Nikon vs Canon

[Guest]

I shoot somewhat professionaly, for fine art and stock, and I've been a very happy Canon shooter for 10 years now. Canon has shown a far stronger commitment to digital imaging, and Nikon is often playing catch up (look at the release dates on the cameras, such as the 1Ds/D2x/1Ds Mark II). Canon has a far better lens lineup, having image stabalization in far more lenses, especially mid-range zooms, and having IS on the high-end pro lenses such as the 500 f/4 is great. Canon has had better electronics in their cameras for years, and the ring of fire 45-point AF system on the 1D(s) Mark II cameras is really great for birds in flight. Its metering system is quite good, and it'll get the exposure right a good chunk of the time. Honestly, I've never met someone who switched from Canon to Nikon, but I know a lot of people who've gone from Nikon to Canon and never looked back. My advice? Get the Rebel XT, start with the kit 18-55, and check out the 28-135 IS lens. Until the new 24-105 L came out, I know a number of pros who shot with the 28-135 (roughly a 50-200 equivalent on the Rebel), and it's a great lens for the price.

[iacas]

I shoot somewhat professionaly, for fine art and stock, and I've been a very happy Canon shooter for 10 years now. Canon has shown a far stronger commitment to digital imaging, and Nikon is often playing catch up (look at the release dates on the cameras, such as the 1Ds/D2x/1Ds Mark II). Canon has a far better lens lineup, having image stabalization in far more lenses, especially mid-range zooms, and having IS on the high-end pro lenses such as the 500 f/4 is great. Canon has had better electronics in their cameras for years, and the ring of fire 45-point AF system on the 1D(s) Mark II cameras is really great for birds in flight. Its metering system is quite good, and it'll get the exposure right a good chunk of the time. Honestly, I've never met someone who switched from Canon to Nikon, but I know a lot of people who've gone from Nikon to Canon and never looked back. My advice? Get the Rebel XT, start with the kit 18-55, and check out the 28-135 IS lens. Until the new 24-105 L came out, I know a number of pros who shot with the 28-135 (roughly a 50-200 equivalent on the Rebel), and it's a great lens for the price.

Josh is alluding to something you have to be wary of in digital cameras - the XT isn't a full-frame camera. It (essentially) crops some of the image, which in turn basically extends the zoom range and narrows the view a little. The 18-55mm camera is actually like a 28-88mm lens on a full-frame camera. I think the crop factor is 1.6.

This is good on consumer and pro-sumer cameras for a few reasons. a 500mm lens runs $5k, while a 300mm lens is much cheaper. Additionally, consumer level glass is best in the middle, and the edges are where you see aberrations. So, just be aware of it. I don't know what the D70's crop factor is, but that may come into play too. A 300mm lens (like my 75-300) has quite a bit of reach and was rather inexpensive.

[Wizardvette]

Re-reading through these when I am more awake, I am reminded of the classic Chevy vs. Ford debates.

You are not going to be a pro photographer just by buying a great camera. There's much more art to it than that.

Get the one that simply fits your budget... keeping in mind the prices for extras....lenses, filters, etc. Nikon makes fantastic cameras, and so does Canon...heck, even Fuji makes a halfway decent SLR for an amateur.

I got back into photography with a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 P&S.; My D50 kicks it's butt, but that still does not make me a pro photographer. Just get something within budget, and go out and have some fun! good Luck!

[iacas]

Re-reading through these when I am more awake, I am reminded of the classic Chevy vs. Ford debates.

I mean no offense here, but I don't think that advice is very helpful... I say that because I know Dave, and he has no illusions of being a pro right now, nor really even in the future (he's said on this forum he just wants to become a decent amateur photographer). To imply that he feels otherwise - that buying a camera makes him a pro - is kinda silly to me. If anything, a golfer would know that buying equipment isn't the same thing as getting skills...

I applaud Dave for taking the time to make the right decision on a platform. He'll likely invest $3-5,000 or more in the next five or six years on lenses - clearly he's not just gonna buy any ol' camera in his budget and go out and take pictures. That would be a waste of money. Buying my last car didn't make me a professional race car driver, but that doesn't mean I didn't research the heck out of it first.

[Wizardvette]

I mean no offense here, but I don't think that advice is very helpful... I say that because I know Dave, and he has no illusions of being a pro right now, nor really even in the future (he's said on this forum he just wants to become a decent amateur photographer). To imply that he feels otherwise - that buying a camera makes him a pro - is kinda silly to me. If anything, a golfer would know that buying equipment isn't the same thing as getting skills...

Perhaps my post was mis-understood? What I was implying is to just purchase within budget and go have fun. I was implying that a great camera does not a pro make. Not that he wanted to be a pro. If we go back and look at Dave's initial post, it does not imply any future purchases of $3k or more. Dave's second post implies that the $180-$200 savings on a D50 may be a good choice. This tells me he may not be spending $3k to $5k on future purchases, but merely looking to get something great to get a nice picture with. Most folks who drop $3k on a lense could not care less about $200. If he is planning on spending this kind of cash on equipment, then I guess he may be looking to become a "pro". This suddenly makes my post not too far off then huh? Amateurs do not shell out $3k for a lens. I don't "know" Dave... and my opinion was for him to just get a great camera that fit his "unposted" budget. I had no clue he intended to make large future purchases.

[NCGolfer]

If we go back and look at Dave's initial post, it does not imply any future purchases of $3k or more.

You were probably right to think that. I don't plan on spending anywhere near $3k initally, but long term that is a possibility. Given that, I probably should be considering a better body...that's part of the readon why I posted the D70 link later.

Dave's second post implies that the $180-$200 savings on a D50 may be a good choice. This tells me he may not be spending $3k to $5k on future purchases, but merely looking to get something great to get a nice picture with. Most folks who drop $3k on a lense could not care less about $200.

I have no aspirations of being a "pro"...just a good amateur photographer. But I can see myself spending a couple grand in lenses.

I should have stated my budget a bit clearer though. I'd like to keep the camera body under $1000 and the lenses, kit and zoom (70-300), to around $600.

[Wizardvette]

You were probably right to think that. I don't plan on spending anywhere near $3k initally, but long term that is a possibility. Given that, I probably should be considering a better body...that's part of the readon why I posted the D70 link later.

well, my original opinion still stands. I do not know a thing about Canon...I like my D50...new with 18-55 lens for $740....I picked up my Nikkor 70-300 glass used for $245. I then grabbed a 1gb and a 512mb card. So total investment, maybe a tick over $1k. Good luck, and good shooting! Post some results.

[NCGolfer]

I took some time this weekend to look a little more at the Canons. I had been focusing a little more on the Nikons at first.

While the Canon Rebel body is more expensive, the variety of lenses Canon offers seem to be a little better. If you compare the IS series of lenses for the Canon against the VR for Nikon, they both have similar lenses in the 24-120 range but Nikon does not carry one in the 70-300 range like Canon does. I'd be curious to see the performance of both lenses.

[NCGolfer]

I took some time this weekend to look a little more at the Canons. I had been focusing a little more on the Nikons at first.

While the Canon Rebel body is more expensive, the variety of lenses Canon offers seem to be a little better. If you compare the IS series of lenses for the Canon against the VR for Nikon, they both have similar lenses in the 24-120 range but Nikon does not carry one in the 70-300 range like Canon does. I'd be curious to see the performance of both lenses. I don't know if I'll need an IS or VR in that range because I may not be doing much telephoto 'action' shots...you never know.

Canon also is offering some nice rebates as well (buy a camera body and lens, rebates are doubled...tripled if you buy two lenses). If I decide on Canon, that may be a factor as well.