Canon or Nixon

[boinkphoto]

<p>I see a lot of great pics out of the Canons and I have to say they tend to have more neutral of a look. That is, to me the Nikon images say Nikon all over them (lots of browns and stuff).</p>

<p>However, I shoot Nikon (both a D300 and a Fuji S5) and one major particular advantage is being able to use the older lenses (however, if it's a D80, well, not as easily if they aren't AF). There's a lot of great cheap lenses in older forms due to Nikon keeping their mount since basically, forever (ok, well the PC ones are out unless they've been AI converted but...).</p>

<p>Regardless, they're both great and I don't think you'll get a rational answer out of a discussion here. I agree with one of the posts - try `em.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p >I have a Canon 40D and my girlfriend has a Nikon D90, and I often try to figure out which one is better. Her Nikon has that great high-resolution LCD and 12 megapixels, but I like the ergonomics on my Canon much, much better. The controls on the Nikon just seem kinda goofy to me. (Nixon seemed kinda goofy too, and I'm old enough to remember him.) Neither one of us is too invested in camera gear, so we could easily switch to the other line if a compelling reason arose, and I think that compelling reason would be image quality. If I believed Nikons produced better images, I would switch to a Nikon and just learn how to use it. So far, however, most everyone says the image quality is comparable (except for those guys who keep saying it's the photographer, the photographer, which is only partially true). But, as I bet everyone does, I still look at my images and wonder if they would be better if I had taken them with a different body or lens....</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In any case, Joel, you'll probably be equally happy with either a Canon or Nikon, but still always wondering if you made the right choice.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BTW, that incredible image of the train and city skyline looks like Atlanta, to me. Am I right?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Time to log on to B&H and look for cable releases....</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>I think you're going to be happy with either Nikon or Canon. Both obviously high-quality systems. "System" is the key word. Remember that as you get into this, you're not only buying a camera, but buying into a system. </p>

<p>Think serioiusly about what you want to do. Consider the lenses and accessories you will be likely to need in the future. Check the availability/affordability of the entire system you will want. Which will make it more practical for you to build your ideal system? Which will actually have more backward-compatabilty to fine affordable used lenses?</p>

<p>Nikon or Canon, but I think I'd <em>stay away from Nixon</em>; It's my understanding that you have to <em>shred the prints</em> at some point in the future...</p>

[summicron_sam]

<p>Clinton was impeached, and that didn't mean crap.</p>

<p>I think that the OP meant "Cannon vs. Nixon".</p>

[phinneus_stapleton]

<p>Speed Graphic.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>"I hear the Nixon can also record audio..."</p>

<p>Did you know that the famous 18 1/2 minute gap in the Nixon tapes is almost exactly the same length as Arlo Guthries recording of Alice's Restaurant? Mr. Guthrie has speculated that the length of his recording might somehow explain the length of the gap in the Nixon tapes.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Chevy v. Ford again. (Yawn. . . .)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>As Stephen has rightly said, Sony is the company to watch out.<br>

They are much bigger than both Canon and Nikon put together, and they seem damn serious about their DSLR business.<br>

Gurbally/Toronto</p>

[evanroboldphotography]

<p>Hi Joel! Sorry if this response is a bit late. My opinion: you really can't go wrong either way, Canon or Nikon. One is not overall <em>better</em> than the other. They're just different. It really depends on your eventual style or genre of photography. It's even possible that the choice you make will impact the evolution of your style, or what you like to shoot. It's exciting starting out, but don't get too hung up on the whole which camera/which lens if it at all impedes you from actually going out and taking photos. Good luck, and stick with it!</p>

<p>Oh, and I highly recommend trying before buying: <a href="http://www.lensprotogo.com/shopping/start.php?browse=1&cat=11&=SID">http://www.lensprotogo.com/shopping/start.php?browse=1&cat=11&=SID</a></p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I never felt that I quite got the whole picture from a Nixon.</p>

<p>New or used? Can't speak for the new Nixons. I do suggest avoiding the old ones, but the very worst models can no longer be found.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>between the two bodies you mentioned, I like the canon body better (and i'm a nikon user). You'd be better off buying a slightly used Nikon D200 than D80. but you have to take into consideration that you are "marrying" that brand in a sense. </p>

[joel_ballanger]

<p>....I can see clearly now.... (I tried both out) that I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthright in dealing with my camera choice......-Joel Ballanger</p>

<p>....I can see clearly now... that I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate.....-Richard Nixon</p>

