Nikon or Canon?

[mkj]

Hi All,

I have been using Nikon D-80 for 5 months. I was not very happy with it mainly because there is no sensor cleaning option & for some reason I kept on feeling that Canon has more vibrant colors (mainly from various online pics & especially PBase) so on back of mind I wasn't very sure if did the right choice by going with Nikon. Now I have sold my D-80 & need to get a new camera, the options I have:

Nikon D300 or Canon (not sure which one yet). I would really appreciate if someone can help me out of here as I need to buy the new camera urgently. This question is haunting me !

Cheers,
K

[djwixx]

The D80 gives you full control of the colour and how rich that colour is. I suspect the white balance options on your D80 were still defaulted to 0. Try -3 to make them brighter. How often did you change the lens on the D80? Dust shouldn't be that much of a problem, and is easily correctable. Given all the user options on a D80 to give you the results you wanted I would have to question whether spending another $2000 will improve that for you. The D300 will pose similar issues with user control of the results, as will any Canon DSLR. The Canon 40D will probably be a similar consideration to the Nikon D300.

At the end of the day a Canon or a Nikon is down to user choice and both make excellent cameras.

Bear in mind the results you see online aren't necessarily what the camera has taken. You'll find most people post process or process from raw so what you see is not what was taken.

See http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=36102&highlight= for a similar conversation.

[prinothcat]

wanna see vibrant? look through http://www.kenrockwell.com. Then look at how he sets up his gear. He has reviews and tech info up the wazzo. Maybe it will help you maybe it will not. Disclaimer: some folks like Ken and some do not...... The D300 is a major step above the D-80. That said if you only shoot 'em at default they will both take flat pictures.

[mkj]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the replies !

Well that is what my concern was...I hardly opend the lens becuase I had only one lens...but still dust got in

I got your point about results & postprocessing. But in terms of lens variety & options I get the feeling that Canon has more to offer and it is cheper than Nikon?

[djwixx]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the replies !

Well that is what my concern was...I hardly opend the lens becuase I had only one lens...but still dust got in

I got your point about results & postprocessing. But in terms of lens variety & options I get the feeling that Canon has more to offer and it is cheper than Nikon?

On the camera side I might be inclined to agree with you, but not on the lens side. The Canon L lenses have a deserved reputation and their prices match. It depends on what you consider your lens requirements to be. Either way Nikon and Canon see each other as the direct competition and do all they can to match each other. At the end of the day it's a user decision. Just remember a DSLR is designed to give the user full control. A point and shoot makes many decisions on your behalf. If you learn the camera system you will get the results you want whether it's a Nikon or a Canon.

Any DSLR will let in dust, it's part of the package, and even anti dust mechanisms won't reduce that to zero.

[mkj]

On the camera side I might be inclined to agree with you, but not on the lens side. The Canon L lenses have a deserved reputation and their prices match.

I am not sure I got your point here. Canon L lenses have a good reputation?

It depends on what you consider your lens requirements to be.

For the moment I would be happy with something like 18-200 but obvioulsy I would build my arsenal gradually. I just wanted to be sure in longer term I am on the safe side (Nikon or Canon side)

Any DSLR will let in dust, it's part of the package, and even anti dust mechanisms won't reduce that to zero.

So does that mean ALL DSLRs have to be services once in a while even if they have sensor cleaning option?

[marxz]

just like on normal "non anti dust" sensor SLR cameras you can manual clean sensor dust using sensor cleaning swabs.

But every now and then you may find that you'll need to have it serviced or cleaned....
You'll probably find that the better camera stores in your area can do this just as well as the camera manufacturers official services centers. And usually while you wait instead of a few days turn around.

as for vibrancy.... try shoot raw as much as you can and tweak saturation in post processing (Lightroom, aperture, photoshop LE, iPhoto, etc)... no point trying to put in what the in camera JPG conversion process has thrown away.

[adz929]

I shoot my Nikons in all kinds of environments, from dusty horse tracks to cold and wet winter nights, and I've only ever given my DSLR's a quick puff with the blower once or twice, yet I've never seen any noticable dust bunnies. Sure, if you're into shooting plain white walls at insanly small apertures, then you might have dust concerns, but who here actually does that? God I hope noone says "I do!". And whats this about Nikon not having vibrant colours? I bet if you were to take the exact same shot, using comparable bodies and lenses and used the exact same PP, I guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Nikon and Canon. For me, my decision to go Nikon over any other brand was usability and ergonomics, something, IMO, no other manufacturer can match.

