iamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
I think the 50D still costs a bit more. Image quality shouldn't be radically different. The 50D is physically larger and has a few more external controls.
There's not a huge amount to differentiate them. What's important to you? Have you handled them both to get a feel for whether one feels more natural or more intuitive to you? Do you have an idea what lenses you will want? Nikon and Canon have similar, but not identical lens lineups.
FYI, rumors are flying that the D90 replacement is expected to be announced, possibly next week. It should be very comparable to the 50D in terms of overall design, but obviously have a newer sensor. It might actually end up slightly nicer than the 60D, since Canon seems to have pushed the XXD line down towards the consumer end a little bit. Price should be $1200 (US) for the body only, although I know UK prices are wildly different.
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4038 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
My opinion would be that the 50D is more of a "prosumer" camera, while the D90 is an amatuer camera. That is not to say that one camera is better image quality-wise over the other, but I would say the 50D is built to a more robust standard, with more advanced features.
zbot69 From Hong Kong, joined May 2009, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4019 times:
I lost in faith in Canon after becoming sick and tired of the problems with my 40D, and I don't relish the prospect of purchasing another Error 99 machine that can't shoot above 125 ISO. That said... I've seen some Nikon lenses take a thorough trashing in similar threads, so I'd be interested in hearing some views either way. At this point my bias is in favor of Nikon, but I'm at a loss what lenses to match up with it.
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4012 times:
Quoting zbot69 (Reply 3): I've seen some Nikon lenses take a thorough trashing in similar threads, so I'd be interested in hearing some views either way. At this point my bias is in favor of Nikon, but I'm at a loss what lenses to match up with it.
Don't know what you are referring to - I'm thoroughly happy with the results of even the modestly priced Nikon lenses I have (300mm F/4). And even the kit-lens I had on my old D80 - the 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6G ED provided great results every time I used it, even opened up to F/5.6.
Nikon does have some poor lenses, but they have more than enough good ones too. Look beyond the obvious 'spotters' lenses like 80-400mm and investigate lenses like 300mm F/4.0 for a reasonably priced and rather pleasant surprise. I think a D90 with a 300mm F/4.0 will give superb results.
I don't see much difference between D90 and Canon 50D. Canon has more megapixels and is maybe more rugged -but otherwise both are excellent cameras.
zbot69 From Hong Kong, joined May 2009, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3939 times:
Quoting cpd (Reply 7): Now that I've remembered it - I'd suggest to hold off on buying a Nikon D90 at the moment. The replacement should be announced next week.
I don't know... that actually seems like a more compelling argument to act now. I had a chance to use a friend's D90 and it frankly blew me away. The noise handling on the Nikon was impressive; then again I apparently had a defective 40D that was incapable of low noise performance at all. I also shot with a 1D Mk II, but I was surprised how badly the AF was in low light. The real area where the Canons excelled vis-a-vis the D90 was frame-rate. Goes without saying that the 1D was phenomenal. Covered some local events and you hardly miss a thing at 8-some fps. Come to think of it, the low frame rate on the D90 would be the only drawback I can think of. If a D90 successor had a higher frame rate, maybe that would be a reason to hold out a bit longer, but other than that, I can't think of anything. And the 12mp is more than adequate for my photography needs.
Sigh...... "better" is not the question you have to ask yourself.
"Better" is relative to your needs(and your budget).
So what do you "need" is the question you have to answer.
If the answer is big prints the 50D is probably the better option, if you don't the D90 probably is.
The D90 is pretty forgiving with (relative)cheap glass, the 50D not so much.
If you have the budget for L glass(or EX sigma) the 50D will suite you fine, if not it's a waste of money.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
I've said it here before and I will say it again. If I had to start all over again, I would choose Nikon and start with the D90. A friend owns one and I am always amazed at how incredibly clean and vibrant the images are. The IQ, even with the mediocre lenses he owns often has me quite jealous. The D90 is a sweet camera from what I can tell.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3776 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11): If I had to start all over again, I would choose Nikon and start with the D90. A friend owns one and I am always amazed at how incredibly clean and vibrant the images are. The IQ, even with the mediocre lenses he owns often has me quite jealous. The D90 is a sweet camera from what I can tell.
Ryan as a member of Nikon nation I can say we will welcome you aboard with open arms! Craiglist, ebay come one you can move that Canon and get with the program. Hell even Royal may attend the party!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3764 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 12): Ryan as a member of Nikon nation I can say we will welcome you aboard with open arms! Craiglist, ebay come one you can move that Canon and get with the program. Hell even Royal may attend the party!
Ah, but I said if I had to start over again. Thankfully I have no need to start over. (knock on wood)
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
zbot69 From Hong Kong, joined May 2009, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11): I've said it here before and I will say it again. If I had to start all over again, I would choose Nikon and start with the D90.
Just curious Ryan, and if you had... what lenses would you have gotten for it? I recently did just that... I sold off all my Canon gear and am switching to Nikon. After 6 trips to the Canon Service Center I'm calling it quits. It's very nice to be on a first name basis with the wonderful ladies at the TST service center, but I can think of cheaper ways of meeting women than buying defective camera gear.
zbot69 From Hong Kong, joined May 2009, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3733 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 15): First piece of glass you need is the 80-200 2.8.
