Canon or Nikon?

[SoKalKyle]

I am looking to buy my first digital SLR after using Minolta 35mm and Kodak point-and-shoot 3MP. I guess I am an advanced amateur but I still do photography as a hobby. I want good family/friend photos plus good photos to use as artwork. I also re-work my photos in Photoshop -- a lot...

I know Nikon is great and have always wanted a good Nikon camera with lenses but could never afford them. Now I look at the new Canon Xsi and like it. I have a little experience with Canon lenses and have had no complaints.

But now that I have about $1000 to spend (plus or minus a couple hundred if necessary), I am torn. Is the Xsi worth it? Would I be better served going with a comparable Nikon? I really want a camera than will stay with me for quite a few years (hence the 12MP) and one that I add lenses and accessories to over the years.

I don't do a lot of manual mode photography and like the camera to do quite a bit automatically -- but I do want the control if I need it. A good autofocus capability is a must so I am concerned about the idea of lens based AF vs Camera-based.

Any thoughts? Too much info? Am I just going to have to buy a DSLR and hope for the best?

[LuisV]

OK... this is a classic question and you are going to get a multitude of answers and opinions that are typically based on "my gear is best" type responses. You made a fairly clear explination of you needs. The issue is that both Canon and Nikon have bodies that fall into the space you are looking at. In either case the products are excellent and you will be more than happy with the results. A few comments....

Autofocus. Lens based focus motor vs. cam driven (camera based) autofocus. This is only an issue if you are going to be looking to use a large number of legacy lenses. It is more of an issue with Nikon than Canon. Nikon's lens mount has not changed for almost 50 years so there are many lenses to experiment with. Is this an issue? Not really. If you mount a 50mm or 85mm prime to the camera, you will have to manually focus on a Nikon. Other than that, it will work. Since you will likely be working with a couple of zooms, that is not an issue. In short, don't overconcern yourself with this since, for the most part, the lenses you will be considering will likely be lens based focus.

12MP vs. 10MP. Contrary to most comments you will hear, there is no major difference between the two. 2 Million sounds like a great deal but in fact it is not. The mass retailer sales person will likely tell you that it is..... but from a practical standpoint, print quality is the same and you'll never be able to tell the difference.

Nikon vs. Canon. Like comapring Lamborgini and Ferrari. They are both world class cameras and you will be more than happy with your choice in either case.

Since you are deciding on a camera from scratch, ie. you have no major lens investment, you are free to choose whatever you like best. I would go to the local reatiler that carries both. eg. Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. and hold the cameras. Navigate the menus. See how the ergonomics of each works for you. Does it feel comfortable in your hands? Does it feel east to change the settings, etc.

Last thing, when you make the choice, realize there is more to the camera than the body. You are buying the lenses too. These will, in many cases, be with you longer. I have glass that I have owned with three bodies. Just keep in mind that the lenses you buy today may be with you for the next body. So sam thing here.... be happy with the way it feels to you. If you ever need to manually focus, how does that feel? How does the zoom feel? etc.

In the end, either camera will produce stunning results. Ignore the marketing hype b/c a great deal of what you see is just that.....hype. Also, be aware that most will tend to lean towards the camera they use. I tend to be more about the result than the camera. (I'm wierd that way) Some however, will make silly claims about another brand being bad. Lenses suck, blah, blah, blah. In the end it's a tool. Nobody asks a painter what brush he uses to make a painting....... why should it be any different with a camera. Get what works for you, not what looks best on paper or what some retail salesperson claims is best without ever shooting a shot beyond his backyard bar-b-que.

I am a Nikon shooter. IF you have any questions specific to the brand, I will gladly help. eg. question you have in terms of lenses etc.

[TheBaron]

Excellent advice and I'd like to agree with specifically:

"Since you are deciding on a camera from scratch, ie. you have no major lens investment, you are free to choose whatever you like best. I would go to the local reatiler that carries both. eg. Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. and hold the cameras. Navigate the menus. See how the ergonomics of each works for you. Does it feel comfortable in your hands? Does it feel east to change the settings, etc."

