DSLR poll

[lesch2k]

Canon vs Nikon and Why Poll. I'm having a hard time deciding

 

[troytime]

which one feels better in your hands?
what type of photographer do you plan to be?

 

[tdawg]

I'm a Nikon guy, so I usually lean towards the nikon offerings, but regarding the D60 or Rebel, I think they're on pretty equal terms. The choice will come down mainly to how each feels in your hand and what lens system you prefer. Both will produce nice images and are simple to use. The downside to the D60 is that you have to buy AF-S lenses (similar to Canon's USM lenses) to have any autofocus (no in-body focus motor, so no AF with the nice, older AF Nikon lenses); the plus side is access to the fantastic Nikon flash system.

 

[troytime]

a couple years ago i was set on an xti, all the deals and reviews i read made it sound amazing
but when i held it at the local camera shop it felt odd. i had to use too many muscles to hold it and use the button interface.
little things like reviewing photos and deleting them seemed like it took too many muscles.
The d40 felt better, but the d80 felt magical.
My budget convinced me that the d40 was the right choice, but i had major concerns about the autofocus motor - because EVERYONE is always talking about how you can't use old lenses and such.
So i saved up more and bought the d80.

was it worth it? yes and no. The only lens i have that autofocuses on the d80 but not d40 is the 50mm 1.8. Its a great lens, it really is...but manual focus isn't really that hard...and for most of my shots the 18-135 lens does a fantastic job on anyways.
i did buy some old lenses....but they don't have autofocus at all.

the kit lens i got (18-135) is a great lens for many different types of shots and is definitely sharp enough to satisfy.

from what i read, the canon kit lenses are mostly junk (up until the recent IS kit lenses) (maybe thats why all the canon people pay for those white lenses)

so my advice: get the d60 and get a good walkaround lens like the 18-135 or 18-200VR.
by the time you're good enough for the lack of internal focus motor to be a negative, you'll be needing a better body anyways

 

[kyzen]

Between the two, I vote the XS. If you increase your budget a bit, I'd suggest the D80 or D90.

Refer to my post in your previous thread for my reasons

As for the Canon kit lens being junk, my 18-55mm IS lens is pretty great, in my non-professional opinion. I couldn't speak to the non-IS version on the old Rebel XT.

 

[lesch2k]

Originally posted by: kyzen
Between the two, I vote the XS. If you increase your budget a bit, I'd suggest the D80 or D90.

Refer to my post in your previous thread for my reasons

As for the Canon kit lens being junk, my 18-55mm IS lens is pretty great, in my non-professional opinion. I couldn't speak to the non-IS version on the old Rebel XT.

the only difference i am aware of with the d60 and d80 is the kit lens changes from 18-55 to 18-120. are there other significant differences?

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: lesch2k

Originally posted by: kyzen
Between the two, I vote the XS. If you increase your budget a bit, I'd suggest the D80 or D90.

Refer to my post in your previous thread for my reasons

As for the Canon kit lens being junk, my 18-55mm IS lens is pretty great, in my non-professional opinion. I couldn't speak to the non-IS version on the old Rebel XT.

the only difference i am aware of with the d60 and d80 is the kit lens changes from 18-55 to 18-120. are there other significant differences?

Stepping up to a D80 gives you an in-body AF motor, a better AF system with 11 AF points vs 3 AF points, and both front and rear dials on the grip vs just a rear dial on the D60. I think the D80 is a little bigger as well and the built-in flash can act in commander mode for the SB-800 and SB-600 Nikon speedlights. There are definitely some other things I'm probably missing, but these are the noticeable advantages to me.

However, if it were me and I was considering the D80, I would definitely save up a bit more for a D90. The high-rez 3" screen, 720p video and newer processing put it a step above, and really make it a camera I don't think you'll want to replace anytime soon. Last I looked, B&H had a new, body only D90 for $899

 

[lesch2k]

thanks tdawg, the d80 / d90 are out of my price range

 

[gar655]

Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

 

[lesch2k]

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

how is the image quality of the canon XS compare to the G10? That's the other camera i was looking at. I'm upgrading from the canon g1 so I'm getting a big image quality bump as is.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: troytime
which one feels better in your hands?
what type of photographer do you plan to be?

Ditto!!! What do you shoot?
And whats your budget?

I'd say go with a cheaper used or refurbished body. Get the body only (~$200-300) and invest in a fast lens.

If your serious about learning photography, maybe start with a fixed focal prime. Though zooms are versatile, they can make you lazy at composing. A fixed focal length will make you work for the shot(foot zoom), which in turn make you think of different compositions. Then if you really like shooting, lens lust will soon follow. Then you'll have to get a second job and/or start selling your plasma, .

