better photos and when I studied the camera I realized I wasn't actually looking through the lens! I found out what SLR meant and looked at buying a DSLR.

I saw that the DSLR market was still immature and chose to buy a Nikon N65 because I read how Nikon was committed to keeping lenses compatible as camera technology progressed. I've since learned that this isn't entirely true and that AF and digital specific lenses don't have the same mounts as old Nikkors.

At any rate, I'm wondering if the market is now ripe for my entry (recognizing that cameras appear to be like computers now, better and cheaper every year - it seems that imaging advances beyond a certain point will become moot due to limitations of the human eye).

So, is it time to jump in? I've been looking at the D70 or 350D. I don't have a definite price-point but I want to get the most camera for my dough without getting some ridiculous contraption that's way over my head anyway. Are full-frame sensors about to become commonplace? Is now the worst time to jump in? Am I looking at the wrong cameras? Thanks!

[J-Rad]

I've since learned that this isn't entirely true and that AF and digital specific lenses don't have the same mounts as old Nikkors.

Not true - all of your old lenses will work on a Nikon DSLR. The caveat is that there is a multiplication factor of 1.5 - your 18mm lens becomes a 27mm lens, your 70mm lens becomes a 135mm lens. There are DSLR specific lenses now that are NOT backwards compatible - I own the 12-24mm DSLR zoom lens for example and it won't work on the N65. The mounts are actually the same, but only 2/3 of your film will get covered by the new lenses.

Nikon vs. Canon is a toss-up. Canon technology is advancing pretty rapidly, but Nikon's offerings are rock solid too. I own the D70 and have never wanted anything more or different about it since I bought it 2 years ago. FWIW, professional news photojournalists tend to favor Nikon cameras, professional sports photographers tend to favor Canons.

If I were you, I would go Nikon since you're really happy with your current camera and your old lenses will still work on the DSLR line (with the multiplication factor which hurts your wide-angle selection, but actually augments your zoom lenses). Probably can't go wrong either way.

[upallnight]

I don't think you'll go wrong with similarly priced offerings for either Canon or Nikon DSLRs.

I personally went with Nikon (D70) as I had other Nikon lenses that I could use from my slide days. Had I gone Canon, I would have had to lay out more money to get the same lenses.

As J-Rad said, the crop factor will cause you to "lose" some wide angle range but gain in the telephoto range. The crop factor for the pro-level DSLRs is 1.0 (i.e., you lose nothing).

If you don't have a huge investment in lenses, maybe go with the better deal, but if you own at least 1 or 2 lenses you want to keep, then stick with Nikon.

I'm *very* please with my D70.

[The Jackamo]

i've never used nikon, so trying to compare would be useless.

i currently shoot with a canon 20D, and i can say it's been one of the best cameras i've owned.

but if you're already used to nikon is terms of features and how they layout their stuff, it'd be a plus to go that route - but really, it's not all that hard to switch back and forth, the learning curve isn't steep or anything.

[mtbakerskier]

This is going to open up a whole big can of worms, but the days of Nikon Vs. Canon being a matter of personal preference / style etc is about to end. While both systems make some damn good cameras currently, Canon has a definat one up on Nikon in that it has the ability to make sensors in house. Just as having there own glass plants put them ahead of the rest in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's having the ability to make chips in house is the factor that determins who will be the last guy standing.

Minolta just folded, since Sony was in essence in controll as they literally and figuratively held all of there chips. Minolta has been absorbed by the Sony corp.

Just as Minolta was, Nikon is getting all of its chips from Sony, and Motorolla, so they face the same issues that Minolta did. R&D is hampered by this, as they have to negotiate with the chip makers to get a new style of chip made. They are also reliant upon what the mfg wants to charge for the chips wich inturn detrmins at what price point they will compete and how they will do it.

Canon has always been way more diversed in its manufacturing and markets, and this is starting to show a great advantage to them in the digital era.

Why do you think Canon has been introducing / selling way more cameras and models than Nikon?

[Brocktoon]

This is going to open up a whole big can of worms, but the days of Nikon Vs. Canon being a matter of personal preference / style etc is about to end. While both systems make some damn good cameras currently, Canon has a definat one up on Nikon in that it has the ability to make sensors in house. Just as having there own glass plants put them ahead of the rest in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's having the ability to make chips in house is the factor that determins who will be the last guy standing.

The plot thickens.

[bklyn]

Have to agree with MBS. Although I have been shooting with Nikon & Nikon mount cameras for years, they are slipping vs Canon.