<p>But seriously, I tried it out and I found that I really like the ergonomics of the Canon more than I do the Nikon and well say I do find out, in say a year, that Canon has some major problems or things I don't like ..then I'll invest in a Nikon. Hell, I'm young it's not like I have a mortgage to pay for! <br>

Thanks a lot Mark Thomas, your help has been awesome, I probably would have searched ebay and bought something only to find out that it was incompatible!</p>

<p>BTW I LOVE THIS SITE ITS AWESOME!</p>

<p> </p>

[joel_ballanger]

<p>Quick question (I'm getting the EOS 40D) :</p>

<p>Zoom lens (comes as a kit) - EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM<br>

or<br>

buy the body and a prime lens- EF 50/1.4</p>

 

[peter_wang6]

<p>Which lens? That's an entirely separate debate, one that would probably spawn another hundred replies.</p>

<p>But with respect to those two specific lenses you mention (EF-S 17-85/4-5.6, vs. EF 50/1.4), ask yourself two questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>How much do I really need the flexibility of a zoom? Am I willing to accept reduced optical quality and a smaller max aperture in order to obtain that flexibility in focal length?</li>

<li>Do I envision staying with the Canon EF mount for the long haul--in particular, do I see myself upgrading to a 35mm sensor size at some point in the future?</li>

</ol>

<p>If the answer to the first question is "no," AND the answer to the second is "yes," then get the 50/1.4--the decision is clear. If (1) is a "yes" and (2) is a "no," then get the EF-S lens because you're not moving in a direction that is best served by a prime lens right now. If the answer is somewhere in between; e.g., you want the flexibility of a zoom but are planning on going 35mm by upgrading to a 5D- or 1D-series EOS, you may want to consider an EF zoom even though that may be more than what you are willing to pay right now. That EF-S zoom will simply not work on a 35mm format camera. On the other hand, if you don't care about zoom flexibility right now, you may just go with an EF prime and reap the benefit of higher image quality.</p>

<p>Let's be clear: Given that you are going for the 40D, you need glass that will live up to the demands of a high pixel density sensor. Going for the highest-quality lens you can afford is generally a good investment, as lenses do not become outdated easily--unless Canon makes a Mark II version (and even then, sometimes people still prefer the Mark I, as in the case of the 50/1.8!).</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Between the two, I would choose the zoom. The 40D is a crop sensor camera so that 50/1.4 will behave like an 80mm lens on a full frame and you'll probably miss the wide end.</p>

<p>You might also look at the Canon 18-200 zoom instead. You'll sacrifice some lens quality, but gain a LOT in versatility. I have a 40D with the 24-105 f/4 L and it's a high quality lens, but I often wish it was both wider and longer, especially longer. I'm shopping for a longer lens to supplement it.</p>

[antonio_rodriguez_sanchez]

<p>The deciding factor should be the lenses. Both are excellent bodies.</p>

<p>Canon has a slight advantage in terms of a larger offer of lenses, specially in terms of telephoto, Nikon seems to have the edge in wide angle.</p>

<p>I would do this: Look for the lens offering (available at each company's website), select the ones you want, look for the price you would pay and then choose the body for your preferred choice in lenses.</p>

<p>Bodies come and go, but the lenses will be with you forever.</p>

<p>Funny that Firefox thought Nixon when you wrote Nikon ;-P</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[tom_becker8]

<p>Although flawed and largely responsible for the Watergate fiasco, President Nixon did a small number of good things. I think President Canon was better.</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>President Canon... Hmmmm, wasn't he fired several times?</p>

[mwtphoto]

<p>You are very welcome Joel. When I bought my 40D I went for the kit with the 17-85mm lens. I then sold the kit lens, to reduce the overall cost of the body. i.e. there is quite a savings buying the lens in a kit rather than by itself. I think since you are just starting that I would go for the 17-85 kit lens. The 50/1.4 is actually quite long on the 40D cropped sensor ie like an 85mm lens on a full frame camera. Use the kit lens for awhile and then see what focal length you use the most and then decide on your next lens purchase - remember one of the reasons for owning a DSLR is the flexibility of attaching many different lens. Good luck with your purchase and I look forward to seeing some of your photos here on photo.net.</p>

[scott_paris4]

<p>Hi, Joel...... Just 2 comments:<br>

First, regarding refurbished items: I've bought 3 Canon factory refurbished items from Adorama, and all 3 were perfect, and have been working fine for a year or so. Highly recommended.<br>

