Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon Or NIKON.  
User currently offlineGF777 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6731 times:

Hi all

I am planning to buy a new camera and I need an advice from the users. I need to know which brand is better Canon or Nikon, and which model. it is for personal use as I am not a pro.
and what does the auto-focus motor mean, any of the cameras below has it.

and if there is any one has used the Nikon D700, D5000, Canon EOS 50D or Canon EOS 5D Mark II, please comment.

Thanks in advance

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6728 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

If you have friends who own nice lenses, buy whatever brand they use so you can borrow their lenses.  yes 

Otherwise, go to the store, play around with one of each, and base your judgment on how well they fit your hand and how intuitive you find the controls and menus.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineJFK380 From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

I dont own one, but I've used a 50D a couple times. its exceptional quality and ease of use astonished me and I really loved using it. Now, i have a healthy array of lenses and I have used both and as with the poster above me, its preference. I know around here, some stores allow you to rent camera's for days/weekends and at time and all I can tell you is to try it out. Both have similair user interfaces but still the best option is to try the camera in the store, and if you have the ability, in the field.

User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6715 times:

Quoting GF777 (Thread starter):

and if there is any one has used the Nikon D700, D5000, Canon EOS 50D or Canon EOS 5D Mark II, please comment.

Basically, the 35mm DSLR cameras have a big advantage over the 24x16mm DSLR cameras. Once you've used a 35mm, you won't go back.

I have the D700 - it is a superb camera. You'll love the ability to use ISO800 or more in low light. It really does work. If you add the MB-D10 battery pack and the EN-EL4 type battery - it'll work even faster.

The D700 is superbly built, rugged and easy to operate. All the important functions are assigned to buttons or toggle switches, rather than being buried away in menus. As they all say, it's a miniature D3 at a much more friendly price.

One other benefit is that lenses designed for 35mm format cameras work properly. IE, a 300mm works like a 300mm - not with annoying crop-factors. A 300mm lens suddenly becomes very useful for most situations.

Also - if you have two pro-level bodies (eg, D2x, D3, D3x, D700, D300) you can join NPS which introduces a whole host of other benefits - not least, being able to borrow a lens from Nikon in emergencies. While it might not be a concern for someone starting out - if you decide to go "pro" later on, you'll be rewarded.

Going from a D80 to a D700 - I found that the change was easy, and that it is easier to take photos with the D700, simply because it just works so well in all conditions. You see the difference when it gets darker - the people with their 40D's and other non-35mm cameras struggle.

[Edited 2009-04-24 23:38:47]

User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6690 times:

If you have the cash, the 5D mk II would be my choice. But the money's better spent on good lenses. And since you're not a pro, it might be better going for a cheaper and possibly lighter camera. I'm happy with my 400D - it provides decent enough pictures but the lens makes a big difference.


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6681 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 4):
possibly lighter camera.

I don't think that is a benefit to be honest - especially when hanging a possibly big and heavy lens off the front of it.

I'd agree on the 5D Mk. 2 - that's a superb camera. I had a chance to look at one recently - beautiful bit of equipment. Competitive price too.

I wouldn't choose it over my D700 because I'm stuck in the F-mount system, but starting out, both the 5D2 and D700 are great choices if you have the money.

[Edited 2009-04-25 00:59:10]

User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6645 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 5):
I don't think that is a benefit to be honest - especially when hanging a possibly big and heavy lens off the front of it.

I guess so but it depends if you actually get that good heavy lens or not.

I heard from my friend that Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon? This could be a point for some..



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4810 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 4):
If you have the cash, the 5D mk II would be my choice.



Quoting Cpd (Reply 5):
I'd agree on the 5D Mk. 2 - that's a superb camera. I had a chance to look at one recently - beautiful bit of equipment. Competitive price too.

I wouldn't choose it over my D700 because I'm stuck in the F-mount system, but starting out, both the 5D2 and D700 are great choices if you have the money.

