Help me pick a camera!

[Globerunner513]

So I've been playing around with a D60 my sister has, and I've really enjoyed it. (I've been into 35mm photography for a while but never really went anywhere with it)

 

Anyway I think its time I dropped some cash on a camera of my own. I work for an airline, and have lots of travel opportunities, and so thats mainly what I think I'll be using it for, as well as artsy-fartsy car photography and such. I've been playing with long exposures and lots of saturation which I've really liked so far.

 

I'd like to get something I can grow into, but not so complicated I'm completely over my head. I'm thinking about a used D90, but perhaps a Canon equivalent is a way to go? I don't know much about the Canons yet. I'd like to spend around $500-$600 for a decently used camera. Lenses and extras always a bonus, but I know I can find those elsewhere too.

 

So whadya think? I'm also researching elsewhere but I know there are some gurus here. thanks!

 

And just cause I like to take up space, here's some of what I've taken with the D60:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(senior portraits)

[Iceman]

I'm all for Nikons. I was actually playing with a Nikon SLR that is several years old and was getting some pics comparable to a friend's current model Canon. Right now I just have a Nikon coolpix and I can get amazing pics and it's not even an SLR. Save some money and go with a Nikon instead of a Canon. When I get an SLR it will be a Nikon.

[JIM73240Z]

My fiance and I bought a Cannon Rebel 12 MP SLR camera from Cosco for $800 just a few moths back. Came with a regular lens and a 150mm "Telephoto". That thing kicks ass and takes great pictures. She took a class to really learn how to use it and has come back with some amazing pictures. I find it easy to use as well since I just look at the screen and push a button. The action setting is fun with our girls in gymnastics, we can get good pictures of their routines.

 

Jimbo

[BRAAP]

I am biased towards Nikon D-SLR, but honestly, in the end, you can't go wrong with either a Cannon or Nikon D-SLR. They are both extemely very capable cameras in the hands of a good photogrpaher and both will serve you well.

 

Nice shots taken with the D60.

 

If considering the D80/90 camera, it probably is not fair to use the D60 as an indicator of what the D80/90 would be like to live with. The D60 being the replacement for the D40 was an entry level D-SLR camera in many respects compared to D70/80/90 line, so much so that what little extra the D70/80 cost, you were going more bang for the buck going with the D70/80 camera vs the D40. If the D60 carries any of its predecessor menu system, user friendliness, (lack of), you'll surely appreciate the far better functionality, versatility, overall power, speed, menu intuitiveness and comfort of the D80/90 cameras over the D60. Having owned a D70s for a few year snow with just over 30,000 pics through it, and having played with D40, to me anyhow, the D40 was unimpressive especially for what it lacked in many areas vs the D70/80 that cost only a little bit more new. the D40 menu is definitely not as user friendly, limited autofocus lens selections, etc. Picture quality was still good, just muddling through the features etc is frustrating and cumbersome and lacking vs a few more dollars that does a lot more, easier and faster with the D70/80/90 cameras.

 

In other comparisons at this level, Nikon D70/80/90 vs Cannon EOs 300/400/450/Rebel, the main difference people seem to notice are the menu user friendliness, some prefer the Nikon format, others prefer Cannons approach. Some prefer the metal Nikon bodies vs the Cannon plastic bodies, but I think that is subconscious feel vs functional bias. I also recall one of them having a louder shutter/mirror flip up than the other, though I forget which one was quieter. Outside of that, in the end you can't go wrong with either a Cannon or Nikon D-SLR. They are both extemely very capable cameras in the hands of a good photogrpaher and both will serve you well.

 

Dpreview is wonderful resource for camera comparisons, tons of highly in-depth testing, color, clarity, features testing, etc, to level most of us will never get to. Here is page 25 of the Nikon D90 vs D80, vs Cannon EOS 450D, vs Pentax K20D

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page25.asp

[Derek]

I bought the Nikon D50 when they first came out and never had a single problem or regret. Nikon makes a great product.

 

And I'm sure the same could be said for the Canon.

 

Here is a good site wit a lot of info. Ken Rockwell

 

Derek

[Drax240z]

I've been a Nikon shooter for years, but have played with enough pro-body Canon's to offer a bit of advice.

 

1) Your sister has a Nikon. Buy a Nikon and swap lenses as desired. Cheap and easy way to try new stuff.

2) The photog's I used to shoot with (even the Canon ones) agree unanimously that Nikon ergonomics are far superior. It doesn't sound that important, but the first time you have to dislocate 3 fingers on one hand to navigate a Canon D-SLR menu you'll wish you had a Nikon...

3) Canon has a better selection of semi-pro lenses than Nikon. Near pro photo quality, at about 2/3 the price of pro quality lenses. Nikon doesn't really have lenses in the same class.

4) Lens to lens (ie: pro vs. pro, or entry-level vs. entry level) there isn't much between the two. Nikon lenses typically have slightly better build quality on the entry level stuff however

5) Canon does video better (in general) at this point

6) Canon kicks Nikon's butt in the point and shoot market (all the above comments I've made refer to SLR's... wanted to add this caveat however)

7) Nikon does a MUCH better job of ensuring backwards compatibility with older (and exceptional quality) lenses

8) Nikon's add-on flashes kill Canon's for usability and functionality

 

If I was starting from scratch again without many $$$$ into my Nikon gear, I'd buy all Nikon again without hesitation. Most pro photog's shoot Canon, I'm convinced that is because they have to have every last megapixel for crops, and because they've had a bunch of $$$$ tied up in Canon lenses from the film days.