Thanks Nick. Yeah, I'm kinda leaning in that direction. I'm still undecided on whether to pair the 80-200 with the 300 prime or gamble on the 70-300 VR. It's nice to have better quality glass on the 200 and 300 end, but the gap in the middle will be sorely missed. Not to mention the thought of carrying both lenses, and/or ultimately getting a second body to go along with them. It's all good though. No matter which way I end up going, I look forward to it. As I said before, I was really blown away by the D90's performance on our walk around. Especially considering it's marketed as a consumer camera. Certainly delivers professional results. And the prices at the moment are eye-popping.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 9): If you have the budget for L glass(or EX sigma) the 50D will suite you fine, if not it's a waste of money
That is a downside to the 50D. Even some medium-range glass has a hard time adapting to it. Many of Sigma's lenses just don't seem to give good results on the 50D - and even some of the more expensive ones.
Back to the debate.....
I would plump for either Canon or Nikon if I had to start over again. I know people who've swapped their systems over in both directions and been happy with the change, so I doubt anyone can really say which brand is better. With very similar products you're always going to get some happy with one and others satisfied with the other. By the same token, you'll always get a dodgy copy of something, or a copy that doesn't quite live up to expectations - no big deal, and this certainly shouldn't be reflective of the brand.
It's also about learning to get the most out of your gear. Some people have this 'tried for 5 minutes and it wasn't as good as my last set of gear' attitude. They will slate something simply because it wouldn't do exactly what they wanted when they wanted it.
For the record, I came over to Canon from Minolta years ago and have been (almost) 100% happy 100% of the time.
It's a personal preference thing - both manufacturers offer products which will always suit different types of users. Some will always be more comfortable with Canon, others with Nikon. These "Which is better?" debates are I'm afraid always pointless, rarely prove anything and have a habit of getting us all to act like 6-year-olds.
pilotalltheway From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
The the 550D used to be a contender but I didn't like the way it felt in my hands. I spoke to somebody from Jessops today and he told me how he has the the D90 and his mate who he shoots with has the 50D and whenever they compare shots after shooting the 50D always has the more vibrant colour in the shots whereas the D90 wins in lower light conditions. I prefer the build of the 50D, but the setup of the D90. I'm really suck as to what to get. Oh, and apparently the Nikon 18-55mm lense is really rubbish compared to Canon's.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
I guess the 550D is still a contender but if it doesn't feel right then I'd say it's outta the window. Like I said earlier, the best is whichever feels right in your hands, and whichever feels natural to you. Asking others is often pretty useless as you'll always get a mixed bag of results.
I chose the 50D and am chuffed to bits with it. The colours tend to lean a little more towards red straight out of the camera but it's nothing that can't be easily addressed post-capture. Nikons on the other hand tend to have a slight blue bias so all's equal really.
I guess you've looked through the database for shots taken with both and you'll have seen that, once processed, the images look the same. You can't tell which is which. Both the 50D and D90 will do exactly what you want them to do, providing you take the time to learn their features and how best to operate them. I can't give advice on the D90 as I've never used Nikon (well; I once borrowed a friend's D70 for a day) but the 50D is a damn fine piece of kit and despite what some might say I've not bumped into any disgruntled users. The 15MP sensor is great if you don't quite have enough reach with your lens as you can crop much more without losing too much quality (although I do this VERY infrequently!). It's also very low noise - I have quite a few shots uploaded here taken at ISO400 with no noise reduction applied.
Finally, you should really consider what lenses you'll want to be using. Seeing as lenses are more important than camera, it's best to check who does what so that you don't end up desiring a lens your brand doesn't do. Many Nikon users complain that they don't have a proper 100-400L equivalent - although that lens isn't without its drawbacks.
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3586 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20): I have quite a few shots uploaded here taken at ISO400 with no noise reduction applied.
I would have thought that with 15mp and ISO400, that would be a given - especially if you frame the subject as close as possible and then resize down to 1024px or 1280px wide.
The D90 I hear is much the same - it also has very good high ISO performance (better even than the D300 according to some).
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20): Many Nikon users complain that they don't have a proper 100-400L equivalent
What they did have was 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens and the ability to use a teleconverter with it. That seemed to work reasonably well on the old D300 from the results I've seen - though of course it's not relevant anymore since the new version of the 70-200 F/2.8 lens (VR II) is more expensive.
But it's maybe a better option than using the 80-400 on its own, especially if you also take photos in very low light (where the F/2.8 lens should be useful).
I personally don't think the 50D is as bad as some people claim it is either.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3582 times:
Quoting cpd (Reply 21): I personally don't think the 50D is as bad as some people claim it is either
I think perhaps the first batch wasn't great, however the later batches and firmware update corrected all issues. I also think that people were struggling to properly adress the 15MP sensor - after all, it was at the time 5MP more than any other crop-factor DSLR. Very much like the negative things initially said about the 7D I guess.
More megapixels on a small(er) sensor will give the illusion of excessive softness. Couple that with the 50D's hunger for top glass and it's really no wonder it fell foul of the criticsa when it first appeared.