I realize the OP brought these up first so that's probably why we are seeing recomendations for such high end camera bodies...but damn. For someone that is not a pro and is apparently starting out, that is some serious hardware to be recomending. Yes it would be nice to be able to afford even the 5D Mk II, but for the price of that body only, one can build a nice kit that includes some good glass. To put things in perspective, I just recently upgraded to a Canon 40D and I added the 100-400L to my arsenal of lenses. Those two combined don't add up to the price of the 5D Mk II body only.

The OP would be better off, in my opinion, whether they choose Nikon or Canon (or even other brands like Sony) choosing an entry to mid-level DSLR and spend the money saved on some decent glass. Most will tell you that the quality of lenses is more important than the camera body. Plus most high-end lenses are compatable with most camera bodies of the same brand so your lenses can survive a future body upgrade. For example, my Canon 100-400 works on my 400D, my 40D and would still work for me if I upgrade to the 5D someday, and so on. Therefore I consider my lenses to be quite valuable.

What lead me to the decision to go with Canon over Nikon when I started was the affordability of the Rebel series and the vast selection of lenses that Canon offers.

[Edited 2009-04-25 03:38:30]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6623 times:

If you've got the money to spend - you might as well. I think that even a beginner (who has the money to spend) would have no problems starting with a 5D Mk.2 or a D700. The D700 is simplicity - very easy to use, and the fact that it works so well might even help the beginner.

In this economic climate, the author of the message may well be able to arm-twist a camera dealer into giving a very good deal on a bundled package. I was able to do that when I got the D700 - they threw in compact flash cards. I already had some lenses that will work fine, but I also had a couple of smaller length DX format lenses that are no longer very useful. They can be used - but with a penalty.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
I heard from my friend that Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon? This could be a point for some..

Your friend was right. The really good Nikkor lenses are expensive. But the typical spotter's choices (the 80-400 and the 100-400) are near enough to each other in price. Avoiding those - the fixed prime lenses at 300mm from both companies are much cheaper, lighter and tend to be sharper -as long as you can live with the fixed focal length.

Quoting GF777 (Thread starter):
what does the auto-focus motor mean, any of the cameras below has it.

The D5000 doesn't seem to have one - so that will rule out autofocus on older Nikkor lenses.
D700, D300, D90, D3, D3x have it - and 50D / 5D2 will also have it.

The inbuilt autofocus motor is used for focusing lenses that don't have their own motors for focusing (eg, SWM, USM).

If you didn't want to go to such an expensive camera as the 5D2 or D700, why not look at the D300. It is also very capable (a lot cheaper too).

[Edited 2009-04-25 04:59:22]

User currently offlineCvervais From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6550 times:

You might want to consider a 5D MK1 body. Now that the MK2 is out a lot of people are dumping their MK1's onto the market for really good prices. I picked one up this was as a upgrade to my 30D and I could not be happier with the decision.

User currently offlineGF777 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6414 times:

Thank you all for your replies, but I still have few more questions,

I decided to go for the D5000, I know it is new in the market and we don't have it in the Arabian Gulf yet, so if anyone has got it, it would be helpful if I get some feedback as all the information I got it was from Nikon website.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 8):
The inbuilt autofocus motor is used for focusing lenses that don't have their own motors for focusing (eg, SWM, USM).

For D500 which does not have built in auto-focus motor, would it be as fast as if there was a built in auto-fous motor?

Quoting Cpd (Reply 8):
Your friend was right. The really good Nikkor lenses are expensive. But the typical spotter's choices (the 80-400 and the 100-400) are near enough to each other in price. Avoiding those - the fixed prime lenses at 300mm from both companies are much cheaper, lighter and tend to be sharper -as long as you can live with the fixed focal length.

What could be a good landscape or spotter lense with good zoom with a good cost?

Thanks again


GF777


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6396 times:

I really would avoid the Nikon D5000 until sufficient reviewing has been done. It's price and inability to use some lenses would really put me off! It may well prove ultimately to be a great camera but while its new and costly I'd look elsewhere at the tried-and-tested models. The netry-level Canons are very highly recommended.