I've got a huge investment in Nikon glass, but I'm considering a switch within the next 2-3 years. Not sure if I will keep my old glass and cameras or try to sell them all. Sad to see a great company unable to stay on the leading edge.

[orlowskij]

I personally went with the 350D. I got it for pretty much the same reasons as you, I take it skiing and shoot a lot of motocross. I'm really impressed with what it can do. Mbs brought up a very good point, this is one of the reasons I would say go with Canon. I would say if you don't have a lot of money in glass, definitely go with the 350D. If you do get the 350D, I would save your money on the kit lens, and try and get a decent zoom. I took this last weekend, this is pretty much straight out of the camera

[summit]

I agree with MBS

As far as mount compatibility, the decision by Canon to adopt the EF mount left FD/FL users in the dust and cost them many customers. However, in the end, the Canon EF lens design benefitted them greatly by allowing them to throw off engineering limitations of MF mounts. Additionally virtually all manufacters ending up seeing the light of AF motors based in the lens vs a mechanical linkage system.

Nikon's compatibility with very old lenses is lip service in many cases modern AFS/VR lenses choke on old AF bodies and old AI/AIS lenses limit many functions on newer bodies.

Nikon is in a game of catchup.

Canon is debating the necessity of producing EF lenses when it is much more economical to produce 1.6 sensors. We will see more EFS lenses but for now Canon enjoys a defacto enforcement of price division for pros with large collections of L glass. They have no choice but to pay through the nose for full frame cameras because there are no pro/L (2.8 or even fixed aperture) equivelent EFS/1.6 coverage lenses to buy in the standard-wide range. However those using telephoto mainly get the consolation prize is the quality of their L investment gets them the free 1.6 TC on their lenses without anything like the light/quality loss of a TC.

-Summit with 4 hours to kill @ Eppley Field

[Brocktoon]

I would say if you don't have a lot of money in glass, definitely go with the 350D. If you do get the 350D, I would save your money on the kit lens, and try and get a decent zoom. [/IMG]

OK, I'm sold on the 350D (it's time to shit or get off the pot). A few of the dpreview.com recommended sites have the body only for $579.00 after the rebate.

How about lens recommendations? I'm thinking a good 3-4 lens quiver. I'll start with just one and then add them periodically. Here are my purposes:

1) general purpose
2) portrait (maybe a 50mm prime?)
3) tele
4) ???

Thoughts?

[orlowskij]

As for lenses, it really depends on how much you want to spend. I just got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 a couple weeks ago, and I can't say enough about it. Great image quality, and for a lot less than the Canon equivalent. For a general purpose lens, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L seems to be the top of the line, but it will cost you. I'm still using the kit lens, but am hoping to upgrade soon. For a decent portrait lens cheap, look at the 50mm f/1.8. Fast and cheap, under $100 shipped. For a lot of good discussion on all digital Canon stuff, go to http://photography-on-the.net/forum/.

[mtbakerskier]

As for lenses, it really depends on how much you want to spend. I just got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 a couple weeks ago, and I can't say enough about it. Great image quality, and for a lot less than the Canon equivalent. For a general purpose lens, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L seems to be the top of the line, but it will cost you. I'm still using the kit lens, but am hoping to upgrade soon. For a decent portrait lens cheap, look at the 50mm f/1.8. Fast and cheap, under $100 shipped. For a lot of good discussion on all digital Canon stuff, go to http://photography-on-the.net/forum/.

Exactly.... BTW If the price looks to good to be true than it is. BHphoto.com is by far the best and most fiar place to buy from. You will not find a cheaper price from a non-sketchy dealer than what they charge. Trust me.

[Storm11]

Another aspect to add to the list of negative things with Nikons, is the fact that they won't release their source codes to anyone. This means that the users are forced to open RAW files with Nikons proprietary software. Well this wasn't that big of an issue, because they're basically the same kind of interface as Adobe Camera Raw...however, now with programs like Aperature and Lightroom which have built in raw adjustment, this becomes a MUCH bigger problem.

Along the same lines, Nikon is the ONLY major camera manufacturer who is refusing to start to offer cameras which shoot in .DNG format (a universal RAW format created by Adobe, so there will be, essentially, an ISO standard for RAW files. i.e. every manufacture's camera shoots in the same format as everyone else.) The problems of this lead back to the first issue mentioned as well.

All of this and the fact that they are starting to fall behind Canon in actual camera technology, I can easily see them going the way of Minolta, and soon.

[Powdurr]

OK, I'm sold on the 350D (it's time to shit or get off the pot). A few of the dpreview.com recommended sites have the body only for $579.00 after the rebate.

