Please convert me back.

[gorasinski]

Hi All,

 

I have been researching the Internet for few months now, and want a camera really badly now. I have been using

Canon for a long time, but my "system" is not that elaborated that I could not change the "stable".

I was researching and researching and decided to go for Canon 40D + 17-85 IS USM (GBP 750), because I would not

gain any quality on 50D, plus a little expensive. I went to camera shops to compare in hand + shoot some RAW

files to compare.

The cameras I was taking into consideration are: Canon 40D, Sony A700 or Nikon D300.

First impression: I felt like the Canon was the best fit for my hand, plus menus are very easy for me, as I used

Canons in the past (ie. 400D). It also is very tempting because of price in kit. When I firstly tried Nikon I was

lost, totally did not get the menu, could not find even how to change mode etc. The built quality is amazing on

Nikon (Canon as well). But I did not like it, I think due to my habits. Sony, hmmm, first impression very bad,

"plasticness" and loud shutter, did not speak to me at all, plus it is slower.

 

Second trip to shop. I tried Nikon and Canon again, Nikon D300 (GBP 925) + 17-55 f/2,8 Nikkor lens (amazing

lens), Canon 50D (40D not in stock) + 16-35 f/2.8 L so both very similar lenses I think. I took some shoots with

both cameras in RAW. Very impressed with the speed of AF in Nikon with this lens attached. Went home and compared

the files in Lightroom 2.1, I must admit that Nikon was far more accurate with the AF, and the images were sharper.

 

My question is, is it really worth saving up some more money and pay that extra (nearly GBP 400 between bodies

only) + cost of decent lens instead of going for Canon 40D like I originally wanted and have more money for

better "glass"?

 

I am so confused now, and I do not want to regret the decision, as it is the one for years, not one season.

[sattler123]

Lukasz, both Nikon and Canon make great camera gear - either way you cannot go wrong. For the longest time Nikon used to trail behind Canon, but that is no longer the case. It is a well documented fact that pictures out of the Nikon 40 D and 50D look soft because of the stronger Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor, BUT they sharpen up without any problems in post processing, The final result will be equally satisfying as the Nikons.

 

I went from Nikon film cameras to Canon digital years ago, because Canon had the only affordable FF offering (the 5D) and I couldn't be happier. I had to get used to the different control layouts of the Canon, but that was really no big deal - in other words you would get used very quickly to the controls of the Nikon.

 

Bottom line is: The IQ will be the same with both cameras, glass is way more important than the camera body and Canon has typically better values in their lenses. Nikon wide angle offerings are probably better, but Canon beats them on the long teles. Nikon has the better flash system and the AF is more sophisticated (I have no idea why Canon does not implement a better focus tracking system into their bodies - they have it in the pro-bodies only).

 

Did I manage to confuse you even more:-)

[ronald_moravec1]

Look at the D90 Nikon. Not the same as a D300, but close and much cheaper. Put a 16/85 on it.

 

I would not put all that money into DX format lenses at this point. You may move up to full frame and the lens would not cover it, although it can be used in a crop mode on D700 and D3 at 5MP.

 

Nikon has a legacy of Ai and later lenses that will meter in manual and aperture priority mode. A whole bunch can be had for the price of 17/55 2.8. I bought them for my D200 and now use them on my D700. In fact I do not own a full frame zoom except a 80/200 4.0 I use occasionally.

[bueh]

You forgot to try Pentax!

<p>

This will make up your mind as the equipment is both cheaper and offers more features (hello, in-body stabilization!). Backwards-compatibility is also great. The latest-generation lenses have <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr>-equivalent <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="autofocus">AF</abbr> (<abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="Supersonic Drive Motor">SDM</abbr>), so autofocus performance should be pretty good. Despite my investment in Canon I know I will make the switch when my current body fails because the <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="Shake Reduction">SR</abbr> is what I want as a prime lens shooter.

[madza_zulu]

Actually you have to look at Canon 50D, it has features that aren't available on 40D. I myself switched from Nikon, don't like the ergonomic and Canon has better IQ. You can get L lenses lot less than Nikon.

[gorasinski]

I do not want D90 as it is not as robust as the ones I was considering. Pentax K20D was initially on my list, but the level of noise is unacceptable, plus it is very small and built quality not too impressive.

I would go for 50D, but it has got a little bit too many pixels on that tiny APS-C sensor.

 

It seems the most reasonable to go for 40D kit, as that lens is pretty good, costs GBP170 when bought with kit, rather than separately for around 300 pounds, and it makes better value when I would like to sell the body.

 

All I am going to have to get, will be Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 10-22 from Canon and decent tele later on, not sure which one yet.

[g dan mitchell]

General comment about the "should I go with Nikon or Canon?" questions. Both companies make excellent equipment

used by great photographers to make outstanding photographs. In the long term there is no generally "right" answer to the

Nikon versus Canon question. Buy either (or possibly even an alternative) and build a system around it and stick with it...

and you'll be fine.

