DSLR canon vs nikon?


  #1  
Old 07-01-08, 12:29 PM
4
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 87
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
DSLR canon vs nikon?

So I'm shopping for a D-SLR camera for the first time. I have no glass, so am open to brand...however, I have limited my choices to the Canon 40d and the Nikon d300. I understand that the Nikon seems to be a better camera, the question is is it worth the extra money? I would consider myself a beginner, since I have little photography experience, however I am willing to go to classes/read/get the knowledge to improve my skill - and I think I'll be pick it up pretty quickly. The BIG driver for this purchase is the anticipation of my first child - so it is fair to say that portrait will be a heavy use of this camera...but I also want the ability to do all-around "tourist" use. Which leads me to the next obvious question of which lense to pair with the choosen camera.

I have been leaning toward the Canon, because of the price difference, and Amazon seems to pair it with a decent lense for about $1100..however with today's release of the Nikon's d700, I'm planning to wait on any purchase as I imagine prices will fall. I wonder if this will only effect Nikon's pricing, or if it will effect the market as a whole.

Anyway, any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Guy
 
  #2  
Old 07-01-08, 07:39 PM
GregH's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 10,237
Received 66 Upvotes on 61 Posts
I went with the 40D and the 28-135 IS USM lens and couldn't be happier.

The D300 shows slightly better specs in some areas but in no way is it worth over $500.00 more.
That money is better spent on accessories.

The 28-135 lens is a good walk around lens, covers a useful range and is a good place to start.
My preference leans towards longer lenses and had to buy a 70- 300 USM non IS lens right away.
This lens is just a filler until I can afford the Canon 100-400 IS USM L lens.
The L series are Canon's high quality, highly desired and pricey lenses.

Here is a useful tool to see what the field of view is for various lens focal lengths.

Any more questions just ask.
 
  #3  
Old 07-05-08, 12:53 AM
R
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fruit Heights, Utah
Posts: 280
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
As a beginner, I doubt you'll really notice any difference in the two cameras. The 40D is capable and serious shooters use this camera as a back up (Canon shooters) at times.

You really can't go wrong with either of the two, however, I will say this...your camera will be replaced by newer technology sooner than a lens will. My advice is buy the cheaper camera (40D is still a sweeeeet camera) and buy a nice portrait lens with your savings.

With a baby, you'll be indoors taking the "normal" baby shots. I'd suggest looking at the Canon 50mm f/1.8II. It's the absolute best lens for the money and will make a great portrait lens on a 1.6x camera. It also has the 1.8 aperature which is great for indoors. This is your standard 50mm prime and doesn't zoom, but for a baby, it's not like you can't use your feet to zoom That lens will cost around $70

This will give you time to figure out a walk around lens. I'd at least give the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 a look at. Very close to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L at 1/3-1/4 of the price. Fantastic lens for everything...except tele zoom and further of course
 
  #4  
Old 07-08-08, 07:29 PM
P
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 28,584
Received 1,707 Upvotes on 1,525 Posts
Way back in the film days I was Nikon but after many years away from the hobby I came back Canon. My #1 advice. Put your money into the lens. Then buy a body so you have something to hold your new expensive lens. Everything passes through the lens and even the most expensive body can only work with what the lens feeds it.

I am not an expert and I don't know Nikon very well so... In my mind Nikon bodies are more expensive and lenses are cheaper. Canon bodies are less expensive and the lenses cost more, but I feel the stabilization in the lens gives better stabilization (maybe 1/2 to 1 stop more).

I travel a lot and use the Canon Rebel xti body. The small size is good for packing but it is a bit small for getting a good grip. I noticed a huge difference between the consumer and "L" series Canon lenses. With the consumer lens they were good photographs when using the full frame. With L lenses I can crop and zoom down to pixels. When in doubt buy the best lens you can get.
 
  #5  
Old 03-19-09, 02:17 AM
S
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
Go for Nikon

Nikon really have the best cameras but indeed very expensive but hey it's worth it, how often do they release cameras? if not that often they'll not be dropping the prices so soon unlike canon, like they always have new model for like every after 3 months?

oh well, Nikon rocks!
 
  #6  
Old 03-19-09, 07:48 PM
HotxxxxxxxOKC's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 8,033
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes on 0 Posts
this is a old thread, but I got a Nikon D40x with 55-200mm lens. Very good camera. I also have a XTi I use at work everyday, and not to fond of it. The body feels cheap, and the auto exposure is alot darker then my D40x. I usually need to put the XTi on manual mode to and play around with some settings to get more light.

All in all, both a decent cameras. Nikon vs Canon is just like Apple vs PC or Ford vs Chevy.
 
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: