Nikon or Canon SLR?

[mallik]

<p>I have been a Leica M6 TTL user for quite sometime and then (un)thanks to digital world, moved over to Panasoni Lumix 8MP (with the Leica lens) pro-consumer camera for pure convenience reasons. I have not liked this camera for one reason that nearly all my pictures tend to have high depth of field due to smaller lens, which I hate. I have been wanting to move over to digital SLR now that they have become mode affordable.<br>

I had also used Nikon Film SLR FM2N quite a lot and have manual focus lenses 24mm, 50mm, 70-210mm, and 500mm mirror lens. I had been quite tempted towards moving to Canon (which somehow I felt better than Nikon in physical body handling and picture quality to some degree in JPEG mode in the digital camera segment). At the same time, I also think, if I move over to Nikon, I might be able to use my existing lenses. I happened to see a Canon body (very unfortunate did not bother to check the model name) that came with a 18-55mm 3.5 lens for Rs.29,000 at INORBIT mall at Hyderabad, India. I want to see if I can make this as my main camera with no additional lenses for quite a while until I can afford (or technology changes, just like it did, when I spent a fortune in Leica rangefinder gear!).<br>

Oh! By the way, my usage: I am just a hobbyist, mostly like journalistic photos, and do take pictures a lot during social functions and festivals, for fun.<br>

Any suggestions?<br>

Mallik</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Mallik,</p>

<p>They don't like when you post the same thing in two forums.</p>

<p>Here's what I wrote at the other place in case you miss it.</p>

<p>

<p>Oh no, not again...<br>

Both are great. Canon handles better for some, Nikon handles better than others. Quality out of equivalent cameras is more or less identical. If you bought a Nikon D300 or above you can meter with those lenses. That said, you may want new AF lenses anyway. So, for me, I think I'd just buy the one that feels better in my hands... For me, that's Nikon.<br>

Actually, I like the ergonomics of Olympus the best, but I don't dig the 4/3 format.</p>

</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Flip a coin. Really...</p>

<p>:-)</p>

[rayabel]

<p>You should get Nikon because you already have Nikon lens.<br>

You should get Canon because I like Canon better.<br>

:-)</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Not all the Nikon D-SLR's are compatible and meter right with older F-mount lenses. The D200, D300, and I think the D700 are. So, you'd need to buy a higher-grade D-SLR to fit your Nikon lenses and shoot correctly with them. Which is exactly what I did when I went from Nikon F100 to Nikon D200. I love it, and I feel I made a good choice. For me, it made good economic sense. I already knew the Nikon body so it wasn't a big learning change. </p>

<p>But if you really have good feelings about the Canon, then you might wish you'd gotten one and be perpetually disappointed in your Nikon, even though it's a great camera. </p>

<p>For me, a weekend rental is a good way to make a decision. Rent the Canon and try it out for a day or two if you can, and see if it's worth the switch. Some camera rental shops will even put part of your rental cost toward a discount on a new purchase.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>If you want a shallow depth of field like your Leica M6 then you should ideally choose a full frame digital SLR like the Nikon D700 or the Canon 5D. However, they are expensive. The Canon camera you saw with the 18-55mm lens will not have been full frame. Nevertheless, all Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras are very good and even the ones that aren't full frame will give you nice shallow depth of field (far more that your Panasonic Lumix).</p>

<p>Personally, I would go for a Nikon DSLR so that you can continue to use all your existing lenses.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Another option you should consider is looking at a Micro 4/3 body (e.g. Panasonic G1, Olympus EP-1) and a Leica adaptor - yopu can then shoot digital with your M6 lenses although the focal length doubles. Unfortunately the small 4/3 sensor never gives a really small DOF unless you are using F1.2 to F1.8 lenses.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> One other thing about the Canons is that you can get adapters (several kinds and prices) to use those Nikons on the Canon body.</p>

[mallik]

<p>I apologize on cross posting. I didn't realize the violation I was making. I just thought I would get both view points. Thanks for responses so far. I never knew all SLRs are not necessarily full frame ones. Looks like I have to catch up a lot in theory, since I stopped keeping track six years ago!<br>