Good luck on your choice.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

This is total Bulls***

The image quality of all of the crop sensor DSLRs are miles ahead of any point and shoot (like the G10), and not that far behind that of a full-frame DSLR unless you always shoot above ISO 800 or 1600. Where full-frame DSLRs shine is in the extreme high-ISO range, and the best models (like the Nikon D3) still deliver usable results up to ISO 6400 or even 12,800. But let's face it, how often do you really need to shoot at ISO 6400 unless you're a pro covering sports in low light?

Though their sensors are about 3-4x smaller than a full-frame sensor, crop-sensor DSLRs still have sensors about 10 times larger than a point and shoot's sensor, so they will perform well up to ISO 1600 or so (except the Olympus models with a smaller 4/3 sensor, which doesn't handle higher ISOs as well).

There is no reason for a beginner to get a full-frame DSLR...get a D60 or Rebel XS/XSi and some good lenses, and then set out to actually learn about taking the picture, not what camera you are using.

Remember, in 95% of cases, the photographer's skills make or break the picture, not the camera.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

Not everyone has or wants to spend the extra $$.

There can be quite a large difference in image quality among crop sensors. Compare the Pntax K10D vs Nikon D90 @ ISO1600 and you will see.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

Ughhhhh not this shit again. For an inexpensive camera I'd recommend a canon rebel xsi (it's worth it over the xs) or a used 40d....

The rebel xsi is fantastic. If you took a rebel xsi and a 50d and went out shooting with them your pictures would look the same. The 40/50d models are larger than the 450/1000d and have an extra control dial and offer higher fps. They also offer a bit better auto focus performance. However the xsi is much better than previous rebels in the af performance department. The only thing you miss with the 450d (xsi) is the faster fps shooting. Really.

It isn't like the old rebels, but even the old rebels are great! If you are expecting a tiny hard to see viewfinder because you've played with a cheap dslr in the past (like an olympus 410 or 420 for example) ... you won't find it here...the xsi's looks just as good as the one in the 40/50d. And no, you don't miss out on info in the viewfinder. Yes, the XSI shows you the iso all the time in the viewfinder and you can adjust it without your eye ever leaving it. The xsi has all the metering modes you'll find on the 40/50d cameras.

Except for the extra dial the handling is very similar. The xxD models will fit better in some people's hands, and the xxxD will feel better for others. That, and the need for higher fps if you shoot sports for example should be what you base your purchase on. However, if you grab an XSI (what i'd recommend) remember that you can get an inexpensive grip for it as well

and

"Though their sensors are about 3-4x smaller than a full-frame sensor"

While I completely agree with the rest of your post, I feel I hafta correct this. A 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor camera (what you'll get if you get a nikon or canon crop sensor camera) has a sensor that is more like 2x smaller, not 3 or 4x (size difference in square millimeters)

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: extra
"Though their sensors are about 3-4x smaller than a full-frame sensor"

While I completely agree with the rest of your post, I feel I hafta correct this. A 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor camera (what you'll get if you get a nikon or canon crop sensor camera) has a sensor that is more like 2x smaller, not 3 or 4x (size difference in square millimeters)

"FF" is ~2.33x in sensor area that of a Sony/Nikon APS-C sensor.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

Ughhhhh not this shit again. For an inexpensive camera I'd recommend a canon rebel xsi (it's worth it over the xs) or a used 40d....

The rebel xsi is fantastic. If you took a rebel xsi and a 50d and went out shooting with them your pictures would look the same. The 40/50d models are larger than the 450/1000d and have an extra control dial and offer higher fps. They also offer a bit better auto focus performance. However the xsi is much better than previous rebels in the af performance department. The only thing you miss with the 450d (xsi) is the faster fps shooting. Really.

It isn't like the old rebels, but even the old rebels are great! If you are expecting a tiny hard to see viewfinder because you've played with a cheap dslr in the past (like an olympus 410 or 420 for example) ... you won't find it here...the xsi's looks just as good as the one in the 40/50d. And no, you don't miss out on info in the viewfinder. Yes, the XSI shows you the iso all the time in the viewfinder and you can adjust it without your eye ever leaving it. The xsi has all the metering modes you'll find on the 40/50d cameras.

