Which camera is for me ? Nikon or Canon?

[albertdarmali]

First of all, I'm not trying to start another N Vs. C war here, but

I genuinely need some opinions.

 

Currently I feel like my camera is limiting myself, and I'm saving

up for DSLR, and sort of waiting for what Nikon will introduce in a

few months time (hope so!).

 

I think it's not really that wise getting a DSLR just by the camera

itself only, but better to look at the bigger picture in terms of

the lens they offer and stuff...

 

So if I just let you know my shooting habit and style, hopefully

some members here who have experience in SLRs and lenses might

recommend me which system actually suits me better.

 

Okay, here goes:

 

- Firstly, Im not that keen on wildlife shots, mainly because living

in Sydney, you don't see that many cheetah or lions around :) and

also I don't have the budget for those rocketlauncher-style

telephoto lenses.

 

- I like doing still life pictures and macros

 

- I'll do quite a lot of portrait too, and I like a nice smooth

background and a nice bokeh. And maybe some low-light portrait as

well.

 

- My other photography I think will be things like buildings, and

maybe just some street photography in general.

 

Maybe it will help if you could quickly glance at some of my photos

on portfolio and see my style of shooting (although I don't really

have portraits and street in my portfolio)

 

From my own research, I think I prefer Nikon system in general. If I

were to get a Nikon DSLR, the lenses that I would get as well are:

 

* the kit 18-70mm

* Tamron SP AF DI 90mm f/2.8 Macro

* Nikkor AF 50mm f1.4D

 

I think those will pretty much cover my photography needs.

 

I might be totally wrong though, since I'm not very familiar with

SLR stuff and lenses.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you think that Canon has better

(and affordable) lens system that suit me, please let me know.

 

Any inputs are appreciated here.

 

 

 

Many thanks in advance !

 

Albert.

[albertdarmali]

Forgot to add that I don't really have the extra money to spend on high end lenses (eg. a few thousands ones). I can only afford something like that Tamron 90mm and Nikon 50mm 1.4 only.

 

Since the kit is free, that makes the Tamron and Nikon combined together, become.... what, US$700 ?

 

If you think there is one single lens that cost aroun that much that can do the job better than the Tamron and Nikon combined together, please let me know. But I think that's pretty much the sweet spot for lenses around that price and purpose ?

 

Albert.

[albertdarmali]

Sorry it's me again (I hate not being able to edit our own posts here...)

 

My plan is the kit 18.70mm will be used for "general all around purpose" and the Tamron for macro, and the Nikkor is for closeup and "just in case" situation where light is not that great.

[syn_j00]

Either brand would work for what you want to do, if you need a reason to go with either one, just pick one that you think will be the cheapest to do what you want to do. Its not the equipment, its the photographer.

[cghubbell]

Canon and Nikon both make excellent dSLR which will take publishable photos. Unless you are in a tight niche (ie, sports, MF landscape) you could flip a coin and have a camera that fits your needs. In my mind the biggest differentiator between Canon and Nikon is ergonomics. I'm not going to get into which I think is better as that's for you to figure out. But I'll tell you that if you go to a camera store and handle both lines (use it - play with menus, focus, trip a few exposures, review the histogram, etc) you will get a first impression which is probably correct.

 

As for lenses, I tend to favor saving up you $$ until you can buy a Canon or Nikkor. Your equipment is as good as its weakest link. Unless you really need f/1.8, the kit lens is fantastic. You can also get diopter (close up) lenses which thread onto it for a poor man's macro (that does nicely!). Save your money until you can get a micro-nikkor 105... The 50mm isn't too expensive used right now, so that's not a big deal eaither way.

[ben conover]

Hi Albert, when you know what you want, you can buy it, the only question I can see then is how much to spend. I assume you do not have exceess cash to burn..... Try buying used equipment and save that extra cash for some good lenses, used of course. I wasted alot of cash on new plastic crap when the older metal stuff is cheaper and better, in my viewfinder anyhow.

 

Cheers.

[digitmstr]

Based on ALL that you have said and your budget the NEW Canon 350D is perfect for you. it comes with a kit lens, the 50mm f/1.8 is only $69.00 (in the US) and you can use Tamron lenses on it as well as Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Pentax, and other lenses.

[basscheffers]

I've seen consistently good results from the Nikon kit lens, something I can not say for the Canon. So if on a budget with a standard zoom lens requirement, out of the two brands, my pick would be Nikon. And should you wish to upgrade your standard zoom, Nikon has the 17-55/2.8 which from what I hear is second to none. Canon has no such option.

