about to buy my first digital SLR...Nikon or Canon?

[peter_phan]

My friend bought a Rebel XT with the kit lens. I've been very surprised at the quality of her prints using the kit lens. They look great. Sure, if you scrutinized it against other higher-spec lenses, all shot at widest aperture, you could probably tell a difference between them. But stopped down a bit, and without critical evaluation side-by-side with other lenses, it does great. She is extremely pleased with the kit lens. And I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with it too. If I didn't know she was using the kit lens, I probably would have never known. As a lens for a first time buyer, the kit lens is not bad at all, especially for the price. The lens is also very small and light, so she feels very comfortable taking the camera everywhere and using it everywhere, without feeling the need to get an even smaller or lighter point-n-shoot camera.

[fk319]

I think the obvious answer is to try it out at the store. But Peter Phan hit it correct in his first post, use what you can get the most help on. You will have some questions that anyone can answer, but then there will be other questions that only people that use the equipment know. The good news is either choise is an excelent choice, the bad news is, the back is the cheapest part of your camera bag. I cant beleive how many lenses I 'have' to have and how much the good ones cost.

[KenPapai]

Asked and Answered nearly every day of the week in one or more of the PN forums. (my opinion? the 20D is *vastly* superior to the D70)

[yog_sothoth]

Ulness you are an expert photgrapher, they will be nearly identical to you. The Canon has more megapixels, and the Nikon has spot metering. If you intend to drop a lot of money on high-end lenses, either is great. If you intend to use mid-level lenses, Pentax or Olympus are good choices too. If you don't want to buy a bunch of lenses, think about the porsumer cameras like the powershot pro 1.

 

Check out http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html for more info.

[basscheffers]

My problem with the Canon kit lens is that you can't depend on it getting you the shot in every situation, every time. Sure, you can get some great shots, but when you can't stop down becuase you just can't afford much DOF, you are out of luck. Or you've found a great angle and the thing flares up like mad or at the least lacks contrast.

 

If you just look at the best that can be achieved, it compares. If you take a couple of hundred images and compare them to a similar collection of images taken with, say, my E-1 and 14-54, it's easy to see the inferiority.

 

Nothing against Canon bodies here, just that their lens line-up doesn't suit me, the 17-40 is too short and 17-85 too slow and soft. Nikon's sort of suits me with the 17-55/2.8 but it is too expenisive and heavy. I am more than happy with my Olympus, it gives me the shots I want, when I want them and doesn't break my back or the bank...

[byronlawrence]

both are great systems.. the d70 is a cheaper starting cost. but make sure you consider the future. Canon and Nikon both have differences in what a new user may value. most of the previous posts cover these.

 

but whatever you end up with. you will end up with good pictures. so if you really can't decide .. then flip a coin.

[peter_phan]

<i>My problem with the Canon kit lens is that you can't depend on it getting you the shot in every situation, every time.</i>

<p>

And that's your major gripe? Well, I would love it if I had one lens that would get me the shot in every situation, every time! But even lenses costing many times more than the kit lens won't guarantee that. Besides, digital photography is all about hit and miss and learning and enjoying your hots, hit or miss. It's different if you're being paid for your photography, but in that case you could probably afford to buy something more expensive than the kit lens anyways.

[sl attanapola]

Some people have a "gripe" that Nikon and the others don't have a "full frame" dSLR or whinge that they need 16mm digital wide angles!

 

The rest of us answer:BIG FURRY DEAL!

 

Is that a "major" gripe?

 

So let Bas Scheffers have his "gripe" if he wishes!

[everitt]

<center/><img src="http://students.law.drake.edu/lawReview/images/bunny_pancake.jpg"></center>

[sl attanapola]

Yippee! Japanese Pancake Bunny is back!

[GerrySiegel]

A more sophisticated question might be " Which lens system will answer my photographic needs best?" Bas discovered that the E system does the job well. Me too,insouciant maverick that I am. I read a body of evidence/reviews/commentary on line,had no legacy lenses, and was persuaded after six months of beard scratching it was right for Me,personal thing.<p> Noone else can do this for you Kristine,except maybe add to the muddlefactor and technopunditry. Photographer colleagues will have their own choices,more than even the salesguys. I mean what colleague would want to say, "We-ell-ll-ll, they are all good,all compromises, and have their ups and downs." No way,not human nature. It is more profound to whisper,leaning close to your earlobe " Hey kiddo,go for Canon,it is the industry leader.." " Stick with Nikon, or one hundred million Frenchman can't be wrong,ma cherie..". Does that sound familiar?<p> Do your own homework and evaluate the features on line and in the store if you can. It is not a mystery. No camera in the lineup is a POOR choice,not a one I can see..Say, add that interactive flash E-1 demo-see Eu website links- to your research ,just for fun. And then make a pick,but get a nice lens or two soon..