Karl


User currently offlineGF777 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6130 times:

has anyone got the Nikon D5000 yet?
i know it is still new


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

I would highly recommend the Canon EOS 50D . It has an excellent sensor at 15 MP and you still have the 1.6 crop factor. I've been using the 50D for less than two months now for my sports photography and I am very pleased with it.

[Edited 2009-05-08 03:26:16]


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is always the third option - Sony!  Wink We have Minolta heritage and fantastic optics, as well as antishake on every lens.


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineChase From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6057 times:

I agree with Silver1SWA - the OP should buy a lower-end DSLR, perhaps with some nice glass, and then upgrade the body when he/she is ready to.

I recently bought the Canon 450D. Things that contributed to my decision to buy that versus a Nikon D40/D60/D80 or a Canon 350D/400D or a Sony A200/A300 included: FPS, LCD size, ISO range, spot metering, and the existence of a port for a WIRED remote. (Wireless remotes have their role, certainly, but I like taking loooooong exposure pictures so needed something that could lock the shutter open).

I was, however, very tempted to go the Nikon route because their onscreen interface is much more intuitive for the non-expert. However, the recently-announced Canon 500D does much better in that respect than its predecessors. The 500D also can do video, unlike other entry-level DSLRs. The 450D and 500D also have "live view" and the 500D has face recognition, but there are many who will say that a "real photographer" won't care about these features. The 500D has an absolutely killer ISO range.

The 400D is actually a newer model than the 450D, but the 400D only has a 12-bit ADC, which really scared me off of that model.

If I were buying my first DSLR in the next month, I'd get the 500D...although N vs C would be a tougher decision for me if I weren't into long exposures.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6044 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Chase (Reply 15):
The 400D is actually a newer model than the 450D, but the 400D only has a 12-bit ADC, which really scared me off of that model.

I have been shooting digital cameras since 1994 and I don't even know what that means.

These threads are funny, arguing camera specs.

Buy a cheap DSLR and take some photography classes. You can always spend more money later.

If I were buying my first DSLR in the next month, I'd get the 500D...although N vs C would be a tougher decision for me if I weren't into long exposures.

Can Nikon's not handle long exposures? Here is a 7-minute shot I did with an "ancient" D200:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/royalscottking/2853698628/

[Edited 2009-05-08 08:11:15]

User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6035 times:

I'd probably get a second hand Canon 30D or something similar, if I was starting out again.
Spence.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6032 times:

I agree with Royal. Any starter DSLR will be sufficient with which to learn the ropes, although I'd personally recommend Canon or Nikon as they both have a fantastic range of accessories.

I would however steer clear of Nikon's budget range due to the compatibility issue. Canon's entry-levels are spot on, but I will admit that the medium and high-end bodies from Nikon (D70 and up) are better built and perhaps offer more than those from Canon. Canon's strength lies in it lens line-up.

Karl


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2898 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6031 times:



Quoting Chase (Reply 15):
The 400D is actually a newer model than the 450D,

?? must be a typo I guess.

Does anybody have any experience with the 500D already? I have the 400D and like it, but in a year or two I might upgrade to the 500D (or the 550D if it exists already by then).



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 16):
I have been shooting digital cameras since 1994 and I don't even know what that means.

It means he's looking for a camera that has a 14 bit Analog to digital converter (or one capable of a 14 bit readout mode). It is only useful in the case of people making stupidly large prints where banding can be an issue. It essentially means more discrete levels between tones.

Only a very few cameras today (1Ds, D3/700, D3/x) have 14 bit readout modes and they make a massive performance hit when using them. But if you're doing landscape sorts of stuff where you're making very large prints, the extra tone levels can help keep banding at bay.

It won't really do much for him, though. Some cameras do have 14 or 16 bit ADCs that readout to 12 bits, but these haven't really shown any kind of improvement. You need to read out into the higher bit depth to really get any difference.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineChase From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5833 times:



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 16):
I have been shooting digital cameras since 1994 and I don't even know what that means.