 

But my choice was, and is, the Olympus E-1 with 14-54/2.8-3.5. A very rugged and pleasant to use camera and a very high quality lens. The 50-200 telephoto only loses out a bit on speed - but not image quality - compared to the top end Canon and Nikon offerings but cost considerably less. Now you CAN afford that bazooka lens! (actualy, it's quite compact) The 50/2 macro lens is also highly regarded, both as macro and as portrait lens.

 

If you are on a limitted, though not the tightest, budget, I think the E-1 offers the best value. A very good body with "kit" lenses that are far beyond the quality of the kit lenses the competition offers.

 

This shouldn't be a two horse race!

[steve coburn]

I'm not sure about your budget, but what about the Minolta 7D with anti-shake. A friend has one with a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 Macro zoom lens and has taken some very nice shots which he would have missed without the anti-shake function.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

In your shoes, I wouldn't dismiss any of the current options. The new Canon 350 is probably the best feature wise, however none of the cameras are bad, you don't have any specialist needs, so choose what feels right. The Anti shake in the KM7d is a real bonus, as is the sensor cleaning in the Olympus.

 

I would strongly recommend the Canon, but the kit lenses on all current Canon cameras are questionable. The EOS 3 kit lens is the awful version of the 28-105 (on a pro spec camera!), the 18-55 is poor compared to the Nikon lens. However to say Canon doesn't have a lens to measure against Nikon is laugh. This will make the Canon more expensive with decent lenses (but would the kit lens be good enough for your needs? only you can tell).

[albertdarmali]

Olympus E-1 (or Dynax in that matter) is a bit out of budget for me, and not really familiar with the lenses too.

 

If it's true that for "not-so-niche" type of shooting, it's just like flipping a coin, then I think the best way is to go to the shop and feel both cameras and trust my own gut feeling then ?

 

I'm trying to be as subjective as I can in deciding the camera, but for some unexplained reason I tend to like the lens that Nikon offers.

 

I really don't mind used lens too (as long as it's still immaculate) but it's not that easy to find a shop with nice collections of used lenses in Sydney. I'll try to find out later.

 

350D is not yet hitting the stores in Sydney, maybe when they are around already, then I'd compare and see which one suits me better.

 

Thanks !

 

Albert.

[ka_ho_wong]

E-300 should be considered as well...

[basscheffers]

Actualy, E-1 + 14-54 + 50/2 is no more expensive than the D70 + 18-70 + Tamron 90mm + Nikon 1.4 set you propose. That the E-1 is an expensive camera is a myth.

 

Phil Vaughan, which lens in Canon's line up can be compared to the 18-70 for consumers and which one to the 17-55/2.8 for pro quality? On an APS-C sized sensor? I'm sorry, but I can't find them in the line up. If it is a good quality standard zoom with decent range you are looking for Canon really don't offer any.

[albertdarmali]

For some reason, E1 is expensive in Australia... don't know why... but heard that Oly will release 2 new DSLRs this year ? Well, who knows, maybe there is something nice coming...

 

About lenses, CG Hubber (above) mentioned Nikon 105/2.8 Micro, I checked and it is a great macro lens, but I wonder what's the difference compared to the Tamron 90mm ?

 

Actually the Nikon 105mm is cheaper than Tamron one too.

 

Albert.

[albertdarmali]

Sorry, my mistake. Actually Tamron is cheaper. I accidentally looked at the price in Australian dollar. :)

 

Anyway, I read some reviews, some of them actually prefer the Tamron than this one....

 

See, the problem with lens is, there is so much to consider, not only image quality, but also how it handles, focuses, etc... (which obviously can't be done by reading, but by trying it yourself) but it's not that easy to handle/experience the lenses by yourself here.

 

It's sort of trying to buy speakers without listening to them first...

 

I wish we had a camera shop that sells A-Z lenses here...

[lex_jenkins]

Rather than duplicating the focal length at which the Nikon kit lens is very good - 50mm - I'd suggest getting a fast wide angle instead. That's the kit zoom's weak spot.

 

The kit lens is mediocre at 18mm, with severe barrel distortion and field curvature and isn't particularly sharp stopped down. However it becomes significantly better by 24mm, comparing favorably with my Tamron Adaptall 24mm f/2.5 prime.

