Philip Greenspun's Canon recommendation?

<p>After many years of using compact P/S cameras, I've decided to upgrade to a DSLR. I've been reading <a href="../equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system">"Building a digital SLR system"</a> and the author recommends Canon as the top choice to go with. After doing some research, I've found that Canon and Nikon are both tied with about 39% of the market share in DSLRs (not sure how the pro or enthusiast numbers stack up) right now, but that Nikon has been gaining on Canon in the past years. So is Greenspun's recommendation to go with Canon as valid today? Even though I won't be using their expensive cameras any time soon, I'm curious where the majority of pros use Canon or if the numbers are split evenly.</p>

<p>I have some ambitions of doing professional photography (eventually), so I'm wondering if choosing to learn Nikon or Canon's system at this point makes much difference. Maybe getting a job as a photo assistant is easier if you can pick up a Canon and already know how to use it compared to Nikon? Also after researching rental options, it seems like Canon has a slightly better lens and rental options in my area, but it's hard to say for sure.</p>

<p>I'm also considering Pentax and perhaps Sony because it seems like their in camera IS systems might allow me to save some money on lenses. I've heard that Pentax offers a good price to performance ratio in particular for their lenses. Not sure about Sony as I haven't researched them as much. Lack of places to rent Pentax or Sony gear seems like a big downside though. Pentax's financial woes also seem like a downside. If they get sold off or if they stop making DSLRs like Kodak, can you still get your camera serviced? Also it seems like it would be harder to get taken seriously say shooting a wedding if you go with a brand that isn't Canon or Nikon. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Edit: Also, after reading <a href="../photo/canon-v-nikon">the very old Canon vs. Nikon page</a> , is any of this information still accurate? I'm wondering if Nikon's advantage with wide angles and macro and Canon's with big long image-stabilized glass still holds true.</p>

<p>The recommendations in the first article you referenced are old. In discussing the long-discontinued Canon 30D, it's several models behind, depending on which ones you count. In discussing the D40, D80, D200 and D2Xs models, it's talking about cameras that have been discontinued, some of them for a long time in digital camera years. Nikon is currently as valid a choice as Canon. You should choose your system (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, whatever) based on what feels best in your hands.</p>

<p>The Canon vs. Nikon page you referenced is even more outdated in terms of models and capabilities. I shoot Nikon, and I don't think Nikon has an advantage in wide angle lenses. And Nikon has added long image-stabilized lenses (some of them a while ago already) so it's up to you what you would prefer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so I'm wondering if choosing to learn Nikon or Canon's system at this point makes much difference.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Whichever system you choose, one thing remains true; Learn & Understand it inside out, upside down, left & right...be able to set all controls in your sleep, be fully aware of how each lens responds to metering modes..how the camera histogram either tells you the truth or is biased.</p>

<p>I find it impossible to determine if a Canon or a Nikon took the shot; all things being equal of course.</p>

<p><em>"There are no superior styles, only superior stylists"</em></p>

<p>If you have to ask which is better, then either is equally well suited and both are excellent choices.</p>

 

<p>If you know which is better but you can’t get the results you wish on the “inferior”

option, you have only your own incompetence to blame.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic are all excellent choices. See what kinds of lenses you want, what the equipment costs and what has a "feel" and button layout you like. Oh, and remember that with Sony you can use Minolta autofocus lenses so there's more of a used market than you'd think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So is Greenspun's recommendation to go with Canon as valid today?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It's dated information.</p>

<p>I'll reframe the question a little to make it less about N vs C.<br>

As a beginning photographer, what considerations would determine your choice of camera brand and model? Making some of these questions into a pro-forma might help make some of the repeated discussions of equipment (body / lens) choices a little more structured.<br>

Several considerations that are regularly brought up follow:<br>

1. What do your friends and colleagues use to shoot? This is helpful if you learn best by being shown rather than reading.<br>

2. What do you hope to take photos of?<br>

3. What is your budget? How flexible is that number?<br>

4. What is your level of experience with photography? How much effort are you willing to put in to increase your knowledge?<br>

5. What are you currently not able to achieve with your current setup (if any)? Post samples photos where they help illustrate your point.<br>

<strong>What are some other questions of that ilk?</strong></p>

When I first started out in photography about 25 years ago, I never thought about name brands or knew about them for that matter. I was given a Minolta SRT-202 as a gift and I thought that camera was the best invention since slice bread. During the years that followed, I heard rumors about Nikons and Canons and Hasselblads, and Leicas, but I stuck with was within my budget and means at the time. It didn't really make that much of a difference to me anyway, since it was just a hobby.