I started from fresh 3 years ago and was keen on buying a Canon 350D, I was all excited and hopped into the store to have a play, as an alternative they also showed me the Nikon D70. I left with the D70 not because of the features, the name, or anything else specific to the use of the camera but purely the weight, size and feel. I have large hands and the Canon was too small for me.

So get our there and make sure you hold the cameras to help with the final decision. Both Canon and Nikon are great.

[studio206]

i say get a digital back ^_^ or a good medium format camera ;-) both are way better than both anyway.

[savona]

I have to agree with Luis, most people will just bark about the camera they use. I actually have never used a Nikon DSLR for any length of time although I do have Nikon F1 film camera I used to use as a kid. I chose Canon because I had someone willing to let me borrow L lenses anytime I wanted.

head out to the nearest shop and hold both of them in your hand. The one thing I have heard is Canon is better at handling noise. So if you plan on doing low light shooting or high ISO action shots it MAY be something to consider.

Good luck and keep us informed!

[Adaptive]

Well now with the D300 and D3 and all future models Noise will no longer be a problem for Nikon. And with the price of the D300 just around the same as a used 5D I have a feeling there will be more and more Nikon people in the future.

I shoot canon but I have been eyeballing the Nikon D3 for a while...

I believe that Nikon is taking over. If you want alot of megapixels go with canon. They are the megapixel masters, but that's all canon kicks ass at right about now. But who really cares about how many megapixels your camera has, it's not going to help you make better photos... With Nikon I believe the images are more sharp and crisp because I think they have better glass. But Nikon is alot more expensive than Canon in all aspects. The canon 24-70 L can be purchased for about $1200 the Nikon equivalent is close to $2000!!! Actually I think the Nikon 70-200 VR is cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, if not cheaper it's the same price. So higher cost might not be a factor with all nikon stuff.

But I do know that Nikon cameras let you TWEAK things more so you don't have to do soo much post processing. Can do all kinds of color adjustments and contrast and saturation, all kinds of adjustments. Yeah you can adjust all that in canon bodies also but not to the extent you can with nikon. Jesus they even have built in Cropping and levels and all kinds a stuff. You can crop and adjust levels on images IN CAMERA! Not that that's a big deal or a necessity but it's a cool little feature. Also a cool feature that I just saw a few weeks ago with the D200. It has a built in wireless transmitter when you use the internal flash, so you can fire external flashes! To me that is really awesome!

If I could start over again I think I would go with Nikon. Maybe this winter when work slows down maybe I'll switch over. But then again.. maybe not.









Either way you decide. A camera's a camera, anything will take great images in the right hands...



=)

[LuisV]

We have to be careful with general statements like "If you want megapixels go with Canon" & "Nikon is more expensive than Canon in all aspects".... these are simply not true. It varies.... here's how.

The lens price comparison, for example. You are comparing a lens that was released 5 years ago for Canon to a lens released about 3 months ago for Nikon. When the first adopter rush comes down and production numbers increase, I assure you the price will drop to something more normalized. A proper comparison would have been with the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AFS that had been around before. Then the price delta would have benn far less. When you go into the mid-range lenses the prices are also pretty much the same for similar glass.

Body prices.... Entry level: Canon $799.... Nikon's $750. Mid Range: Canon $1300 to Nikon $1700. High end: High Speed Pro - Canon $4500 to Nikon $5000 (D3) High Res Pro: Canon $8000 (1Ds Mark II) to Nikon $5000 (D2X). The point..... it varies.

If we talk about the megapixels this also varies. In the high end the D3 is now a FF (I really can care less about that by the way) with 12MP. The new Canon 1D Mark III is a crop sensor 10MP body. Same consumer space, those are both high speed pro bodioes. The Nikon equivalent of the 1Ds Mark III 21mp has yet to be released. There will be a Nikon D3X. Move to the mid range "prosumer" (I hate labels....but it's just a name) bodies. The Nikon D300 is 12MP to Canon's 40D 10MP. Nikon does not make a low end pro body like the 5D, however, even that is a 12MP. It is when we get into the less costly space that Canon has the 12MP Rebel compared to Nikon's 10MP D60.

All this, however, is not something to focus on. These differences are truly irrelevant in terms of how one will use the camera. How comfortable you are with you body is the ultimate guage of how much you will use it which, in turn, will be a measure of how good of an investment it turns out to be.