"ADC" = "Analog to Digital converter". In other words, how many distinct shades of red, green, and blue the camera can discern. 12 bits = 4096 shades of each, 14 bits = 16384 shades of each. My concern is that a camera with a 12-bit ADC would display more noticable banding, rather than a smooth gradient, as compared to one with a 14-bit ADC.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 16):
Can Nikon's not handle long exposures? Here is a 7-minute shot I did with an "ancient" D200:

I was referring only to the entry-level range, in other words the Canon Rebel line and the Nikon Dxx models. I agree that a mid- or high-level Nikon can certainly do long exposures, as you mentioned.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 19):
Quoting Chase (Reply 15):
The 400D is actually a newer model than the 450D,

?? must be a typo I guess.

My bad - I did have my model numbers wrong. The model that is newer than the 450D (XSi), but yet offers slightly less functionality, is the 1000D (XS), not the 400D (XTi).


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5782 times:



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 20):
Only a very few cameras today (1Ds, D3/700, D3/x) have 14 bit readout modes and they make a massive performance hit when using them

Mmmm sorry its only the Nikons which take the performance hit in 14Bit mode.
The 1Dsmk3 still shoots at 5FPS in full 14Bit. Buffer unaltered.
D3x i think loses like 60% of it its FPS when shooting at max quality getting i think down from 5FPS to a blazing 2FPS.



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offline03SVTCobra From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

Check out http://www.bestbuy.com

They have Nikon D200 bodies for $599. I payed that for my D60 a year ago. Although the D200 uses the same sensor (for the most part) it has the 11 pt Autofocus system which is always good for faster than average objects (such as aircraft).

Order up a D200, a cheap 18-55 or 18-70mm Nikkor lens for "around the house" photography and throw a Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR ED in with it and you're looking at a $1500 - $1800 package.

Better yet hit Ebay and look for a used D80 as well as the lenses mentioned above and you'll be well on your way.

Oh and if you couldn't tell I'm a "Nikonian" for sure.

But Canon still makes a good Camera. In this day and age if you're still in business, you're doing something right.


User currently offlineGF777 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Has anyone got the Nikon D5000 yet? I guess this is the one for me, I need some feedback please.

cheers

Ahmed


25 Alberto Riva : Was at Adorama today to pick up a lens and they had a 5000 on the sales floor. Played around with it a bit and it looks like a winner. I didn't try t
26 Post contains links BuyantUkhaa : Try this: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond5000/
27 GF777 : thanks Alberto Riva, I'll take your advice in consideration " target=_blank>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nik...5000/ thanks BuyantUkhaa but this P
28 Post contains images KirkSeattle : I was following the thread since I was ready for the next step in my hobby as an amatuer photographer. I really appreciate everyone who gave input ab
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon Digital Rebel XT Or Nikon D40? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 20:04:28 by A380fo
Canon EOS30D, Nikon D80, Or What? posted Tue Jun 19 2007 11:15:58 by Leskova
Canon 400D Or Nikon D40X For Plane Pics? posted Mon Apr 2 2007 13:26:55 by Simon Cooper
Canon 300D Or Nikon D70? posted Fri Nov 5 2004 12:25:31 by LifelinerOne
Digital SLR, Canon EOS300D Or Nikon D70? posted Wed Jun 30 2004 00:07:03 by NEXtime
Canon 300D Or Nikon D70 posted Tue Apr 27 2004 05:03:44 by Wannabe
Canon D60 Or Nikon D100, Which One? posted Thu Apr 11 2002 17:26:38 by AKE0404AR
MS RAW Or Nikon Viewer For WXP64 Bits? posted Thu Jul 17 2008 20:24:10 by Ghost77
Canon VS Nikon posted Thu Aug 23 2007 21:57:21 by Planetime
Which To Buy? Sony Alph Or Nikon D70S posted Tue Apr 3 2007 23:55:20 by An225