How about lens recommendations? I'm thinking a good 3-4 lens quiver. I'll start with just one and then add them periodically. Here are my purposes:

1) general purpose
2) portrait (maybe a 50mm prime?)
3) tele
4) ???

Thoughts?

As far as lenses go, I would for sure get a 50mm F/1.8. It is under a 100 bucks, and is very fast and VERY sharp. If you want to spend a little more, than 50mm f/1.4 is awesome as well.

You also might want to consider a 70-200 for an all around lens. With the 1.6x factor, it isn't so wide on the wide end, but none the less is a great lens. Depending on your budget, there are a few different models to choose from. 70-200mm f/4.0L, which is a little over $500, the 70-200mm f/2.8L, which I believe is around $1000, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. As far as lens quality goes, they are all very sharp, the 2.8 versions a little more so. If you are going to be shooting a lot of action shots, the 2.8 might be the way to go. On the other hand, the 4.0 version is a great, sharp, all around lens and it does not weigh too much.

I shoot with the 300mm F/4.0L for my telephoto. In the next few months I would like to get something bigger, probably 400, 500, or 600. It is a very sharp lens, though it is not the fastest. I use it with a Canon 1.4 Extender to get a 420mm F/5.6(not counting the 1.3x of my 1d mk II) that is still very sharp and can autofocus.

I have been trying to buy the discontinued 500mm F/4.5L, with no luck. There used to be quite a few available for around $2500 or less, which is a good deal for that kind of a lens, if you need that focal length and do not want to spend 4-5000 on a faster lens.

You might also want something wide, such as a 28mm. I use the 28mm F/2.8. It is a great lens. Though it is not quite wide enough even with my 1.3x, so with a 1.6x, it won't be very wide at all. I don't know a whole lot about wider lenses, so maybe somebody could give you that advice.

My only other advice is stay away from cheaper lenses, especially zooms, like the ones that come in kits, most of the time they are just no good. If you're going to be spending money on anything, put it into good glass for sure.

[orlowskij]

I second the vote for B&H. They have fair prices, good service, and ship fast. And just remember, the glass is everything. Expect to spend way more on good glass than the camera body. Shit glass on a good camera will give you shit pictures. And a hint for all you and all the other photo mags, if you go to B&H's website and type "psmar" in the search box, it will bring up items with prices that you can't get any other way. Doing this, they have the Rebel XT for $549. That would definitely be my recomendation.

[orlowskij]

As far as lenses go, I would for sure get a 50mm F/1.8. It is under a 100 bucks, and is very fast and VERY sharp. If you want to spend a little more, than 50mm f/1.4 is awesome as well.

You also might want to consider a 70-200 for an all around lens. With the 1.6x factor, it isn't so wide on the wide end, but none the less is a great lens. Depending on your budget, there are a few different models to choose from. 70-200mm f/4.0L, which is a little over $500, the 70-200mm f/2.8L, which I believe is around $1000, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. As far as lens quality goes, they are all very sharp, the 2.8 versions a little more so. If you are going to be shooting a lot of action shots, the 2.8 might be the way to go. On the other hand, the 4.0 version is a great, sharp, all around lens and it does not weigh too much.

I agree with this, but I wouldn't rule out third party lenses. Just be sure to do your research before picking one. Like I said before, I just got the Sigma 70-200 and couldn't be happier.

[Powdurr]

B&H is where I buy MOST of my stuff. Definitely the most reliable. Though there have been some products where I shopped around a little and saved 10-20% off B&H's price, though sometimes it's a little sketchy with some of the online stores...Not a big deal though, Capital One is really good about getting scammed and will get your money back if you get screwed over.

[Brocktoon]

Exactly.... BTW If the price looks to good to be true than it is. BHphoto.com is by far the best and most fiar place to buy from. You will not find a cheaper price from a non-sketchy dealer than what they charge. Trust me.

Does this go for the camera body too? The dpreview.com sites recommended were buydig.com and beach camera. Okay, I just checked and BH has it for $589. $10 is a small price to pay for confidence. I think I'll go for the black body.

I assume lots of you ski with your gear. What rig do you use? As I mentioned, BobMc had a pretty sweet one that went over both shoulders and the camera rested in the middle of his chest. That seems like a pretty good set up for easy access and stable mount.

Thanks a lot for all the input. You guys are the shit.

[Brocktoon]

I second the vote for B&H. They have fair prices, good service, and ship fast. And just remember, the glass is everything. Expect to spend way more on good glass than the camera body. Shit glass on a good camera will give you shit pictures. And a hint for all you and all the other photo mags, if you go to B&H's website and type "psmar" in the search box, it will bring up items with prices that you can't get any other way. Doing this, they have the Rebel XT for $549. That would definitely be my recomendation.