[marxz]

shooting with clear sky as a backdrop I find dust gets visible at about F8 (hardly an insane aperture) and is truly annoying by 11... I rarely shoot past 11 but if I do even a "shop cleaned" sensor shows visible dust by f16.
the same dust spots are often not visible when lined up on a active background or even on the subject.

don't know why but my D60 is far less susceptible to visible dust than the 20D maybe it's the lower pixel count or maybe it's some sort of static thing?

[djwixx]

On the camera side I might be inclined to agree with you, but not on the lens side. The Canon L lenses have a deserved reputation and their prices match.

I am not sure I got your point here. Canon L lenses have a good reputation?

It depends on what you consider your lens requirements to be.

For the moment I would be happy with something like 18-200 but obvioulsy I would build my arsenal gradually. I just wanted to be sure in longer term I am on the safe side (Nikon or Canon side)

Any DSLR will let in dust, it's part of the package, and even anti dust mechanisms won't reduce that to zero.

So does that mean ALL DSLRs have to be services once in a while even if they have sensor cleaning option?

YES - Canon L lenses have a good reputation and a good price because of it. If you start with a kit lens and it serves your purpose then great but as you learn more you'll become more concerned about the quality. Remember that the results are because of the lens and not the camera. A $2000 camera with a $200 lens is a pointless investment. You'd do better to buy a $1000 camera and put a $1000 in lenses on it.

The 18-200 is a very soft lens because of the long focal range. It's a great all round lens, but it does have it's problems, hence it's not a great lens in the general scheme of things. If I were you, whether you choose Canon or Nikon, I'd buy the 50mm F1.8 for several reasons. Firstly it's very cheap in both camps and secondly it's a great lens to show you the capabilities of the full aperture range. Once you figure out what the 50mm can give you, ignoring the fixed focal distance, you'll really wonder about the 18-200. Again with Canon or Nikon you're on the safe side, and again it's down to personal preference. As stated previously ergonomics and preferred results should be your choice, and not what we're suggesting.

If you use your camera in 100% dry environments then a quick blow (not your mouth) of the sensor should be fine. When there's some humidity or sea air added to the equation all bets are off, even with anti dust mechanisms. I change lenses every day and am careful, but I get dust and it's manageable. I can clean my camera myself so I don't need to get it serviced. Dry cleaning sensors is simple enough and wet cleaning can be daunting but is doable without major headaches.

If you still have major concerns about a DSLR then maybe a higher spec'd point and shoot would be a good option until you figure out the full control in camera. If so I'd recommend something like a Canon S5 but if it was me I'd get a Canon G9 and maybe add a wide and tele converter as required. Note that I'm a Nikon user, but when it comes to point and shoots I won't get anything other than Canon.

[mkj]

The 18-200 is a very soft lens because of the long focal range. It's a great all round lens, but it does have it's problems, hence it's not a great lens in the general scheme of things. If I were you, whether you choose Canon or Nikon, I'd buy the 50mm F1.8 for several reasons. Firstly it's very cheap in both camps and secondly it's a great lens to show you the capabilities of the full aperture range. Once you figure out what the 50mm can give you, ignoring the fixed focal distance, you'll really wonder about the 18-200.

Sorry but I didn't get your point that why long focal range makes it soft, soft in what context?

Having a lens with F1.8 is definately mouth watering but not sure how much I can do with a fixed 50mm focal length...but for sure you have a valid point here

If you use your camera in 100% dry environments then a quick blow (not your mouth) of the sensor should be fine. When there's some humidity or sea air added to the equation all bets are off, even with anti dust mechanisms. I change lenses every day and am careful, but I get dust and it's manageable. I can clean my camera myself so I don't need to get it serviced. Dry cleaning sensors is simple enough and wet cleaning can be daunting but is doable without major headaches.

Unfortunatley I live in a very humid climate (well most time of the year)...as I understand this can be bit tricky

[djwixx]

The 18-200 is a very soft lens because of the long focal range. It's a great all round lens, but it does have it's problems, hence it's not a great lens in the general scheme of things. If I were you, whether you choose Canon or Nikon, I'd buy the 50mm F1.8 for several reasons. Firstly it's very cheap in both camps and secondly it's a great lens to show you the capabilities of the full aperture range. Once you figure out what the 50mm can give you, ignoring the fixed focal distance, you'll really wonder about the 18-200.