 

Dan

[cabbiinc]

If the menus are confusing you might be spending time trying to figure something out when your missing a shot. Image qualities between the two manufacturers are at least similar, if not fairly close. Reviews usually match a Canon to a Nikon more than any other camera manufacturers so there's got to be something to that.

 

Unless you really wanted video (D90 for Nikon, 5Dmk2 for Canon) or some other feature you might just think about getting the one system that makes sense to you when your looking through the menus. That's not to say that one is better than the other, or that the ones menu is better, it's just different. I myself get lost in a Nikon's menu and prefer Canon's. But I have friends that can't seem to make sense of the Canon's and prefer Nikon.

 

Remember, once you start buying glass for your system it would be expensive to switch brands and get the same standard of lenses, so thinking this through is a good thing to do.

 

Dan

[pmind]

You may want to consider the Canon 28mm f/1.8 in place of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, unless you really need that little

bit of extra speed. By many accounts the Canon is a superior lens for about the same money. Just a thought.

[geoff_foale]

I have a Nikon using friend who insists that his old 3 mp Nikon is far better than my Canon 40D, just because it is a Nikon. In reality there isn't a great amount of difference between the brands now.

 

Remember, as others have said, you will be buying into a total system so I would say think very carefully about lenses. Not just those which you will be using initially. Consider any lens that you might want to purchase in the future and get a full comparison of the alternatives. Include third party lenses like Sigma etc and see if they are compatable. I find www.photozone.de to be good for independant reviews.

 

ps. I found the 40D to be a good easy to use camera and would recommend it.

[paul_b.1]

1-"(I have no idea why Canon does not implement a better focus tracking system into their bodies - they have it in the pro-bodies only)". It's a marketing decission , and they (Canon) also do the same thing, regarding the mettering system. But, hey, Nikon does the same, after all, only in D300, D700 and D3, we have "Scene recognition exposure" at it-s full power ; and all 3 are pro bodies. The mettering system in the new 5DmkII with 35 zones it's the same that a have in my old EOS 300 and it's a desaster (compared with complex one in D300), but nobody seems to care !?

2-If you want easy menues , forget 40d and D300, and buy 50D. ! Biiig difference between the two cameras (40D vs 50D).

3- Yesterday we (me and one of my friends)do some tests about focus speed with Tamron 17-50/2,8 mounted on 50D and D300. Surprise, 50d was twice as fast as D300 ! (on D300 we have the new Tamron equiped with inside micro AF motor)

4- After intensiv ussage (after 30000 shots) , the quality of materials use in 40D (50D) , turn to be mutch better then those used in Nikon D300 (especialy the ruberrized parts of the gripp)

5-Exposure, especialy with flash , is superior in D300 , but the overall color acuracy is better in 50D (digic 4 make a good job !)

6-"By many accounts the Canon is a superior lens for about the same money". I THINK EXACTLY THE OPOSITE ! (optical quality)

My advice : buy 50D with Tamron 17-50/2,0.

[w_t1]

This guy uses a nikon, but don't try to copy him. http://chadrichard.typepad.com/timelapse/2008/06/how-to-make-an.html

[tashagajewski]

I struggled with the same decision, although different models (Canon 5D and Nikon D200), and ended up with a canon 5d with all new canon glass.

 

That said, I miss my old Nikon d70s terribly. The nikon's metering system beat the canon 5d hands down. And you have already noticed the focusing advantage on nikon. However, the canon seemed to make richer images, particularly noticeable in soft fall off in portraits. Certainly, the advantages of full frame come to bear on this, and when I bought the 5d, there were no other affordable full frame digital cameras on the market.

 

You mention "robust." I wonder how one considers "robustness" when talking about these models (5D, D300, 40D). The only time I've seen manufacturers talking about strengthening the camera body has been with the big, let's-go-to-the-desert-in-a-duststorm-and-shoot, pro cameras. Can robustness be measured in "prosumer" modesls? Tasha Gajewski

[gorasinski]

Natasha, I might have confused "robust" with "built quality", please accept my apologies as English is not my native language (BTW nice surname ;)).

 

Today, I was leaning towards Nikon and saving some more money and get it with 18-70 kit (not sure if good idea, but budget is a little bit limited here). My friend said: "If you are minted, then go for Nikon, if money does matter to you stick with Canon" ;)

 

I am aware that they are both really good cameras, and I will not be disappointed, but my "boish" (from "boy") side tells me to go for the best. How would I know that in few months Canon will not make a much better body than D300? One never knows, but the decision is hard, as I need to commit to a system.

So far, Canon seems more reasonable, as the choice of lens is greater, and cheaper.

I know that lighting system from Nikon is better at the moment, but I still think that when it comes to ultra-zooms Canon beats Nikon.

 

Now I need to decide if it's worth spending some more on 50D, just for better LCD, nicer menu, and UDMA Support (I do own two UDMA Cards already 2 and 8 GB). Canon 40D does not make any use of UDMA, so I might as well go for 50D, but the price puts me slightly off :)

[alan_myers]

You really need to look at the entire system, with future planned or even possible purchases in mind.