[cygnusx1]

Go with what most of your friends shoot so you can swap lenses.  Everything else is mostly minor differences between the two, in the long run.  I find that keeping a good point and shoot that can do HD video in the camera bag is also very handy (Panasonic for that one).  Nice photos by the way.  Oh yeah and Canon once sponsored Z cars.    I shoot Canon.

 

 

 

[crazyoctopus]

my vote to buy the d90 body and lens separately.

 

if you want to learn about composition and working with the environment get a 35mm f1.8 ($200 brand new) it will give you a field of view equivalent of a 50mm, which is near what we see. if you want to do action, or really really need that zoom get a 24mm-85mm or.... get an 18-200 VR for a great all around.

[tube80z]

One thing not mentioned is body size. Try them in your hand first. I bought an original Canon DLSR and won't switch because of lenses. If I could start over I might start with Nikon now and that's based on how it fits my hand. I'm not a fan of how both Nikon and Canon downsized the bodies for the lower end cameras.

[jgkurz]

I'm a Canon fan and am currently coveting this: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_50d

 

Check these sites out if you don't already use them.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/

 

 

-John

[30 ounce]

I went with a Nikon D80 when I switched to digital because the Canon equivalent felt clunky and flimsy in my hands. To be fair both companies make great cameras. The Nikons just feel better to me. I now have A D300 and several lenses (Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, 18-135(D80 kit lens), Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 vc (highly recomended!! my favorite all around lens), sigma 10-20). If your into flash photography the Nikon cls system is awesome. You can control unlimited off camera flashes with it. Though I think Canon has a similar system but it's not as easy to use. I have pics on my profile taken with the cls system of my Z.

Edited August 8, 2010 by 30 ounce

[scorpio516]

I've been a Nikon shooter for years, but have played with enough pro-body Canon's to offer a bit of advice.

 

1) Your sister has a Nikon. Buy a Nikon and swap lenses as desired. Cheap and easy way to try new stuff.

2) The photog's I used to shoot with (even the Canon ones) agree unanimously that Nikon ergonomics are far superior. It doesn't sound that important, but the first time you have to dislocate 3 fingers on one hand to navigate a Canon D-SLR menu you'll wish you had a Nikon...

3) Canon has a better selection of semi-pro lenses than Nikon. Near pro photo quality, at about 2/3 the price of pro quality lenses. Nikon doesn't really have lenses in the same class.

4) Lens to lens (ie: pro vs. pro, or entry-level vs. entry level) there isn't much between the two. Nikon lenses typically have slightly better build quality on the entry level stuff however

5) Canon does video better (in general) at this point

6) Canon kicks Nikon's butt in the point and shoot market (all the above comments I've made refer to SLR's... wanted to add this caveat however)

7) Nikon does a MUCH better job of ensuring backwards compatibility with older (and exceptional quality) lenses

8) Nikon's add-on flashes kill Canon's for usability and functionality

 

If I was starting from scratch again without many $$$$ into my Nikon gear, I'd buy all Nikon again without hesitation. Most pro photog's shoot Canon, I'm convinced that is because they have to have every last megapixel for crops, and because they've had a bunch of $$$$ tied up in Canon lenses from the film days.

 

+1 to all of this, although I've only played with the prosumer Canons (30D/40D/50D/etc).

A further note about flashes: Canon's flashes suck. They are stuck in the 80s compared to the functionality of Nikons. They don't even have PC ports! Or any external hook up ports for that matter.

 

In the 80s and early 90s, Canon was so far ahead in AF, most pros (esp sports and journalism, the seen pros) switched from Nikon to Canon. Now they are so similar there is no reason to change. Before the mid 80s, no one worth their paycheck shot with a Canon, they were amateur at best

[mikedc528]

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras/model.DMC-L10K_11002_7000000000000005702

 

My personal pref...

[Michael]

The longer-term solution is a full-frame (FX format in Nikon-speak) digital SLR. In the DX-world (similar to the APS format), used Nikon D80's sell for around $500, while a D70/D70s can be found for $250. Get one of those, and get a 18-200 VR (the recently obsoleted model, which goes for around $550 used). Late 1990’s Nikon flashes can be found for $100. So that’s $900 for a complete setup. Then wait 3-4 years for FX-format cameras to come down in price, and sell your 18-200 for the same price as what you originally paid for it. “The†camera right now is the D700, but that’s $2300+.

 

The D90 has many attractive features, but is it worth paying $1000 for a DX-format camera?

[Drax240z]

DX format has some benefits, depending on what type of photography you are interested in. I know quite a few people with a 1.5 (or 1.6) crop body just so they can get additional range without spending thousands on bigger glass. Is the result as good? No. But I've worked with professionals that do exactly that. The Nikon 200F2.8 looks good at full frame and 1.5 crop, believe me!

[xxjoeyxxeb]

Either way, you really can't go wrong. My friend does weddings and he uses the big Canons, but he says he likes the Nikons on the cheaper range. Also, go to the stores and play with the settings and the physical feels of the cameras and see which you like better. Also, if you plan on buying lenses, check out prices that you will need to pay in the future, I know the Tokina wide angle 11-16 is about $100 cheaper for a Nikon. I have a Canon XS that my parents got me for Christmas and I love it.