 

Later as I progressed, I switched to Olympus, then to Pentax, then to Nikon then back to Minolta, then back to Nikon then to Canon. It never really matterd to me.

 

If I was you, I would stop being a Tecno-geek and concentrate on the field of Photography. It is an interesting field and goes back centuries, way before Nikon and Canon were ever in production. Maybe later on, when you decide to become a pro ,you might start thinking about a camera-system, but right now, it's much too early to call IHMO.

<blockquote>

<p>Also it seems like it would be harder to get taken seriously say shooting a wedding if you go with a brand that isn't Canon or Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think this should be a problem. Pentax bodies are priced competitively compared to the similar Canikon ones, and the build quality should certainly be good enough. There are pro photographers using Pentax DSLRs. Of course, Pentax does not make anything in the D3 or 1DmkIV price range.</p>

<p>I'd say try to get as much of a test drive with each of Canon and Nikon as you can. I'm not too familiar with the latest Canons, but there used to be quite a difference in the ergonomics between the two. Both are well-designed and easy enough to use, but you may find that you have a preference for the handling of one over the other.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the feedback. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to start a flamewar. I just want to understand the subtle pros and cons of each system before dropping a big wad of cash. Anyway to answer Joshua's questions:<br /> <br /> 1. They all use point and shoot cameras. :\<br /> 2. Landscapes and wildlife. Also some urban landscapes. So basically two environments, urban and nature. But I'm interested in a little bit of everything else as well, macro, night photography, etc.<br /> 3. $1500-2000, but this is somewhat flexible.<br /> 4. I pretty much read everything I can about photography online right now. Intermediate amatuer perhaps. I understand all the manual controls on my SX-200 and shoot in manual or aperture priority most of the time. I use manual focus because the AF system misses a lot and just to do weird stuff. I'm also messing with CHDK, seeing color histograms on your P&S is fun, but at the end of the day it's still a P&S.<br /> 5. Sharpness. It's a point and shoot after all. I see other people's tack sharp photos online and I feel jealous. Perhaps I should just stop looking at photos online. ;) Also, shutter lag makes it hard to capture birds or things that move. Can't find upload any photos until I get home later, but I'll try to find something to post later.</p>

<p>Size and weight are pretty big considerations. The lighter a camera is when you take it on a hike, the better. Bulk isn't such a big deal here, but weight is. In the city though, I'd prefer a less bulky setup. Value (IQ for the dollar), and decent resale value would also be nice. Putting aside pro aspirations for now, I'm considering the micro four thirds system. I'm aware the resale value of the system may be a bit less clear than Canon or Nikon but I guess you can't have everything. I am tempted to go out and buy a used Canon or Nikon body for about $300 so I can use their 50mm f1.8 lenses which seem to be one of the best bargains in terms of IQ for the dollar. Being able to rent lenses to try new things out is also a big plus here. Not sure about which used models to go after or avoid though. I am currently eyeing a used D40x though. The used DSLR and 50mm should cost the same as Panasonic's 20mm normal lens alone. Maybe an old looking DSLR with a small lens isn't all the conspicious anyway. Probably less consipicious than a new DSLR with a big lens on it and less money lost if it gets stolen or damaged.</p>

<p>In terms of a lightweight telephoto though, the best option I could find was Canon's $700 70-200 non IS L series lens, which also seems like a nice value and half the weight of it's competitors. But it's still rather heavy for me at around 26 ounces and the 200mm reach is a bit short for wildlife. Pentax seems to about the same in this area, the good telephoto zooms are too heavy. I'm not sure about the sub $400 zooms from any of these manufacturers, if they're even worth it in terms of IQ in this area. A lot of them seem to lack useful features, like the ability to grab the focus ring for a manual focus adjustment.</p>

<p>The micro four thirds system seems promising since you can get 300mm to 400mm equivalent zoom lenses for about a pound. The $841 14-140 by Panasonic seems the strongest choice in this area, though I suppose the four thirds systems have even longer lenses though I am not sure about the quality. There seems to be less in depth lens review sites for four thirds since it such a young system. Anyway, to sum up, it seems I'm considering a cheap used Canon or Nikon just for that 50mm prime and something in the four thirds area for telephoto at this point. I guess my other question at this point is which lens will give the most bang for the buck in these areas? I hear Nikon's VR 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses are decent for what they are, and very cheap right now with the D5000, but at the end of the day, they're still kit lenses.</p>

<p><em>bottom line: "most bang for the buck"</em> - <em><strong> Canon !</strong> </em><br>

check out the newest model - Canon T2i (550D)<br>

18 megapixel sensor<br>

ISO 100 - 6400 expandable to 12800<br>

Full HD video at 1080p selectable FPS</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am currently eyeing a used D40x though. The used DSLR and 50mm should cost the same as Panasonic's 20mm normal lens alone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an excellent idea, provided that it's in good working order, of course. It's a great camera, and you'd get experience with a DSLR at a minimal cost. Then you'd have a better idea about what more you want. The one gotcha is that the cheap Nikon 50 mm won't autofocus on D40x (you need AF-S lenses), but the kit 18-55 VR is inexpensive and optically excellent, and then there's the 35 mm AF-S, which will autofocus on D40x, D60, D5000 etc.</p>

<p>Like Mike, If I had a choice of a single (Nikon) lens it would probably be the 35mm f/1.8 (amazon $189) , rather than the 50mm lens (amazon $124). I find it to be a much more useful length for my shooting tastes than the 50mm.</p>

<p>Hmm, would the D70, D70s or D1X be a better option for autofocus? They are in the same ballpark in terms of cost. Everything at the D70 level and above should have an autofocus motor if I'm correct. The megapixels drop from 10 to 6 or 5 which is a bit of a hit, but I wasn't planning on doing huge prints right away anyway. Would I lose any other important features by taking this step back in time or it is worth the tradeoff to go higher up in Nikon's line? I suppose I could gain some pro features like a pentaprism and more manual controls at the cost of more weight.</p>

<p>Also, how does the Canon 10D stack up against these options? It has the same megapixel count as the D70, but as I recall it was a bit more of a prosumer model back when it was released, selling for substantially more. The one downside I can see seems to be lack of the ability to mount EF-S lenses, but none of the primes I wanted are EF-S anyway. Sorry for the double post (it won't let me edit the post)!</p>

<p>Taking a camera on a hike definitely rewards light weight. But wildlife and landscape require different kinds of equipment. Taking pictures of critters (not my forte) starts requiring DSLRs with long, heavy lenses, whereas taking pictures of landscapes can require just a wideangle lens (or perhaps a modest zoom).</p>

<p>If you're going to photograph (as opposed to going to hike, but bringing a camera), I'd be tempted by the latest Canon Rebel with a decent modest zoom (with image stabilization if you could get it) and/or a 35mm prime (because 35mm x crop factor 1.6 = about 50mm). The rebels are light and pretty decent, especially the latest 18MP one. If you're just bringing a camera and want something you won't even notice bringing, my favorite is still the old Leica CL with film.</p>

<p>I wouldn't pay a lot for a camera without having some time to learn what you like in a DSLR. A rebel would allow you to get your feet wet and if you stayed with Canon, you could use the Rebel as a backup. If you changed over to someone else (Nikon, Sony, whatever) then you wouldn't have too much investment in Canon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hmm, would the D70, D70s or D1X be a better option for autofocus? They are in the same ballpark in terms of cost. Everything at the D70 level and above should have an autofocus motor if I'm correct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The models without the motor are D40(x), D60(s), D3000, D5000. Every other Nikon DSLR has one. I don't think it's that much of a problem, as the AF-S kit lenses and the 35 mm AF-S are excellent and inexpensive. There is a AF-S 50 mm, too, but it's faster and more expensive than the AF-I 1.8 one.</p>

<p>D1X is ancient at this point in time. I would not bother with it. D70 is getting old, too. If you can get a used D40x and a lens for substantially less than a new D5000 kit, it would be worth considering in my opinion.</p>

<p>Hmm, good to know I should cross the D70 off my list. I suppose that goes for the Canon 10D as well.</p>

<p>I can get the D40x for about $300 locally, but only the body. The D40 kit is also available for about the same, but it is the 18-55 non VR lens which is I understand slightly inferior optically. I could get the D60 kit for $360 with the VR lens which seems like a decent deal. </p>

<p>Amazon also has the D3000 kit with the same 18-55 VR lens for $461. So for an extra $100, I could step up a generation, but down a level in product line. I could also get the Nikon 55-200mm VR DX lens for an additional $115 through Amazon. Normally the 55-200 would cost $215. So the total before tax is $580 (no more tax free orders from Amazon, sadly). On the other hand, I could pay the $360 for the D60, then get the 55-200mm at normal price and pay $575 total. This is assuming there aren't any better lenses than the 55-200mm VR in this price range. The D5000 package with the same two VR lenses normally costs about $775 at Amazon, so it'd be $200 to get to the next product level. What do you guys think?</p>

