Canon or Nikon

[hecio]

nikon :)

[tscheung]

coca-cola vs pepsi,

[thomas_hardy1]

"For higher ISO work, Canon may not be quite there yet...."

 

That's just so funny ...as if Nikon has been winning the ISO battle for years and years.

[jeffrey_aiello_photography]

as you've seen in many other responses.. hold both and see which one feels the best in your hand, then go from there. for me, the nikon felt the best in my hand and I like nikon's ergonmincs better.

[riller]

I choose Nikon.

[Brian]

Canon and Nikon target the same consumers with their marketing and their products are very similar. But they are not the only ones out there. If you are starting from scratch you could just as well consider Pentax, Olympus and Sony as well.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

And why not Sony, Pentax, Samsung, Olympus, Casio, Seiko, Omega ...? As it doesn't matter what brand.

[joshua_mortel]

I shoot with Nikon, but I always suggest Canon to people that ask for a recommendation. First, price --Canon is always a bit cheaper in price for the "same" equipment. Second, ergo --I actually think Canon ergonomics are pretty good. If I had a chance to do it over, would I pick Canon? No --the Nikon system addresses a lot of problems that I have as a photographer (lighting, ISO speed, shutter speed). Try not to look at the brand and think about the shooting you do and might want to do in the future and invest in the system that has the features you want! Good luck.

[keith reeder]

<B>"Unlike a sax player standing still, please check"</b><br><br>

 

What? A picture full of banding? No thanks.<br><br>

 

My <i>40D</i> is capable of far cleaner - certainly sharper and more detailed - high ISO shots than that (and let's

face it - a slowly levitating honey bee is hardly a challenging "action" shot"). 1/2000 at f/13? No lack of light

either.<br><br>

 

<a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/2762%20ISO.jpg">Here's one from my 40D</a> - <b>2762 ISO, 1/1000

at f/2</b>.<br><br>

 

1600 ISO under exposed by 0.67 EV and pushed back in conversion using <b>Capture One 4</b> with less than

default NR and <i>no</i> additional NR.<br><Br>

 

Lit by a single halogen desk lamp in an otherwise dark room.<br><br>

 

Crappy subject matter, but this serves the purpose of making a point.<br><br>

 

Advantage the humble Canon there, I think...

[g dan mitchell]

Toyota v. Honda...

[digimage]

between CANON & NIKON WHO BETTER THAN WHO ? no answer at all but you ask what model is good and favor now I can say D3 ( even I 'm a canon guy for my picture now ) so you rather buy both .

[d_g]

if you need a 24 shift lens... then the new nikon is far superior !

if nikon can... canon will !

[matthew_dale]

Vakim: The nikon 70-200 does have VR, or at least amazon and the nikon website say it does

 

Thanks for your input.

 

If I am shooting birds I currently use a 70-300mm 5.6. I like the reach of 300mm but I want a faster lens I want

the 70-200mm 2.8/L IS USM. Is this the best lens for the job though? I think the prime lenses, 300mm and 400mm,

are too expensive. If I get the 100-400mm and the 17-55 then I will have a gap from 55-100 which is not ideal. I

cannot find a lens with 2.8 and IS, which is what I would like, that is longer than the 17-55.

 

Cheers

[yakim_peled1]

Please note which lens I mentioned in my post.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.