I'll go buy right now.

Edit for:

OK, I've had 3 beers and I'm typing faster than I'm thinking. I need to settle this lens issue first. I'll go nuts if I get a new camera body and don't have a lens to mount it on. Is that Sigma lens that orlowskij recommended the right deal for a first general purpose lens? I'll go check B&H as well as http://photography-on-the.net/forum/usercp.php. I'll check back for any input from you all. Thanks again.

[mtbakerskier]

The deal with the code at BH is that it isnt PSMAR. It actually has to do with there pro sells divison, and PS stands for Pro Specials and MAR stands for March, so this month it is PSAPR wich stands for Pro Specials April, next month it will be PSMAY, etc etc.

However this only saves you money on what items that the pro sells division has on special that month. BTW this is an old clossely kept secret, but the word got out a few monts ago, so dont expect it to last for much longer.

As far as glass goes, I started out with a sigma 70-200 F2.78 it was a great lense, but fell apart after 3 years of heavy use, but it is very very good for the money.

L series glass costs an arm and a leg, but is worht every cent. I will not use anything but it, and the last lense that I have that isnt will be upgraded shortly.

This is my current set up for lenses:

Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX Will be upgrading to the Canon L 14mm f12.8
Canon 17-35 F2.8 L, will be upgrading this summer to the 16-35 F2.8 L
Canon 24mm L f3.5 TSE
Canon 24-70 F 2.8 L
Canon 70-200 F 2.8 L IS
Canon 300mm F2.8 L
Canon L 1.4x
Canon L 2x
Canon 25 mm ext.

[orlowskij]

The deal with the code at BH is that it isnt PSMAR. It actually has to do with there pro sells divison, and PS stands for Pro Specials and MAR stands for March, so this month it is PSAPR wich stands for Pro Specials April, next month it will be PSMAY, etc etc.

I disagree, psmar still works, as does psjan. Heres the link for the psmar results.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont....x=0&image.y=0

About the lens, it's probably not wide enough for everyday use.

[Brocktoon]

OK, the B&H site is down until 8:45 PM tomorrow. That gives me about 23 hours to get my shit together (probably good b/c my trigger finger is itchy).

Wow. The b&h price differential on high end Canon glass vs. Sigma is significant. The Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS is $839. The Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens is $1,099.95.

I take it low end Canon glass is worse than the good Sigma stuff. If that's the case, I'm inclined to get good Sigma. Is Sigma the call over Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar? If it depends on the particular lens I'll be very disappointed.

Alright, if the kit lens I'd normally get with the 350D is probably a piece of crap (Canon 18-55mm EF-S lens), what lens should I get instead? Thanks!

[rbtree]

Nugget, since my Canon 70-200 was stolen, I've reverted to using my Sigma 70-210 f/2.8. This is a 12 yr old lens, and outdated model, where the autofocus sucks. But, optically it is stellar. I think the AF on the new Sigmas works quite well on Canon bodies now....I'd sell it to ya super cheap, buit Sigma would need to fix the AF, and for all I know, they may not be able to fix it to where it would work correctly..... I also have a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 to sell cheap...its AF is also nearly inoperative.

I've been shopping for a used 1D Mark ll for quite some time to replace my stolen 1N.
I replaced my 17-40 f/4 with another, and will replace the 70-200 with the IS, pircey but what a joy it will be! and a 24-70 2/8 to replace the 28-70. Considered the 24-105, but would rather have the 2.8.

I also have a Canon 300 2.8, and would like a 100 macro, and maybe a 14.....and need to get another set of 1.4 and 2x extenders.....

[mojorisin]

I agree with all the posts on how Canon completely kicks the shit out of Nikon in the digital realm (how can you not, really), but I personally prefer the "feel" and layout of Nikon cameras. Although this is rather inconsequential to the final photo that comes out, shooting with (pro-level) Nikon cameras feels much more ergonomic and natural than with the Canon counterparts. Digital technology-wise, however, there's simply no contest.

Oh yea, and I second all the comments on investing in nice glass - definetly worth it if you can get the money together.

[schuss]

from talking to the pro-photogs on this forum, plus my friends who are concert photogs, this is usually the breakdown:
Canon - Sturdier bodies, faster shutters
Nikon - Better Light metering, better composure from sub-optimal conditions

NOTE: I am not even an amatuer at this crap, this is just what I've gathered from expert friends.