Second, I've done a lot of nighttime, long exposure photography with my Canon 30D, and it works amazingly well. I use aperture priority, the exposures go up to 30 seconds or so (That's a guess; I've never actually timed them.) and the exposures are very close on the first try. Pictures by moonlight! It's fun.. I think manual focus works best; otherwise the camera gets confused. And of course you need a tripod, and maybe a little flashlight so you can see the buttons on the camera.<br>

You really won't regret buying either of these brands.<br>

Oh, you should be aware that some models won't fire at all if they don't think there's enough light. Since you know you want to shoot in the dark, you should difinitely try that function before you buy.</p>

 

[longname]

<p>I'd go with the Nixon, if you can find it!</p>

[pj_vesterback]

<p>"Oh, you should be aware that some models won't fire at all if they don't think there's enough light. Since you know you want to shoot in the dark, you should difinitely try that function before you buy."</p>

<p>Must be a Canon thing. I've never run into that problem with any Pentax camera I have used.</p>

[k._j.]

<p>I am about to get my first DSLR (I have cashed in a bunch of airmiles to get a Canon Rebel XS and am waiting for delivery). For me it is a no brainer to get a Canon because I had a 35 mm Elan IIe. The 35 mm equipment is about ten years old. About 7 years ago, I just stopped using an SLR altogether. Film, processing and printing just got too expensive. For the casual photos I was taking, I was happy to just to use a Canon digital point and shoot, shooting hundreds of photos on a weekend and storing them on CD's or hard drive; I think I have only printed 20 prints in the last 7 years.</p>

<p>Over the years, I looked into buying a DSLR but never was never quite motivated enough; early on it was a matter of high cost, low megapixels, slow performance, noise at higher ISO, etc at least in the consumer level DSLR. With the technological progress being made, it seemed to me that entry level DSLR's had almost become a disposable item; they became obsolete within about a year as the next bigger and better came along. Plus, I did not miss lugging around a big camera.</p>

<p>Recently, I noticed that I had more than enough airmiles to get one for "free" and that the DSLR's have reached a stage where even the lowest model of any brand will give amazing performance even in low light situation. IMO, at the entry level, DSLR's may have hit a plateau in terms of picture taking performance for the average non-professional consumer. They can jam in more megapixels, add video or maybe put in a phone or wi-fi, but pictures are not going to look a whole lot better at this stage, IMO.</p>

<p>If you are new into the game, I don't think you could go wrong with either Canon or Nikon (or Sony, Olympus, etc etc.). But I do have to say that I am very happy that I went with Canon ten years ago. Canon was very forward thinking when they designed the EF mount and it is nice to see that I will be able to use all of my old Canon film lenses (50mm/1.8 and 28 -105) on the latest digial camera. I believe that even my old Canon 380ex flash will still work with the new Rebel XS.</p>

[richard_eng]

<p>I'm a new photographer, too. Back in February, I had to choose between Canon and Nikon. Both offer excellent systems.<br>

Being a newbie, I didn't want to overspend, so I looked at the 40D, which was heavily discounted (in the wake of the 50D). I also looked at the D90.<br>

I hated the D90. It simply didn't feel good in my hands.<br>

The moment I held the 40D, however, I instantly fell in love with it! It seems like this camera was designed specifically to fit my hands!<br>

When choosing a camera, Image Quality and lens selection/system are important considerations. But so are ergonomics and handling! After all, you have to live with this camera for a long time (esp. at a cost of over $1,000).<br>

I'm very happy with my 40D. Image quality is excellent. Build quality is excellent -- I *love* the all-magnesium body! And the price is right!<br>

Since both cameras are priced the same, it seems to me the choice is clear.<br>

(BTW, don't go chasing after the latest features. Focus on the basics: IQ and comfort. The D90 and D300 may have lots of nice features, but the 40D is still a great camera and a terrific bargain to boot!)</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Joel, your first impression was merely affirmed here, mostly by choosing to post the question on a Canon forum. No problem, I have shot Canon, still keep one around, and they produce wonderful pictures. A few of the comments were, however, somewhat jaundiced.<br /> Just for kicks, and the sake of balance, you might want to post your query on a Nikon forum. You can bet whatever you own that the ergonomics comments will be 180 degrees around, as also backwards compatibility will have a different take than some, and a few others. That is the theory of our wonderful legal system: listen to two sides, then choose.<br /> No matter, though. Pick the one that feels the best would be my suggestion. Both will produce better pictures than most of us are able to print. The joy of the great images will be your real reward either way.<br /> Just my $.02.</p>