Canon or Nixon

[mvw photo]

<p>My choice: clearly Canon. The Nikon's three focus areas are not enough. Other than that, there are no bad brands.</p>

<p>Both Canon and ikon have a cheap 50mm f/1.8 which is a great portrait lens</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_eng]

<p>It's also worth noting that Nikon lenses are generally more expensive than Canon lenses. Examples from Adorama:<br>

Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L vs Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8G: $1,190 vs $1729<br>

Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L IS vs Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8G VR: $1,599 vs $1,899<br>

Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 vs Nikon's 17-35 f/2.8: $1,399 vs. $1764<br>

Canon's 10-22 is cheaper and has more range than the Nikon 12-24 [$699 vs $899] and cheaper than the 10-24 [$899]<br>

If you're cost-conscious, that's a pretty good reason to go with Canon...</p>

[sparsons]

<p>The Nikon D80 has 11 autofocus points (at least mine did when I was out shooting with it a few hours ago). I think you're confused with the entry-level D40/x/60.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>Coming from a Nikon user and lover:</p>

<p>The D80 is perhaps the worst recent Nikon camera. Aside from its poor high ISO performance (the D40 is a full stop better, and has much less chroma noise at every setting), it is known for an erratic metering system that is easily confused. Looking beyond full "systems" for a moment I'd say the 40D is clearly the better body. Depending on what you shoot Canon may also have the superior system. On the other hand the Nikon D90 is a <i>massive</i> improvement over the D80 and is worth spending a little extra money on. It has a great metering system, a brighter viewfinder (D80/D90 viewfinders are notably larger than that of the 40D), superb high ISO performance, more speed and a more comfortable grip design. </p>

<p>If you shoot telephoto/sports, I'd push you towards Canon. Nikon supertele primes are blindingly expensive, and there are no good lower-cost alternatives; Canon also has more primes with fast-focusing built-in motors. You can't use the Nikon 85/1.8 comfortably for sports, for example, but you can with the EOS version. If you're shooting wide angle or just the normal range, Nikon is probably better. The new 10-24 DX is very promising, the 17-35 is superior to Canon's 16-35 and 17-40, and the 14-24 is the best wide angle zoom on the market. </p>

[nick_baker]

<p>I went through this decision a year ago.<br>

Although it is true that today's new camera is next year's discounted one, the newer Nikon's (D90, D5000, D300) have much better sensors and given your interest in light, perhaps you should not consider the D80.<br>

Many people say that Canon has a better selection of lenses in general including more IS and USM telephoto and zoom lenses, and that Nikon may currently have better bodies (better ergonomics, more robust) and better flash. Better Nikon bodies (D200 and up) can mount almost any Nikon lens since about 1970, and this gives access to a huge selection of quality cheap manual focus lenses on the used market, if you think that is something you might use. Each system has a few items that the other does not, for example, I decided to go Nikon (D300) because only they have a VR macro lens, which made a huge difference for me. On the other hand, a friend has just switched from Nikon to Canon because he finds that the Nikon 80-400 VR cannot focus fast enough for birds in flight, whereas the Canon 100-400 IS can, and this is his main interest. <br>

If you have such a specific goal, you should pick based on the lens or other feature that is most useful to you, and honestly it is unlikely to be the camera body that is most important. If your interest is in 'general photography', then it doesn't matter, Canon and Nikon are the two leaders, either one is great.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Nick, what Nikon body was your friend, who switched to Canon for the sake of 100-400mm IS, was using? Nikon 80-400mm is a great lens on D700.</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<p>Assuming the choice is between Canon and Nikon, the answer is clear:</p>

<p>Both.</p>

<p>At least that's what I use and recommend.</p>

<p>But the 40D is definitely way better than the D80. They weren't even supposed to be compared to each other; they are in different lines, targeted to different users. One is a semi-pro camera, the other is an amateur model. The closest Nikon equivalent to the 40D was/is the D200. It's a great camera, and one that I have used.</p>

[richard_eng]

<p>Some people say the D90 has a more comfortable grip design than the 40D, but isn't this purely subjective? I've handled both cameras and the 40D is way more comfortable.<br>

And, BTW, if the D90 has a larger brighter viewfinder, I didn't really notice. To my eyes, the 40D viewfinder is excellent.</p>

[uzay_ki_i]

<p>This is a never ending question, so buy one of them and take some photos.</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>For a beginner, a Nikon DXX body with 18-200 is probably the most practical choice.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>"Some people say the D90 has a more comfortable grip design than the 40D, but isn't this purely subjective? I've handled both cameras and the 40D is way more comfortable.<br /> And, BTW, if the D90 has a larger brighter viewfinder, I didn't really notice. To my eyes, the 40D viewfinder is excellent."</p>

<p>Oh, the grip comment wasn't a reference to the 40D, but the D80. I find my dad's D80's grip awkward and uncomfortable; the D90's is much better. My friend has a 40D and it's also comfortable.</p>

<p>The 40D viewfinder is decent, but the D90's is larger and brighter. The D300's is larger and brighter again.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>The only Nixon that matters this month used to play for the soon to be 2009 NBA Champion LA Lakers.</p>

<p>I've shot with Nikons for 30 or so years, and I'd buy a D90 today if I had the money in my pocket.</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p> Here's a good link you can use to make your diss.<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/308|0/(appareil2)/180|0/(appareil3)/295|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Sony/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon</p>