<a href="http://www.olympus-pro.com/index.eu.en.html">interactive flash demo</a>

Aloha,GS

[basscheffers]

Yes Peter, the kit lens is as good as a 24-70/2.8 because that isn't perfect either. What's wrong with amateurs wanting sharp, contrasty images every time, with the option of shallow DOF when you feel it suits the image?

 

Putting up with the kit lens or other plastic crap just so you can use a 20D is just, well, stupid.

[peter_berger]

The Canon kit lens has two good attributes. One good attribute is that it is cheap (and if

you don't think this is important, then send me some of your money).

 

The other attribute that no one ever talks about: it is LIGHT. Light as a feather. I think the

reason that people don't talk about it is that many SLR photographers have some sort of

freudian issue where they are hardwired to only appreciate sticky-outey things that are

huge and heavy and masculine. Of course, these people are wrong. Comparing the D70

with its kit lens and the Rebel XT with its kit lens, the D70 feels more rugged, but the flip

side of that is that it also feels about twice as heavy, which means you're less likely to

actually HAVE it when you need to make the shot. I love the low weight of the rebel xt /

kit lens combination (I've never held a 20D, so I can't comment on that).

 

It's clear that the D70's kit lens is of superior optical quality. But what good is superior

optical quality if it's in your closet?

 

Just remember that despite what the measurebators say, the lens is NOT the most

important part of your camera system. The most important component is behind the

eyepiece. Buy whichever camera feels better to you, and then take thousands of shots.

Whatever camera you have, whatever lens you have, if you do this you can learn to

produce great work.

[peter_phan]

<i>Putting up with the kit lens or other plastic crap just so you can use a 20D is just, well, stupid. </I>

<p>

Uh, well first of all, it's not "plastic crap". And secondly, lenses are interchangeable. It's a lot easier to change a lens, than to change a camera or camera system. For general photography and walk-around shooting, the kit lens is great because it's very compact, light as a feather, and does very well. And as you add lenses to your lens collection, you'll have other options to shoot with other than the kit lens. I never quite understood why people would base a camera body or camera system decision on the kit lens. The kit lens is not permanent. And if it means you can buy a better body to grow with and grow into, that's not a bad trade-off.

<p>

By the way, this reminds me of an experience with a kit lens I used to haev (the "plastic crap" Canon 28-80 kit lens). I had it sitting on my shelf forever, collecting dust, because I never used it. Like most people, I looked down on kit lenses as being "plastic crap". This was back when I was using film. I had a film body that was causing scratches on the film as it ran through the body. After a thorough cleaning of the inside of the camera body, I wanted to test the camera. So I loaded it up with some film and grabbed the nearest lens-- which happened to be the kit lens which I had not used in an eternity. I shot a whole roll of film with the kit lens and took it out to my lab to have prints made. When I came back to pick up the prints, I inspected the pictures. The lab tech was there behind the counter and he commented on how sharp and good-looking the pictures looked, and asked me what lens I had on it! I told him it was a cheapy plastic kit lens. But I'm sure I could have lied and told him it was a very expensive Canon L lens, and he would have believed me. Now I'm not saying that we should all dump our L lenses and buy $90 kit lenses. All I'm saying is that the kit lenses are not necessarily the "plastic crap" that some of us like to think they are.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>Putting up with the kit lens or other plastic crap just so you can use a 20D is just, well, stupid.</I><P>

 

I probably overlooked something in this long thread, but why does she have to put up with the kit lens? Why can't she just buy the body and any lens she wants? When I bought my 20D body I bought a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that I'm very happy with. When I bought my D100 I didn't buy any lens because I already owned about 10 Nikkor lenses at the time. In my entire photographic life (37 years) I've NEVER bought a lens as part of a kit with an SLR.