Switching to Nikon

[sven_felsby]

<p>Well spoken, Tony.<br>

And the 18-200 certainly is no dog, not mine as far as I am concerned. You get shots you would miss by changing lenses. </p><div></div>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I need the 18-200 just for the convenience aspect of it and is mainly intended for travel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you should seriously consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Its IQ should be much better. It is a f2.8 lens and the newest version ($600) has stabilization so it will be wonderful to use when the light levels are low. For most traveling and family events, do you really use the 200mm end that much? If you only use the long end occasionally, you can buy a 85mm or 90mm prime lens to save on weight and cost.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>CC Chang, I couldn´t have taken the bird shot if I needed to switch lenses. That is the whole point.<br>

I own a lot of Nikon primes, and "much better" is an exaggeration. True, the 18-200 is soft at 200mm 5.6, but then again, I know it and crank it up to f/9 and all is well.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sven, nice shot. that kind of confirms both points i was making about the 18-200--that you need to shoot a couple clicks down on the aperture ring for acceptable sharpness, and its convenience is its biggest virture.</p>

<p>as i hinted earlier, if you can keep the 18-200 around f/9, and have good framing, composition, and correct settings, it's capable of good photos. should also mention the d90 does auto-correct for CA, and you can mitigate distortion a bit in post-. so for traveling, that's a good combo. for more critical applications, you'd probably want something different. at the least, i'd probably also get the 50/1.8 or 35/1.8 for times when that 5.6 max aperture isnt going to cut it, but YMMV.</p>

<p>i really wasnt trying to stir up a flame fest about the 18-200. perhaps i reacted a bit to d.b.'s post a bit, which kind of overstated its ability (common among 18-200 owners, especially those who dont own any really sharp lenses to compare it to). i think as long as you know what it can and can't do, and are ok with that, you'll be fine. certainly the shot you take is better than the shot you miss because you were switching lenses, in any situation.</p>

<p> </p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>"much better" is an exaggeration</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree but I will elaborate a bit on my perspective. In my experience, traveling with family, most of my subjects are people, and for taking candid people pictures, a fast zoom in the range of 17-50 is what I use 90% of the time. The wide aperture is important to get shallow DOF, which I think really helps to pop the subject. A wide aperture also helps to take pictures at low light if I need high shutter speeds to freeze the movement of my son (remember those fast running toddlers?). For these reasons, I find the 17-50 a much better choice. If wild life is in the horizon, the OP can carry the 55-200 which is light and small. Sure, since the latter is not mounted on the camera all the time, and one may miss a shot. I think this is an acceptable compromise since I have the lens at the ready that will cover 90% of what I want to shoot.</p>

[OPK]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>I know that is a Nikon forum, but please don't do any missleading in tech specification. Look in white papers both companies and you'll see that 50D IS actually weathel sealed similiary to 1D. Eswarad was interessted in camera for travel photos, so construction is really an issue.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Martin, my point is that no DSLR is really weather sealed; there are various degrees of weather resistance, but even the 1D or Nikon D3 is not really sealed. To say the least, you have a huge lens opening in front, and even though your camera body is somewhat weather resistant, most lenses are not.<br>

<br>

I just returned from a trip to the Antarctic where I had fellow (professional) photographers who used the Canon 5D Mark II, which is well known to be not sealed. Those cameras worked fine under a bit of rain and snow. If you apply some common sense during poor weather, pretty much all DSLRs are fine.<br>

<br>

This is not a Canon vs. Nikon issue, as I told the OP from the very beginning that he is better off sticking with Canon. However, I think it is counterproductive to emphasis "weather sealing" as a selection criterion. To me, that is a non issue.</p>

[fujimike]

<p>I am a Nikon user yes but i have many friends with Canon's. Without trying to be too biased! lol i will try to give you my best advice on my experience as a photographer for over 5 years.<br>

I would definitely say without a doubt go the Nikon route. Why?<br>

1/ Because the build quality is far superior.<br>

2/ The focusing on the Canon's tend to be slower.<br>

3/ The colours seem to be far more accurate on the Nikon's.<br>

4/ Although the Canon's do have a larger range of lenses geared up more for the amateur, the Nikon's have better quality professional lenses. I have gone down that route surely but slowly! as i am after the very top quality for my photography work which i love and am dedicated to. <br>

If you are really serious about photography and aspire after the sharpest quality, most accurate colours available, best handled and robust gear then go the Nikon route.<br>

If you are intending to stay where you are with photography and will put up with inaccurate colours, poorer build quality, slower frame rates, and most importantly lesser picture quality compared to the Nikon then stay with Canon. It will serve your purpose well but will have it's limitations.<br>

Good luck ;o)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Michael Moore,</p>

<p>As a die-hard Nikon fan, I have to say that none of what you say is true. Both Canon and Nikon make great cameras. They are equal in build quality, some Canons focus better, some Nikons do, both are capable of great color, and both make great pro lenses.</p>

<p>Some of the greatest photographers around shoot Canon.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>You're comparing a Rebel series to a D90. Pick up a 50D and see how it feels.</p>

<p>Also: you're very concerned with upgrading the body, but sticking to 18-200 super zooms which will never do justice to the 12-15 MP sensors in bodies like the D90 or 50D. Consider getting better lenses.</p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>By all means.... switch to Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Sony or whatever makes you happy. What amazes me in these posts on Nikon v Canon is it never ends. Why not go back to film? Seriously, though if you want to switch -- do it on your own conclusions, people here make too many technically biased recommendations.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Why not go back to film?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Canon or Nikon? ...</p>

<p>Any way, this is no longer a C vs N debate as the OP already indicated the preference for Nikon.</p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>Chang, it is funny however that Shun suggests Canon</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Moore, I have used both Nikon and Canon and am nobody's fanboy. But your points 2, 3 and 4 are not correct. <br />I got better colours from the old 5D than D700, and Canon lens are as good in quality as Nikon's. Photographers should stop behaving fanatically about their gear. <br />Canon has nothing like Nikon's 14-24mm and 200-400mm. But then Nikon has not great primes like 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2. So both systems are great. Good competition between Nikon and Canon is good for us.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>How can Nikon have better ergonomics? thats like saying blue is a better color then red. They both make great systems in the end the only real difference is ergonomics. </p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Ergonomics is a very personal feeling. Some prefer Nikon, other prefer the handling of Canon. </p>

[wuyeah]

<p>It does sounded wrong but it is very true...choose between camera REALLY is like picking a girl friend. You do need to touch them to know know your preference.</p>

<p>Do you always choose girlfriend base on what people are talking about? Have you ever had a feeling "sure, she does have few flaws but I lover her anyway." Other people's preference really is not important to you.</p>

<p>Like relationship with a woman. Sometimes you will want to buy her some expansive accessories or you love her so much that you want to buy her a bigger house, better cars...etc. Yes, there are times in life you might have a little "flint" with someone else...but keep both relationship on will benefit you NOTHING but cost you everything.</p>

<p>Remember, it is now a relationship. Not a marriage. Divorce always cost more than breaking up with a girl friend. If you truly do found yourself liking Nikon better, eventually you will think yellow is better than red. That is only a personal opinion, not a true statement.</p>