Except for the extra dial the handling is very similar. The xxD models will fit better in some people's hands, and the xxxD will feel better for others. That, and the need for higher fps if you shoot sports for example should be what you base your purchase on. However, if you grab an XSI (what i'd recommend) remember that you can get an inexpensive grip for it as well

and

"Though their sensors are about 3-4x smaller than a full-frame sensor"

While I completely agree with the rest of your post, I feel I hafta correct this. A 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor camera (what you'll get if you get a nikon or canon crop sensor camera) has a sensor that is more like 2x smaller, not 3 or 4x (size difference in square millimeters)

My bad. I meant more like 2-4x, since Canon and Nikon APS-C are closer to 2x smaller and Four-Thirds is more like 4x smaller than a full 35mm frame.

 

[Krioni]

This is crazy!!! He's asking between two entry level dSLRs (which are both very good cameras) and people are suggesting full-frame cameras??!!! That's insanity...

I personally have a Nikon D50 that I bought used with 2 lenses for $300 and love it. Before I chose which brand I wanted, I went to a store and felt the various cameras in my hands and I knew right then that I wanted a Nikon... it just felt better to me. However, that was comparing to the Canon XTi... I'm not sure if the feel has changed with the XS/XSi.

I think on paper the XS/XSi is probably a little better camera (not sure in practice... haven't done that research).

Anyway, good luck and whatever you do, don't blow all your money on just a camera body (i.e. NO full frame). You're going to want a lot of other stuff to go along with the body depending on the type of shooting you'll do... lenses (of course), case, tripod, memory, etc.

 

[troytime]

get a used d80 with the 18-135 and don't look back.
the d80 body can be found for 300-400
the lens for 250

 

[Krioni]

Originally posted by: troytime
get a used d80 with the 18-135 and don't look back.
the d80 body can be found for 300-400
the lens for 250

I like this option... a used D80 would be an awesome camera and would open up so many more lens options to you versus a D40/D60.

If you wanted even cheaper, get the D80 and a cheaper lens like a used kit lens for the time being... use that and then figure out your next lens based on what kind of photography you end up preferring most.

Good Luck

 

[andylawcc]

I have a D60, but I too voted against it. Out of the sheer fact OP might one day wants to buy used, quality, AutoFocus lenses, but he will be stuck with AF-S offerings. In mean time, I am also assuming OP will have no interest of manual focusing, so the plethora of much older AI and AIS lens would too be out of the question. but who knows. the D60 Refurbish model is $299 at Adorama. I got one and it looks fine so far, no bodily damage.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

Disagree
I always advocate getting the cheapest body you can find and use the savings on better lens/accessories.
Image quality is the same on any of these APS cameras. Same sensor size, you might get more megapixels, but it's just the same shit stretched out, no extra detail.

Now if you want to step it up, a used Canon 5D is at a really really nice pricepoint of $1k now.

Anyway, answer to the OP's question..
Look at pics that make you go WOW, I wanna take pics like that. Figure out the kind of lens that are needed to take that kind of pic(focal length, aperture, resolution). Find the lens on each respective manufacturer. Look at each price point and determine which one is most attractive to you.

That.. and go to the store to try each camera out to find out which one feels right to you.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: gar655
Spend the extra, get "real" camera. Nikon min = D90, D300 better, D700 best.
Canon min = 40D/50D, 5D/5DII better, 1DMkIII best.

Olympus E-3

Pentax K20D

Sony A700/A900

Of course your type of usage will dictate to some extent the body you should get. Sports, weddings, casual, wildlife etc...

Then you need to look at how much the lenses are that you WILL want.

The overall image quality of any of the "crop" sensor cameras are minimal at best. A little difference here or there. There is a pretty large increase in over image quality going to the full frame (35mm) DSLRs with of course the corresponding pretty large increase in price.

There is no free lunch, unless you're a Wall Street investment firm or super large national bank.

Not everyone has or wants to spend the extra $$.

There can be quite a large difference in image quality among crop sensors. Compare the Pntax K10D vs Nikon D90 @ ISO1600 and you will see.

Yeah in body software noise reduction processing. There might be less noise, but a lot less detail too.

 

[lesch2k]

prices i've found so far on amazon.com. i have gift codes there for about $400.
all with kit lens 18-55 w/ AF or VR
D60 refurb $440
XS new $480
XSI refurb $590 (probably too expensive for me)

 

[soydios]

used Nikon D80. It's got the same 10MP sensor as the D60, but is a way more capable camera body.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: astroidea
Yeah in body software noise reduction processing. There might be less noise, but a lot less detail too.

You are not considering sensor design improvements. Using my example - Nikon D90 vs Pentax K10D, the D90 resolves more detail and has less noise - in RAW or jpg.

Sticking with Pentax, the CMOS-based K20D also resolves more detail, with less high-ISO noise, then the K10D.