Mallik</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>One thing you should consider: You do not simply buy a camera, you buy into a whole system. Therefore, think about which equipment you want to have say within 5 years. Then compare which system comes closer to your needs and compare prices of the whole system including several lenses, flash etc.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>There are essentially four sizes and only a few are full frame. Canon has had full frame for the longest and their 1Ds series, 5D and 5D II are full frame. Nikon has recently added full frame with the D3, D3x and D700 and Sony makes one Full frame body. The next size down is a 1.3x (APS-H) only made by Canon as the Sports oriented 1D series. The most common size is APS-C which is 1.5x or 1.6x depending on the manufacturer and finally Olympus and panasonic have 4/3 and micro 4/3 which is a 2x. A 50mm lens on a 1.6x camera behaves like an 80mm lens on a full frame camera. you can always use full frame lenses on any compatible body but can only use non- full frame lenses selectively. With Nikon you can use their APS-C lenses on their full frame bodies but you only use the central pixels in the sensor giving low resolution - 5.1 Mega pixel on the 12.1 Megapixel D3. With Canon you get two lens series Ef and EF-S. The EF-S lenses are designed for APS-C sensors and while they will fit on the Full frame and APS-H bodies you will be unable to take a photograph. If you go full frame you will get better quality, shallow depth of field and better wide angle coverage. The viewfinder is bigger and brighter with a full frame body. The downside of full frame is that bodies and especially the lenses are more expensive and bigger/heavier. High resoultion full frame bodies such as the 5DII or 1DsIII need the best quality lenses - while you can use them with cheap full frame lenses you really need to stick with L series lenses or lenses that are very close to L series in performance (e.g. 50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.8). The advantage of APS-C is price, size and the telephoto advantage - a 200 f2.8 becomes a 320 F2.8 when used on an APS-C body.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I have a Nikon D200 and I like it very well. My friend has a Canon 50D and he likes it more then is normal. OBviously for a narrow depth of field you need a lens that will open up wide. Stick with lenses that have f2.8 or wider. Good luck with you new gear. </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Short and unsubtle:</p>

<p>Get the one that feels best in your hands.</p>

<p>Get the one that you can beg, steal or borrow the best lenses for.</p>

<p>Get the one your father used. (Or not if you want to be contrary.)</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>nikon's market share is ever shrinking. sony is giving them a hard time. canon, on the other hand, is doing great biz. for me, all other factors being equal (hypothetically), if i was to invest in an entire system, these elements would weigh in pretty heavily</p>

[mallik]

<p>What I want are, in that order:</p>

<ol>

<li>Shallow depth of field</li>

<li>Large aperture (will need to shoot low-light with no flash)</li>

<li>Will not go for non-Nikon, Canon, Leica lens</li>

<li>Low on budget</li>

<li>Small on size</li>

</ol>

<p>I am just thinking will I be better off shooting film with my M6 and have then scanned at high resolution :)<br>

What will be my best choice for points 1-5 mentioned above?<br>

Mallik</p>

[jeffrey_synn]

<p>Mallik, I notice that the convenience of digital is not on your list. You also seem pretty satisfied with what you have now. If you are OK with film (and you seem to be) I see no reason for you to buy anything else. In this case, time will work in your favor since digital cameras get cheaper every year. (Lenses? Well...)</p>

<p>Since you favor shallow depth of field as your #1, you will prefer the largest image area you can afford. Full frame digital gets cheaper over time but still isn't really "cheap" just yet (at least to me). Maybe you could even entertain the thought of medium or large format film. In comparison, a APS sensor camera with kit lens is definitely going to disappoint you in this regard. That said, a relatively cheap 50mm f/1.4 lens can get a pretty darn thin depth of field, even on a crop sensor. Perhaps you can try that out and see if that will be enough to satisfy you.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Question: have you priced the high-resolution scanning, or done it yourself? It's neither cheap nor easy, IMO. Do that before you decide. </p>

<p>Unless you have a pressing immediacy to have all your work easily available in digital format (e.g. a client who needs it online 24 hours after you shoot), it sounds to me like you would better off spending your budget on fast lenses for your film camera. That's what gives you shallow DOF & low-light options. You could buy a nice point and shoot for your few digital needs, call it a day, and save your budget for a fast film lens. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Malik - keep the Leica and buy a scanner - the Nikon 5000 is a good option (the 9000 is faster even with 35mm but twice the price). You should be able to pick one up for about $1100 new or nearly new. You may also want to consider the Minolta if you can find one at a good price. Scanning is actually easy once you get the hang of it. It quickly gets cheaper to buy your own scanner than to have them scanned. in addition once you get the hang of it you can control the results much better than a third party scan. Cheap scans are not worth the money and flat bed scanners are no good for 35mm.</p>

[mallik]

<p>Incidentally I already have a Panasonic Lumix 8 MP digital camera. I was not happy with its lack of shallow DOF (that's how it started; didn't know Canon Rebel was not full frame). I have a Nikon Coolscan IV film scanner that I have not been using much in last five years. It creates about 25-30MB files for each negative/slide when I scan film (didn't calculate what it translates to on DPI and size of a decent print I can have). But scanning one film roll was taking easily 3-4 hours end to end from what I recollect last. I was not getting this amount of time on my hobby. Needed attention to stay with film, loading, unloading, basic editing, and so on. And then since this amount of file size easily eats up hard disk, had to take back-up to DVD and so on. Felt like a hassle. But perhaps I should simplify myself into small JPEG that I really need day-to-day (all will not be printed anyway) and reduce the effort. I get to enjoy my beautiful cameras Leica (and Nikon for that special once in a while SLR stuff pictures).<br>

Thanks for all the advice. It was really useful. It looks like many of you suggested, I should go back to film and convert to digital need based. I am less confused than when I started (just hope my scanner still works - else ask the studio to scan for me, who promises 400 DPI).<br>

But curious to know, in today's era when there are so many digital cameras, are there many people who 'regularly' shoot in film and do film scanning?<br>

Mallik</p>