[Cannibalized]

man this is the everlasting question. i think these days all of the newer slrs are so good that you can't lose. i use canon personally but have been seeing amazing clarity, focusing speed, and no noise from new nikons. but then again my camera is a 2003 model. so i dunno. personally i love canon, but i do hate some things about my camera.

[Adaptive]

man this is the everlasting question. i think these days all of the newer slrs are so good that you can't lose. i use canon personally but have been seeing amazing clarity, focusing speed, and no noise from new nikons. but then again my camera is a 2003 model. so i dunno. personally i love canon, but i do hate some things about my camera.

Yeah but that's the same with everyone. All nikon people hate some things about their cameras too. But now that the D300 and D3 is out I think nikon people are going to have less to gripe about.

I get to play with D300's and a D3 quite often actually and I never had a problem with them yet. And their owners never had any complaints yet, and I haven't read any thing bad about them yet either...

Actually one thing I don't like about the D300 is that if you don't want to shoot the large 12.3 megapixels filesize the next stop down is 6 megapixels..... That's just retarded. They should have made the next stop down in filesize to be 8 megapixels.. They basically cut it in half! With canon the filesize drop is not soo drastic I think. But hell this is not a big complaint compared to other things that could be wrong with these cameras. And I'm not a nikon guy so I don't even care.

[Adaptive]

We have to be careful with general statements like "If you want megapixels go with Canon" & "Nikon is more expensive than Canon in all aspects".... these are simply not true. It varies.... here's how.

The lens price comparison, for example. You are comparing a lens that was released 5 years ago for Canon to a lens released about 3 months ago for Nikon. When the first adopter rush comes down and production numbers increase, I assure you the price will drop to something more normalized. A proper comparison would have been with the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AFS that had been around before. Then the price delta would have benn far less. When you go into the mid-range lenses the prices are also pretty much the same for similar glass.

Body prices.... Entry level: Canon $799.... Nikon's $750. Mid Range: Canon $1300 to Nikon $1700. High end: High Speed Pro - Canon $4500 to Nikon $5000 (D3) High Res Pro: Canon $8000 (1Ds Mark II) to Nikon $5000 (D2X). The point..... it varies.

If we talk about the megapixels this also varies. In the high end the D3 is now a FF (I really can care less about that by the way) with 12MP. The new Canon 1D Mark III is a crop sensor 10MP body. Same consumer space, those are both high speed pro bodioes. The Nikon equivalent of the 1Ds Mark III 21mp has yet to be released. There will be a Nikon D3X. Move to the mid range "prosumer" (I hate labels....but it's just a name) bodies. The Nikon D300 is 12MP to Canon's 40D 10MP. Nikon does not make a low end pro body like the 5D, however, even that is a 12MP. It is when we get into the less costly space that Canon has the 12MP Rebel compared to Nikon's 10MP D60.

All this, however, is not something to focus on. These differences are truly irrelevant in terms of how one will use the camera. How comfortable you are with you body is the ultimate guage of how much you will use it which, in turn, will be a measure of how good of an investment it turns out to be.

I don't care what you and everyone else says. The D300 is not the equivalent of the 40D, and the D200 is not the equivalent of the 30D. In both of these comparisons Nikon is way better than both canon bodies 100% hands down. The ONLY REASON they are considered to be in the same arena is because of the price......

In reality the D300 is comparable to the 1Dmark3. Both came out at about the same time, both have comparable filesize (of corse D300 is larger). Both have life view and lots of new features, yadda yadda yadda.

And the D3 is comparable to the 1DSmark3. Both came out at the same time, both are each camera manufacturer's flagship camera bodies, both are full frame, both have the best of the best.

Who cares about price... That is a retarded way to compare cameras........ I don't know why everyone does that..


I don't know about any D3X or D3N. If these are even in the works I doulbt they will come out until at least a few years. The D300 and D3 is kicking enough a$$ as it is, releasing new bodies will just make the dynamic duo loose their steam. Not to mention the 6 month $1000+ price drop that happened with the D2Xs when the D300 came out. Don't think Nikon wants that to happen to the D300 or D3 anytime soon...