gf777
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:17 pm

Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:44 am

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
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:57 am

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
 
JFK380
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:14 am

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 avatar
cpd
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:26 am

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 avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:27 am

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 avatar
cpd
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:47 am

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 avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:23 am



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.
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:24 am

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 avatar
cpd
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:45 am

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]
 
cvervais
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:38 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:56 pm

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.
 
gf777
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:17 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:58 pm

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
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4654
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:29 am

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
 
gf777
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:17 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 4:30 am

has anyone got the Nikon D5000 yet?
i know it is still new
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 10:25 am

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 avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 12:29 pm

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
 
chase
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:02 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 1:49 pm

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 avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 3:08 pm

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]
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 3:32 pm

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
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4654
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 3:37 pm

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 avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 3:50 pm



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 avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 08, 2009 3:57 pm



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
 
chase
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:02 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Mon May 11, 2009 6:25 pm



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).
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Tue May 12, 2009 4:22 am



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
 
03SVTCobra
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:10 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Tue May 12, 2009 12:23 pm

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.
 
gf777
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:17 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Tue May 19, 2009 7:34 am

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

cheers

Ahmed
 
Alberto Riva
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:54 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Wed May 20, 2009 12:02 am



Quoting GF777 (Reply 24):



Quoting GF777 (Reply 24):
Has anyone got the Nikon D5000 yet? I guess this is the one for me, I need some feedback please.

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 the movie mode though.

The menus are a delight to set up and use. The camera is small, D40 size, but handles well; if you know your way around a Nikon DSLR you're up and running in no time. The swivel screen didn't really do it for me, but it may become very useful outdoors.

I shot some ISO3200 frames since everybody talks about crazy high ISO these days and I was curious, but frankly, I think people should learn proper flash use instead -- and I don't mean the popup.  Smile They were pretty grainy, but image quality at lower ISOs was just as you'd expect: great. At least on the LCD. (The lens was the incredibly compact 18-55 VR.)

Bottom line: if you're in the market for an entry-level DSLR from Nikon the 5000 is it. However, purely in terms of the image quality you need for Airliners, there's no real difference from the D60 or D40.
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Wed May 20, 2009 12:27 am



Quoting GF777 (Reply 24):
Has anyone got the Nikon D5000 yet? I guess this is the one for me, I need some feedback please.

Try this:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond5000/
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
gf777
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:17 pm

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Wed May 20, 2009 4:51 am

thanks Alberto Riva, I'll take your advice in consideration

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 26):
Try this:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nik...5000/

thanks BuyantUkhaa but this Preview based on a pre-production
 
KirkSeattle
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Canon Or NIKON.

Fri May 22, 2009 4:55 am



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11):
The netry-level Canons are very highly recommended.



Quoting Chase (Reply 15):
I recently bought the Canon 450D.

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 about the options for newbies! It made my research very extensive and I feel comfortable with my purchase of the Canon Rebel XSi along with a Canon EF-S 55-250mm Telephoto lens. I had a gift certificate to Amazon that I used for part of my purchase. I absolutely love the fact that I have a camera to enjoy birds in the sky ...all kinds of birds, especially in the Seattle area  Wink

My reason for the Canon? I recently purchased a Canon CanoScan 8800F to take care of some old family 35MM slides and was impressed. I have plenty of Sony products that would have won over my brand loyalty as well.


Cheers!
-Kirk
Sunset in Seattle tonight....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests