Flynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3356 times:
I've narrowed my choices for cameras down to these two. I like the Canon model due to its self-cleaning system, which the Nikon lacks. I like the Nikon due to its similar specs and its bigger size, which makes for a better grip.
Which would you recommend? This will be my first digital SLR.
I did read similar articles but didn't find one comparing these two models.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
I would gather that in the hands of a decent photog both would provide similar images, so it comes down your personal preference. With the exception of the 80-400 VR, as compared to the 100-400IS, Nikon lenses are equal or better to Canon, so again it comes down to preference.
I am a Nikon guy. If Canon would have had D60s available when I bought my first DLSR back in the Fall of '02 I would be a Canon guy.
It comes down to price and availability. With more Canon users it might be easier to score things like used lenses at better prices, since there are more of them, but all I have is anecdotal proof.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3320 times:
At this point, like Royal said, it all comes down to personal preference. As a new shooter you have a fresh start so you can choose which camp you are joining. When I was looking for my DSLR I was looking for a Nikon but after talking with the guys at the store I went for Canon.
400D and D80 will give you same results, they're both fine cameras.
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3293 times:
Try to spend some time using each one if you can - rent from the store or borrow from a friend. I went with Nikon for the ergonomics and usability. While Nikon's menues etc made sense to me, Canon might work better for you. If you don't enjoy using the camera you buy, you won't use it anywhere near as much.
Both Nikons and Canons take great pictures and there are tons of accessories, brand name and aftermarket, for both brands. I'm partial to Nikon lenses and must say the 70-200 AFS f2.8 is one of the best lenses I've ever used (I used to shoot Contax/Carl Zeiss and still shoot Pentax 645).
One thing to consider is that Nikon is aggressively going after market share, so you can get their lenses for very good deals if you look around.
Although I am a Canon user I have to agree with Chris.
Had to clean both a 300D and a 400D yesterday and found the 400 surprisingly small, it's made for woman hands I would say.
The owner is a woman so it makes sense she preferred it over the 300
If you choose for the 400 take the battery grip along with it, guess that will make it easier to use.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3287 times:
I am a NEW owner of a D80, and new to 'real' photography as well.
From what I have seen; it seems like the kid (myself); has gotten a hold of a new Lamborghini and a driver's license at the same time. In Auto mode you can get some ok shots, but be prepared!! For as the same is true of all digital cameras: If you run a low screen resolution like 1024X768, and look at the NEF image at the full 3K resolution, the shot looks like crap. Remember while the camera does generate the image in the first place, it's post production that's going to be a real big deal. If you are like me and are not able to invest the time in learning post production be aware.
I say get the D80, but only becuse I own it, think it kicks ASS, and don't know well enough about the 400D.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3282 times:
Both bodies mentioned are begginer level bodies. Either will work well enough for gettign a simple airplane picture on Anet. That is not so hard to do, and shouldn't be the reason you purchase a camera system.
When it comes to lenses, just check out the sidelines, basline, or dug out of any professional sporting event.
Good choice. I think you will love it. The small size doesn't bother me at all, but then again I have no other experience with SLR cameras. The relatively small size is actually one of the points that sold me on this camera. Just spent a few days in Vegas and I had no problems carrying it with me everywhere I went on the strip. Anything bigger, and it might become annoying.
Quoting Flynavy (Reply 9): As for the "simple airplane picture," it would appear it does quite WELL!
It indeed does do quite well for "simple airplane pictures". Even with the basic kit lense.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
I would actually say that the other way round. There really isn't much in it but Canon certainly offer a larger range of lenses, and theirs tend to be 'faster' than the Nikons. That said, I believe Nikon offer a better budget range - a lot of Canon's lenses are mega-bucks!
I'd say picture quality would be more-or-less equal but Canons do tend to perform slightly better at high ISOs. A plus for the Nikon is its excellent build quality - I must admit the Canon entry-level DSLRs do feel a bit plasticy.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 8): When it comes to lenses, just check out the sidelines, basline, or dug out of any professional sporting event.
Tell me what color the lenses are.
Wouldn't be grey, would it?
Here in the UK, every lens at every major football (soccer for our friends across the pond) match is a grey Canon L series. Seems like Canons are the choice of pro's when it comes to action photography.
A French Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and 1D Mark II N owner I met at Luton last November told me that he likes the D2Xs more than the 1D for action photography because of Nikon's faster autofocus. This is the reason I don't understand why you see loads of 300 f/2.8L IS's and 400 f/2.8L IS's at the baseline instead of 300 f/2.8 VR's and 400 f/2.8 VR's (the Nikkors are VR's, aren't they?).
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4939 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3193 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 16): This is the reason I don't understand why you see loads of 300 f/2.8L IS's and 400 f/2.8L IS's at the baseline instead of 300 f/2.8 VR's and 400 f/2.8 VR's (the Nikkors are VR's, aren't they?).
I guess if the Nikons really were superior they'd be the ones you'd see at football matches.....
I very much doubt the sports pro's have got it all wrong.
So I believe, Nikons are better studio cameras. At the end of the day, you can't go wrong with a Nikon or a Canon - simple as that. I own Canon but it could quite easily have been the other way round. If it weren't for the fact that I have Canon L glass I would certainly put my faith in, and consider buying, a Nikon.
In all honesty, I reckon the D80 is actually a better camera than the 400D, however it's the huge range of lenses available for the Canon that'd sway me.