Canon or Nikon based on my intended uses

[chris_b13]

<p>So I'm pretty much a photo neophyte. understand some of it from my experience 3D rendering, and I'm reading alot, but little to no actual experience. I intend to change that - got a little money, I'm going to do this, and do it right.<br>

I'm either going to go with a 5DMKII or a D700 (or it's successor). Reading the reviews and looking at the samples, I think I'd be happy with either - they each have attractive features that the other doesn't, and neither has a "killler feature" to draw me to one or the other. So it comes down to lenses, and the cost of those lenses.<br>

My main interest is in architecture and design photography. I'll do some general shooting as well (portraits, nature, etc) but the real focus will be on buildings and built objects. So it seems I'm going to eventually want:</p>

<p>1. image stabalized general zoom (24-70+ or therabouts) with a short min. focusing distance in order to delay the purchase of a macro (or will I really want a macro for arch. model photograpy?)<br>

2. really good wide angle (down to 14-16 or so)<br>

3. PC / TS wide (24)<br>

4. 50 prime for lightweight general stuff<br>

5. (waaaay down the line) tele zoom</p>

<p>initially I'll buy #1 and #2 or #2 and #4, and then add as time and paychecks allow. What I'd like to do is put together a hypothetical list of the canon and Nikon offerings, with prices and an evaluation of which lense fits me better.</p>

<p><strong>Nikon:</strong><br>

1: AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ($1500) looks good, maybe more than I want to spend.<br>

2: AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ($1500) read alot on this one, seems amazing, and worth the price.<br>

3: 24mm f/3.5 PC-E ($1900) some reviews say better than canon equivalent, but very expensive<br>

4: 50mm f/1.4G or 1.4D ($300-$450)<br>

5: no idea, doesnt' seem to be a good ~$1000 pick here.<br>

<strong>Canon:</strong><br>

1: EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ($950) maybe not as sharp as the nikon 24-70, but not sure I'll notice. more range and less $$<br>

2: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM ($1200) Def. not as nice as the nikon, a little cheaper.<br>

3: TS-E 24mm f/3.5L ($1100) better price, nikon seems to be better but not by a great deal<br>

4: EF 50mm f/1.4 ($300) no real difference here from what I can tell.<br>

5: EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM ($1000)</p>

<p>Nikon initial outlay: $3000 or ~$1800-1950 (total eventually: ~$5200, not counting tele)<br>

Canon inital outlay: $2150 or $1500 (total eventually:~$3550, not counting tele)</p>

<p>Suggestions or corrections? Head's a little swimmy at this point. Conclusions from this list: Nikon system pushes the edge of what I'd be comfortable spending, but the quality seems to come with it. Next step up for Canon is a whole lot of primes - I'm pretty sure I like the flexibility of zooms, and all primes would probably be way more than I want to spend. should I consider any of the tokina, tamaron, or sigma offerings?<br>

Thanks.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>You don`t need zooms for architectural or design photography.  You don`t need Auto Focus lenses.</p>

<p>I suggest you look at some older Nikkor primes Ai or Ais any of which you can get for a few hundred tops.  A shift lens is nice so you don`t need to correct perspective in photoshop.  Ai or AiS will work on the D700 in manual or A priority mode.</p>

<p> </p>

[Life Photo-Documentaries]

<p>Chris...</p>

<p>I would suggest you to learn about photography and THEN you will be able to decide what are the best options to what yo u want to do. Invest money in leaning... then buy what you really need...</p>

<p>Best </p>

<p>JC</p>

[chris_b13]

<p>I suppose that what I'm refering to as arch & design photography probably isn't what most photographers consider arch & design photography.<br>

A good chunk (I'd say 70%) will be hand held, sometimes documenting existing dilapidated buildings, or quickly composing a shot for a reference library, or in tight spaces where there isn't much room for a tripod, carrying only one or two lenses. There's a certain amount of flexibility I'd like to have, especially on the wide end for interiors - it seems like having control over the amount of perspective exaggeration below 20mm would be very useful.<br>

the PC/TS lens is for the constructed portfolio shots, what most prople consider arch photography.</p>

<p>I do need to look into some older lenses to get the cost down though. what should I look for in the 50-85 range for general walking around and portraits?</p>

