Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 820 times:
Really there's not a lot between Nikon and Canon at any given price point. The only real advantage I can see to going Canon is the range of image stabalisation lenses available (Nikon only has one at present). That aside, I would go for the model that feels most comfortable in handling.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 812 times:
Hmmm... that depends on the particular lens. Generally, the very BEST optics are manufactured by both Nikon & Canon, and these are superior to anything made by Sigma, Tokina, Tamron - but we're talking about the very expensive optics here, lenses costing well over your entire budget. For the lower end stuff (like your 70-210mm, 70-300mm etc.) it's a bit nip and tuck. That is to say, certain 3rd party (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) lenses are superior in optical quality to their Nikon/Canon equivalents, and in other cases, the main manufacturers win out. Canon have a certain handling advantage though, in that many of their lenses use USM focusing mechanisms (which is near silent, and faster than conventional autofocus lenses). Nikon offer that on only a few very expensive lenses, as do Sigma (Nikon's version is called AF-S, Sigma's is called HSM).
$1000 would probably just about buy you a Canon EOS 30 (or 33 - the only difference is whether or not you want eye-controlled focusing), and Canon's 75-300 with Image Stabiliser. (I don't know what the US equivalent name of this camera is, I THINK it's the Elan 7 (anyone help me out here?)) If you buy the non-IS version of this lens, you'll save yourself $300. If you would prefer to go the Nikon route, you'll be looking at the F80 (N80), and probably Nikon's 70-300. Each way has its own advantages and disadvantages, but the best advice (as Colin suggested) would be to go into a local camera store, and try out the cameras to see which one you prefer before choosing.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 806 times:
I can tell you without hesitation that the CAnon lenses are the best there is- the selection of em in IS blows Nikons selection away and blows every other manufacturer even further. Go to any baseball game here in the US and you'll see most of the pro photogs using Canon equipment, especially the large IS lenses.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 780 times:
Joe, have you used ALL other lenses to be able to say that?
If not, please be more specific, this is not a N vs. C war you know.
Sigma HSM is available on many of their lenses, not just the most expensive ones (but of course more frequently on those, as with Canon's USM).
The best advice is indeed to try the cameras you think fit your budget. Hold them with the lens attached, check if you can reach all the important controls easily and if it is well-balanced.
Bernieh From Austria, joined Sep 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 768 times:
It is up to you which system (Canon or Nikon) meets your expectations. You will have to find out what the pro and cons of each manufacturer are. And another thing to focus on is the speed of a lens. Sure, the faster one is the higher the price, but they also offer you hight quality images then.
Just for information the following address gives you some tests of Nikon cameras and lenses: http://www.imagepower.de.
Gabo Ramirez From Mexico, joined May 2001, 41 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 761 times:
The best camera that you can get is a Nikon, I use a Minolta QTSi with Minolta lens 75-300mm and really im agree with my camera, the lens and the camera could cost you in 500usd, I would like a Nikon N65 but I when Im become a attorney i will got it, but Minolta SLR´s are so cool.
Regards
Gabo Ramirez
Aviation Photography of Mexico
"The aviation specialist at latin America"
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 741 times:
Gabo - I think to say Nikon are the best is a gross generalistation. Nikon are AMONG the best, but certainly Canon, Leica and Contax also make superb equipment. The best camera is the one that works best for you ... as an aside does anyone work in medium format here? I'm sure Mr Hasselblad would be in contention for the "best" camera!
Jan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 730 times:
>as an aside does anyone work in medium format here?<
I had a Hasselblad a while ago, the quality was mindblowing! I'm pondering, maybe I'll get a Mamiya 645.
Can't stop longing back to the quality of those big slides!
/JM
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 728 times:
Don't let Joe fool you, while Canon has very good quality glass, it's far from "the best there is and blowing every other manfacturer away" Remember, Canon puts out a lot of consumer crap lenses just like other guys. Take the same shot with a Canon 70-200/f2.8, Nikon 80-200/f2.8, Pentax 80-200/f2.8, Minolta 70-200/f2.8 with the exact same exposure and I'd give you $100 if you could tell the difference between any of 'em. You can't.
Hey Joe, wonder what the Nat'l G. photogs mostly use?? Looks like Nikon to me.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 722 times:
Mike is right - 99 times out of 100 you would not be able to tell the difference between pics taken with any of the top makes - or perhaps even some 3rd party lenses. But this doesn't mean they're all the same - different lens coatings mean different (not necessarily better or worse) responses in, say, conditions which might induce flare. There may be variations in performance at different apertures - for example, a given Canon lens may beat a Nikon wide open, but the same Nikon lens outperform the Canon stopped down.
And there is autofocus ... manufacturers will trade off speed for accuracy and vice-versa.
OK, National Geographic may use Nikon, but check out any major sporting event, and I think you'll find those big white Canon lenses outnumbering everything else.
Bottom line - you need to know what YOU want in a camera, then find the make whihc best suits.
Bernieh From Austria, joined Sep 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 715 times:
Colin's right. You should take the camera you prefer. Sure, there are always some differences between the C and N photographers defending their system that is not really useful as both systems are quite good - I think. But I'd advice you not to buy used items because recently I made the experience that an AF lens I've bought turned a MF lens ...
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 688 times:
I'm using the Canon EOS 30 just for one week, with the 75-300 USM IS. The lens is very very good and the IS makes wonders under low light conditions. Here's an example with that lens, not using the IS:
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 685 times:
OK, National Geographic may use Nikon, but check out any major sporting event, and I think you'll find those big white Canon lenses outnumbering everything else.
Don't be fooled Colin, a lot of those "white" lenses can and might just be Nikon "grey" lenses. Nikon isn't just black anymore...
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 679 times:
Well, since most press photos from sporting events end up being printed on so-so quality paper (weekly magazines and newspapers) anyway, I suppose Canon will suffice.
Compare that with the high quality printing of National Geographic and you'll see why only Nikon takes the worlds greatest pictures!!
'949
25 Jwenting: Also a lot of 3rd party lenses are now white or grey (or bare metal look like mine). I've also heard stories of people painting their lenses white to
26 Bernieh: Nikon has established the grey lenses just a few years ago. I do not know the differences between Canon's grey and black lenses but Nikon's grey lense
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, 
From Austria, joined Sep 2001, 89 posts, 
From Mexico, joined May 2001, 41 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jan 2000, 435 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