 

When I selected Canon some years ago, Nikon didn't offer any stabilized lenses or tilt-shift lenses. That's changed but took a long time to do so.

 

Also, I was buying film at the time, but digital was on the horizon and I had a feeling Canon would advance more aggressively than most into the 'brave new world'. Their sheer size and commitment to R&D made them the favorite in that respect. I don't think I was proven wrong, it's only in the past year or two they have started to again see competition.

 

Canon still offers the largest selection of lenses and a pretty complete selection of accessories.

 

But, Nikon offers some great things, too.

 

These two are still well in the lead of all the other manufacturers, not that some of them don't make fine cameras. Just. that Canon and Nikon have larger systems to choose from and get more support from third party manufacturers as well. Olympus, for example, has been really innovative with their digital system and is tempting. But, there are still gaps in their lens lineup that would hamper me, personally, and there aren't a lot of lenses for their system being offered by Sigma, and none at all that I'm aware of by Tokina and Tamron.

[gorasinski]

Thank you for all your help. Today a new possibility arrived.

My acquaintance has got Canon 5D, that he barely uses, and I asked him whether he wants to sell it.

He says that he will think about it. he also has a 70-300 DO lens. I said to him I will take it for GBP 1500, do you think it would be a good deal? Better than APS-C camera? I know that probably I would move to APS-C one day anyway, so why not now?

[gorasinski]

What would you do if you were in my skin. Should I stretch myself slightly and go for 5D? I do know it is a very popular camera due to no competition really for a long time and image quality.

[ceolaf_wolfhelm]

 

I'm going to suggest a different paradigm for looking at this.

 

The camera body is a short or intermediate term investment, unlike in the ol' days of film. Even if you think that Canons have better

building quality than Nikons -- which is NOT my experience, by the way -- how much does this matter?

 

This camera body will not last you ten years. You might even replace it in less than five. And if you are not a pro who takes

thousands of pictures a month, do you really think that you are going to wear out a camera body before you need to replace it?

 

I'd rather spend less on the body and upgrade it sooner. You'll only be behind for the first cycle. Think of this as path A and B.

 

With path A, you get that much better and more expensive camera today. It's got a great build quality, wonderful features and

amazing abilities. And it lasts. So, you don't replace it for like four or five years. And you feel compelled at that point to buy it

equivalent in the in product line, so you have another wonderful camera for five years. Only it's not so great for the last two of

those years. You see, by the end of year 2, most of the features and abilities have already migrated down the product line, plus

some new ones. So, you're shooting with with an D200 when the D90 already kicks its ass.

 

With path B, you get a really good camera, but not the best camera. But you replace it faster. So, you might have had a D70 before

(instead of the D200), but you get a D90 today instead of waiting another year or two for the D300x (or something). OK, you

missed out on the D200 and the D300, but the D90 has some real advantages over each of them. And then in two or three years,

you get your next camera, which will kick the ass of the D300x. (This whole story can be replaced by moving up or down the line.

It could be the D300 v. the D3, or the D90 v. D60.)

 

Also, with path B, you:

* spend a higher percentage of your time under warranty.

* sell the old bodies when they are less old/worn, and therefore recover more of their value -- digital camera bodies can lose a

HUGE part of their resale value if you wait four or five years.

* have the other equipment you've been buying all along to use with your new cameras. Lenses, speedlights, filters, etc.

* carry around a smaller and lighter camera, which is easier on your hands, back and camera bag.

 

I am not saying that you should get the D90 -- though I really think you should. I am saying that you should NOT stretch yourself to

buy a camera body. Because you'll be stuck with it long after lower models have surpassed it. Sure, the D300 is better than the

D90 (But not by as much as you might think. The D90 came out a year later, and many of the D300 features already trickled

down.), but it the D90 cost 60% as much as the D300. What would you do with that extra $600? How many great lenses would

that buy? Or, how much sooner would saving $600 allow you to get your NEXT camera?

 

Don't get the 5D! It's great today, but you'll resent it in 24 months, and won't be able to afford your next camera for even longer. I

don't even think that you get the 50D or D300. As for the 40D, you are talking about a model that is already a year and a half old.

You wouldn't buy a computer model that was a year and half old. You shouldn't do that for a digital camera, either. They get better

far to fast for that.

 

So, now I will tell you to get the Nikon D90. The 50D is a better value than the D300, being a much newer model. But both of them

keep you from putting money into the rest of your system, that parts that really matter most in the long run. For both of them, you

are putting to much money into the disposable parts of the system. And the 5D will cripple your ability to put money into your

system for a long time. So, that leaves them next camera model down. 40D or D90. The newer camera (D90) is cheaper and

better. Today, right now, this is the answer. Unless Canon gives you a better/newer option under $1000, give how you have

described your available funds, the D90 is your answer.