[david.elliott]

<p>Get whichever feels best to you from an ergonomics standpoint? </p>

[chris_b13]

<p>JC- Well, that's kinda what I'm trying to do - buy a body and 1-2 lenses, the go from there. I've been reading up for years and talked to some prof. arch photographers that we've used. I'll agree that I'm probably trying to be a little more forward looking than is practical, but it seemed like the best way to decide on a system and stop heming and hawing over a bunch of inane 5DII vs D700 noise comparison threads.<br>

David - yeah, I need to find a place that stocks both and handle them. The 5DII is smaller / lighter but supposedly the D700 has a more intuitive interface. Here's a related question I can't seem to find the answer to: which has the louder shutter?</p>

[eyepasha]

<p>Canon vs. Nikon. You are not buying into the camera. You are buying into the system. Both systems are excellent. In practice, over time, the only difference is the photographer.<br>

Since I am a Canon user, I can only recommend Canon lens. For your purpose I recommend you start only with<br>

3: TS-E 24mm f/3.5L ($1100) <br />4: EF 50mm f/1.4 ($300)<br>

If you want a longer range for closeup work, you could look at a used 180mm macro (probably too long, I am not sure what sort of texture or detail rendering you need) or the 135mm.<br>

I don't think you need a general purpose zoom, but I am sure plenty would disagree. If you do, the 24-105 L is not great, but it is good and has a wide range.<br>

Final thoughts, if you are really starting off in photography and are a neophyte, you may not have an easy time with the TS. You are probably better off buying the 50mm and practicing with the chosen system, and buy a very cheap medium or large format camera with movements to be able to understand the impact of changing the planes. I understand you are a 3D expert, but focusing plane onto film/sensor is very different from modeling it in 3D.<br>

But it does sound as if you are well on your way to enjoying a fantastic adventure in design and architecture photography and have a solid budget to get you started. I agree with JC. You may want to take 30%-50% of your initial budget and start right with an intensive workshop or course. Both Canon and Nikon have an excellent network of learning affiliates.<br>

Enjoy!<br>

P.S. Almost forgot! Do *not* forget the solid pro tripod. Essential for this type of work, and the TS is almost unusable without it.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>Canon vs. Nikon - it doesn't matter.  It's all about personal preference.  I like Nikon - it's a controls thing.  Handle both if you can and see which controls layout feels the most natural.  And do so knowing that no matter which you choose, you'll be delighted.</p>

<p>And it is a systems decision, so don't overanalize the differences between cameras (sounds like you've already figured that out).</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>Canon vs. Nikon - it doesn't matter.  It's all about personal preference.  I like Nikon - it's a controls thing.  Handle both if you can and see which controls layout feels the most natural.  And do so knowing that no matter which you choose, you'll be delighted.</p>

<p>And it is a systems decision, so don't overanalize the differences between cameras (sounds like you've already figured that out).</p>

[jobo1]

<p>Since you want to use this system for architecture, you should check that you can get rid of the lens distortion in post.  Especially the Canon 24-105 is tricky in this regard, but should be supported soon by DxO.<br>

As for the tabletop photography, you need to figure out the size of your subject and work from there.  Extension rings for the 50mm lens could be a cheap way to get closer:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=718716<br>

 </p>

[dean]

If you aren't considering a tripod - then image perfection must not be a big issue. Why not save some money and get one of the variable aperture VR zooms(ie. Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6)? Also, it sounds like you want something quick, easy, and basically for documentation purposes. Maybe a D300 level camera would let you get more lenses?

 

I'm not trying to talk you out of great gear, but if it's cheap lenses and a great body, or the best lenses and a sufficient body; I would go for the latter. Lenses don't get outdated so quick.

 

As for the brands, I love my Nikon gear, but there are a ton of Canon users who get way better images than me!

[chris_b13]

<p>I am getting a tripod, and I will be going for image perfection. Just not all the time. I've considered starting with a cheaper body, but as often as I wanted more space when using a d50 +18-55...it seemed like not going w/ a full frame camera would be shooting myself in the foot.<br>

I think I'm settled on nikon. the PC-E is better, and the 14-24 is flat out amazing. now I'm back to being one of those whiners who wants to know when the video enabled D700x will land.</p>

<p> </p>