Sorry but I didn't get your point that why long focal range makes it soft, soft in what context?

Soft as in not sharp. If you divide the longest focal length by the shortest focal length you'll get a ratio. For the 18-200 that ratio is 11. For most quality lenses the ratio is normally kept below 4, i.e. 17-55 or 70-200. Prime lenses would be considered the sharpest lenses and they have a ratio of 1, i.e. 50/50 (or other focal length) = 1. It's a vague rule of thumb and there are exceptions.

Going back to the 50mm, it becomes a good lens for the price and can be excellent for portraits and I even use it for tight landscapes. You can also add close up filters to offer an almost macro option. I always suggest the 50mm because of the price and it makes a great introduction to the potential of a quality lens and it's their full capabilities and learning depth of field control.

[mkj]

Soft as in not sharp. If you divide the longest focal length by the shortest focal length you'll get a ratio. For the 18-200 that ratio is 11. For most quality lenses the ratio is normally kept below 4, i.e. 17-55 or 70-200. Prime lenses would be considered the sharpest lenses and they have a ratio of 1, i.e. 50/50 (or other focal length) = 1. It's a vague rule of thumb and there are exceptions.

Going back to the 50mm, it becomes a good lens for the price and can be excellent for portraits and I even use it for tight landscapes. You can also add close up filters to offer an almost macro option. I always suggest the 50mm because of the price and it makes a great introduction to the potential of a quality lens and it's their full capabilities and learning depth of field control.

Point taken...thanks man for the help

I'll try to go and have a close look at Canon store...I'll keep you posted

Cheers

[aroha]

Can't comment on Nikon, but if you are looking at Canon, here is my experience.

In 2006 I bought a Canon 5D with 16-35L 2.8 USM, Ø77 Lens and a 28-135MM f3.5-5.6 IS Lens. I then took 7000 photographs in six weeks in Europe for a book I was writing. The 16-35 lens was and is the best lens I have used. It took sharp pictures at night with the only light being streetlights.

The 28-135 was such a disappointment, I returned it to the vendor and replaced it with the photojournalist's friend the 24-70mm 2.8 L USM, Ø77. The worst with the 28-135 was coming across a Greek wedding procession (complete with shotguns and musicians) setting myself up for closeups as they walked by a doorway for a rapid series of shots and finding when I got back to the office to process pics two months later, the auto focus simply could not keep up... fantastic opportunity lost. Also, when carrying it facing down, the lens would extend to the fullest extent due to gravity. The 24-70L extends, but stays where it belongs when pointing down.

The 5D is an amazing camera in every way except dust. All digital cameras get dust on the sensor, but the 5D shows more. I consider this to be a manufacturer's defect and have contemplated bringing a class-action suit to force them to call them back in. By coming out with the anti-dust shaker on the 400D they have made a defacto admission of the defect.

Then last year when I had driven 200 miles to do a photoshoot, the camera shorted out. Repaired under warranty where the technician told me that carrying lens on jets produces an ultrasonic vibration that can cause the stop screw to loosen, thus the lens can move to where it connects two contacts and the fuse shorts out. Problem is they buried the fuse deep in the camera, so kiss the 200 mile drive goodbye.

To prevent being in this position again, I purchased a 400D body as a backup. Uses the same lens, but the sensor is cropped so the lens act different (a 10-22 lens on a 400D acts like a 16-35 on a 5D).

The 400D was a huge surprise. It is a brilliant camera at one quarter the price of the 5D. Even though the sensor has fewer megapixels, the sensor is smaller, so the density is higher, meaning slightly better images. To understand what this means, see http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... r-size.htm

I had the 5D professionally cleaned by Canon when they fixed the fuse, so began photoshoots with both the 5D and the 400D at the same time, and a month later had the same number of photos with both (about 2,000 shots).

I then compared them for dust. The dust cleaner on the 400D kept it entirely clean... nothing. The 5D had visible dust on the images, requiring photoshop to remove them.