<p>The D60 kit seems to be a real bargain, and compared to that, the D40x body alone is not worth it. I guess the question with D5000 is that do you want to pay for video and live view? The 55-200mm VR DX is a also very good lens for the money. I suppose the choice there comes down to what you shoot.</p>

<p>Both Canon and Nikon are very good systems, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. If build quality is important to you, then I would stick with Nikon. Canon does have some cameras with higher MP's than Nikon for around the same price or a little less. You have to figure out how large you want to enlarge an image and go from there. I have enlarged some Nikon D700 (12.1) MP into 20" x 30" prints and been very pleased, and I am pretty tough to please.</p>

<p>The bottom line is to find a system that works for you and stick with it. Digital cameras are not like film cameras. They are like computers; the instant you take it out of the box it will be surpassed by someone else. The whole MP race is ridiculous if you ask me. The camera manufacturers should go back to actually listening to photographers and see what <em>THEY</em> want, rather than dictating to photographers features they think are the most important.</p>

<p>What is it about your D40x that's not getting the job done for you?</p>

<p>The Pentax cameras have pretty good weather sealing. I like using them outdoors. Overall, the brand has been fairly durable. I have only tried other brands occasionally; I can't say outright that one brand is superior to another.</p>

<p>Camera brand probably has its greatest impact on whether or not the lens fittings are compatible with the lens mount. Other than that, camera brands are like baseball teams. Like baseball, the diehard fans argue about statistics when it comes to cameras. The most basic structural facts aside, they often have very little impact on general purpose photography.</p>

<p>On getting taken seriously:<br /> I find that when talking with another photographer about a shot, from visualization to end print, that I am taken more seriously. Last time I talked well with another photographer, face to face, was last week. I was in a TV studio; I spoke with the videographer for a while.</p>

<p>Our discussion ranged from cell phone cameras to film cameras to the studio TV cam he was gliding around. About 90% of it had to do with the shots or situations. I'm not sure we ever even discussed a brand name about anything. I don't even remember what camera he was using aside from the fact that the exterior housing was red. I'm not even sure if it was a "Red." We spent some time looking through his monitor as he showed me his ideas.</p>

<p>I liked talking with videographer; he'd been doing what he does for over ten years; I've been plunking away with stills since I was a youngster. It was a good discussion. Not once would I have considered not taking him seriously based on the brand name of anything that was around there. Not once did I feel that he didn't take me seriously.</p>

<p>The best way to get taken seriously is to kind of rack up some experience and proceed with some confidence and listen to the other guy sometimes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ah yes, I had been wondering about other details like Nikon or Pentax's build quality vs Canon's technology advantage. Anything outside of the normal information you usually read about in reviews from dpreview.com or imaging-resource.com would be fair game.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards the D3000 kit at this point. I wonder if it may have more resale value down the line since would be newer. Even if I decide not to keep the 55-200 VR I suppose I should be able to get back at least the $100 I invested in the lens if I resell it later (hopefully). I'll have to handle it and the other cameras a bit more before I decide though.</p>

<p>So when I bring this camera home, would it be worthwhile to buy insurance against it's theft or breakage? The D3000 is basically a $450 body with two $100 lenses (however the lenses would cost $200 each to replace if bought without a kit). I understand credit card companies may give you some insurance against theft for 90 days or so after your purchase as well as some extended warranty, but I would probably need something else to cover breakage. Would you go with renters or homeowner's insurance to cover the camera, or some sort of specialized camera insurance? Also, are the insurance policies you buy generally transferable if you sell the camera kit? Or is this equipment too inexpensive to bother with insurance in the first place?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm leaning towards the D3000 kit at this point. I wonder if it may have more resale value down the line since would be newer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The resale value of entry-level DSLR bodies is so bad anyway that it doesn't matter. I tried to look through the D3000 specifications out of curiosity, as I haven't tried one myself, and the somewhat significant differences over D60 seem to be an 11-point AF (instead of 3), a slightly larger LCD screen, and not much else. If the price of the two kits with the 55-200 lens is practically the same in your case, the newer AF is probably worth it.</p>

<p>Pop photo did a review on the D3000 this month and while they certainly didn't NOT like it, they seemed to lean toward the latest Canon Rebel instead.</p>