 

Overall the kit zoom is a good performer and a very good value. Contrast, color saturation and separation of closely spaced hues and flare resistance are remarkably good for such an inexpensive lens. But it's truly sharp only within a fairly narrow range of focal lengths and apertures. Thankfully, the very good contrast and color give the impression of a much sharper lens. And it's strong from 35mm to 70mm.

 

But it's a slowpoke zoom overall and AF bogs down in dim light, so you'll get noticeably faster AF performance with even the reasonably priced 28mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor. That's equivalent to a 44mm f/2.8 on the D70. Pretty close, at least in effective focal length and speed, to the cultish 45mm f/2.8 Nikkors.

 

If your budget can swing one of the faster 28mm AF Nikkors, so much the better.

 

Just a thought.

[lex_jenkins]

BTW, try to get your hands on the Olympus E-1 before deciding. It feels really good, great ergonomics. I haven't handled an Evolt yet but it could be a good way to ease into the Olympus dSLR system at a friendlier price.

[albertdarmali]

Thanks for the input Lex.

 

I didn't know the the kit doesn't perform that well at 18mm, I was thinking that I might be using a lot of "wide angle" 18mm with the kit, but then if the result is mediocre, then I think the solution is affordable wide angle...

 

The problem is, I like something less than 24mm (because it's wide ! hehe...) but they are expensive.

 

The reason I was thinking about 1.4mm is to have at least one low light performer (as you mentioned the kit doesn't perform that well in low light, and I reckon it's the same case with the macro too)

And also to use it as a portrait lens... But maybe I can use the Tamron 90mm as a portrait lens? (not sure how good it is though)

 

Don't know, so many combinations to choose from. I think the best way for limited budget is try to find some good, second hand lenses from local shop then.

 

The day I'm ready to choose one, I'll consider the E1 as well. The problem is, Im not really confident with Olympus' range of lens, they don't have that many as Nikon does, and not so easy to find used ones as well (which means it's not easy to sell yours as well when you decide you wanna sell the lens).

 

If you ask me now, I'm really leaning towards D70, but I try to keep myself getting one now and see whether Nikon (or any other brands in this matter) will come up with something better. Plus if I get it later, I can spend more time with the camera since I'm still attending class now (better to wait until my uni's semester break so I can have more time snapping)

 

Albert.

[basscheffers]

I tend to look at the E-1 for which lenses it has, not how many. The two zooms did it for me. I'd also love for them to come out with a 25/1.4 (or even 1.8 or 2) because I am a bit of a 50mm junkie with withdrawal symptons since I went digital. :)

 

If wide angle is your thing, the E-1 is second to none. They have either the 11-22/2.8-3.5 (22-44 equiv) or 7-14/4, the widest lens you can buy for any DSLR, though not cheap.

 

Nikon does have some good wide offerings too. The 12-24/4 could be a good complement to the kit lens for quality wide angle zoom; a little wider than the Olympus 11-22 and about the same price. And if you want really wide, there is the 10.5/2.8 prime.

[mark_chappell]

<I>If you ask me now, I'm really leaning towards D70, but I try to keep myself getting one

now and see whether Nikon (or any other brands in this matter) will come up with

something better.</i><P>

 

<B>Of course</b> Nikon (or Canon, or Pentax, or Minolta, or ....) will come up with

something better. That's as inevitable as faster processors in computers, and the

timescale for model turnover is roughly the same. If you are

always going to wait for something better, you'll wait forever. Buying a DSLR has to be

done with the knowledge that (a) whatever you buy will be "obsolete" (not current) very

soon, and (b) despite that shattering, depressing fact, it will continue to be able to make

images just as good as when it was new.

[albertdarmali]

Yes, you are right, if I keep waiting for something new to come, I'll end up not buying anything at all...

 

But I just can't get past through the rumours that new one will come very very soon.

 

I'll probably just wait til my uni semester break arrives (2-3 months), then I'll just choose from whatever will be available by then.

 

By the way, I went to my local shop here today, and thinking to get a hold of E1 and see how it feels. They didn't even have it (it's a big shop though), and went to another shop, they didn't have it either.

 

I guess E1 is not that popular here. They actually had Canon 350D available there, and when I held it, didn't like it at all.

It feels more like a prosumer camera than an SLR. Too small, I felt like I was holding a Fuji S5xxx series, hehe..

 

Also tried the D70. It's taller, feels more solid, and it fits my hand much better. Handling wise, no competition at all.

 

Albert.