The 400D is far lighter, although with a heavy professional L lens on it, lightness only matters when taking carry on luggage. The 5D is limited to 8GB CF cards, the 400D takes the 16 and I hear may work with the 32GB. If you do a lot of photographs while travelling, the large card is good. Download the day's shots to a laptop or IPOD (I did both). Keep the IPOD in the hotel. Carry the laptop on your back, and camera in hand. Reduces the risk of losing photos in the event of theft or mugging.

The 400D's software is more advanced than its predecessor the 300D, and for the money, I can't imagine anything beating it. I do find that Picasa has a problem with the raw images of the 400D but likes the 5D raw just fine.

However, long term, the Canon repair guys explained that the 5D is a professional camera, meaning it can easily be repaired, parts are screwed together, whereas the 400D is all machine soldered. If something breaks after the warranty it's probably not worth fixing.

By the way, I live by the sea and it rains often. Does not seem to be a problem with either camera.

That's the camera body and the bottom line is that if you are just beginning, as it sounds from the tone of your questions, the 400D will be a fantastic camera for you.

But as someone said, its really about the lens. Good lenses cost big bucks, but they last, they hold their value and they make great pictures, and allow you to do a whole lot more with less than great raw material.

I own:

24 mm 2.8 - $275 at Amazon - older style but light, carry on 400D when size is an issue - due to cropped sensor it works like a 38 mm lens

50 mm 1.4 - $315 at Amazon - for the 5D when the light is really dim, like after dark on a Greek island. Also useful when you want to be discrete. Very small lens

16-35 2.8L - the best lens. $1,315 at Amazon - It is so sharp that I can take a huge wide shot, get back to the office, crop it drastically and get a sharp result. It's relatively light, not that long, and it does not extend externally when zoomed. On the 400D it is the equivalent of a 26-56 mm lens.

28-70 2.8L price about $1,071 at Amazon. The workhorse. Excellent quality, first rate, as would be expected. But it is bigger and heavier. The extra weight really does get tiring. Pointing at a candid shot makes you look like a spy, attracts attention. Extends externally. On a 400D it's like a 45-112, which is a bit zoomy... and on a 400D, it's all lens weight - off balance.

70-200 4.0 L zoom, about $550 without IS, $1,000 with IS (Image stablization - adjusts for hands shaking camera). I bought the IS model and find I mostly use it on the 400D where it is equivalent to a 112-300 mm lens. Curiously the extra weight and size works well here with the 400D, as it is nicely balanced in the middle of the lens, where the zoom is adjusted. Very sharp lens, perhaps sharper than the 16-35, but obviously a zoom. When you want candid shots of people, you can be far away enough they don't notice you. These newer 4.0L lens are smaller than the earlier 2.8L lenses, and you may want to look at the 17-35 4.0L to see what it is like. The 4.0L lenses are much cheaper than the 2.8L

If I had to take one lens on a trip, it would be the 16-35 F2.8L. If I then take a second, it is the much longer 70-200 F4.0L IS. For a while I carried the 400D and 24 mm lens in my pocket for the lightest camera when out and about, but gave up and got a Powershot 570 IS which actually fits in the pocket without tearing the jacket.

So what should you buy based on my experience? I would recommend the 400D, at about $500 to $600, and then buy the 16-35 2.8L professional lens. The package will set you back about $2,000, but will give you as good as you can get. If you have more money, wait for the full sensor 5D replacement with dust cleaning. The 5D is a real professional's camera, and there are a host of details where it delivers - subtle stuff. If they upgrade it with the stuff they put in the 400 and the 40D, it should be unbeatable.

I see there is a 450D coming out now, so check it out first. But before you take my advice, try out the EF17-40mm f/4L which is $688 at Amazon. I have no experience with it, but if it is as good as its 70-200 sibling, it should be great. Where it won't excel is in low-light. I took photos in Greek villages long after dark and used no flash with the 5D and 16-35. Oh, one other thing... the built in flash on the 400D is too low for the 16-35 and 28-70 lenses. There is a shadow on the bottom part of the image where the lense gets in the way of the flash. If you are doing flash shots, don't use a Ø77 lens or use an external, clip on flash.

Well that's my experience. Can't comment on Nikon. The last one I had was an 8008 and it fell apart. Still have my 1960 Nikormat, but haven't used it in 25 years.

[toosnvetts]

Thanks, you guys, for taking the time to detail all this information. It helps more than the original poster. There are a bunch of newbies eating up this experience. I appreciate your time and effort!