D40? Or...

[Abstract]

That will be all for today... Perhaps I'm completely off, ignore my statements.

Yes, I think so, although I think I understand what you're saying now.


Compuwar was talking purely about cost. ALL 3rd party lenses produced for Canon have an internal motor in the lens, because Canon lenses all use internal motors. They make Nikon and Pentax versions without the motor, and the Canon version of the same lens with an internal motor, and yet they don't charge Canon more for the lens. Clearly the cost of having an internal motor in the lens doesn't raise the price. If it did, then Canon users would have to pay more money for 3rd party lenses than Nikon users. That's why compuwar said "AF-S" or lenses with internal motors won't make the lenses more expensive.

Also, there are no Tamron or Tokina lenses with an internal motor that won't work on a D40/D40X/D60. The version they make for Nikon, Pentax, etc, doesn't have an internal motor, while the Canon version does. Rewire the internal motor of the Canon version of each lens, switch the mounts, and they're done.

 

[gamerz]

Thank you for the help so far. Heres some more questions that might help me out. I know that in the end I'll have to go hold both and see for myself...

The answers for these are: D40(x), and XT(i)

1. What camera model will last me longer? What I am pretty much asking is what camera will I be happy with without having to replace to upgrade in a few years.(feature wise, build quality, etc...)

2. Which company has a bigger more compatible lens line?

3. If I was to ask one question to aid me in purchasing a DSLR, what would that question be?

And thats all can think to ask early in the morning...Cheers!

 

[compuwar]

Thank you for the help so far. Heres some more questions that might help me out. I know that in the end I'll have to go hold both and see for myself...

The answers for these are: D40(x), and XT(i)

1. What camera model will last me longer? What I am pretty much asking is what camera will I be happy with without having to replace to upgrade in a few years.(feature wise, build quality, etc...)

2. Which company has a bigger more compatible lens line?

3. If I was to ask one question to aid me in purchasing a DSLR, what would that question be?

And thats all can think to ask early in the morning...Cheers!

The Nikon's plastic feels a bit sturdier to me on the low-end models, but if you don't abuse it, they should have pretty equivalent life-spans. The other bodies are all comparable outside significant abuse.

I think Canon has more overall lenses, though Nikon retains compatibility further back (lens mount hasn't changed since the '50s, some older lenses protrude too far for the mirror, but Canon changed mounts in the '80s I think.) Canon has more tilt/shift lenses for serious architecture, Nikon tends to have more interesting zooms and Superzooms (IMO.) Coverage-wise I don't think there's a huge difference, though Nikon does offer one additional teleconverter (1.7x.) Canon's 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses are significantly cheaper than Nikons, so if you're going to shoot birds, Canon's the cost-effective answer. For other focal lengths, it depends on the lens.

Nikon's flash system is better, especially with multiple flashes in settings where IR triggers will work. I prefer studio strobes in those conditions, but many find the Nikon Creative Lighting System just fine for their needs.

Overall, if you don't have a particular photographic focus, you really are best served going somewhere that has the Rebel and 40D and the D40 and D80- handle all four, decide if there's an ergonomic difference brand-wise that you prefer. For birds or architecture where you're going to spend thousands on lenses, Canon wins.

For me, the 1.7x TC is as much TC as I'll accept, despite shooting one of the sharpest lenses in Nikon's lineup. So the ability to get what I consider to be acceptable shots beyond a 1.4x TC is significant. That allows my 400/2.8 to become a either a 560/4 or 680/5.6 and still get results that are in my acceptable zone- that's not a big deal for most photographers, and few photographers *will* carry a 400/2.8 plus enough other gear to get to about 45lbs in the field all day. When I shoot nature somewhere there's a mix of Canon and Nikon shooters, nobody ends up with too much difference in the results other than in terms of experience or lucky shots.

 

[cube]

You can't just count the lenses on each lineup because there is not a 1-for-1 replacement for many.

You have to look at them yourself and see what interests you that you might afford. Not forgetting to also check used and discontinued lenses, and the offers from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Zeiss.

In general, I believe Nikon gives you more possibilities since they've used the same mount for many decades, while Canon switched mount when they introduced the film EOS system.

But I don't think a D40* is a good idea. Unless you just plan on getting a couple of AF-S lenses for now and later switch to a used D80 when they start appearing at an interesting price when the "D90" is released.
A cheaper and satisfactory solution is to get a used D50, D70, or D70s now.
The D70 is the oldest but takes very nice pictures and has some interesting features over the D50 (both go for about $400 from the stores in excellent shape). The D70 can die with BGLOD but confirm that in your country Nikon will fix it for free when out of warranty but official import.

That's the way to get optimal access to all the AF lenses. If you also want to optimally profit from many manual lenses that can be had for cheap, you need at least a used D200 or D1.

 

[compuwar]

In general, I believe Nikon gives you more possibilities since they've used the same mount for many decades, while Canon switched mount when they introduced the film EOS system.

Canon's current line-up is bigger, it's pretty-much a wash.

But I don't think a D40* is a good idea. Unless you just plan on getting a couple of AF-S lenses for now and later switch to a used D80 when they start appearing at an interesting price when the "D90" is released.

In a couple of years Nikon will likely have AF-S versions of any lens it's going to bring forward. The 3rd party folks will have converted their entire lines- the only advantage a D80 brings at that point is compatibility with used AF-D lenses. At that point aren't you about half-way through the normal dSLR body life-span of an enthusiast anyway? If you're going to go that route, you really may as well go Canon from the start and avoid all the compatibility silliness (assuming there are focal lengths you like in AF-D lenses that don't have an equivalent AF-S or HSM version.)

A cheaper and satisfactory solution is to get a used D50, D70, or D70s now.
The D70 is the oldest but takes very nice pictures and has some interesting features over the D50 (both go for about $400 from the stores in excellent shape). The D70 can die with BGLOD but confirm that in your country Nikon will fix it for free when out of warranty but official import.

While I'm a big fan of the D70s, there are significant noise differences between it and the current sensors at high ISO that may make a difference to the OP.

That's the way to get optimal access to all the AF lenses. If you also want to optimally profit from many manual lenses that can be had for cheap, you need at least a used D200 or D1.

Or a $15 external light meter!

 

[cube]

Or a $15 external light meter!

But it's not practical to use many times. Note the word "optimal".

 

[cube]

Canon's current line-up is bigger, it's pretty-much a wash.

Canon has no comparable DC lenses.
Nikon has no DO lenses.
Canon has no 18-200 IS. The long end of Sigma's is f/6.3 compared to Nikon's f/5.6
Canon has more tilt-shift lenses.
Canon has no Nano Crystal Coating

etc.

 

[compuwar]

Canon has no comparable DC lenses.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7308

Nikon has no DO lenses.

Canon has two, a 70-300 and a 400/4. Nikon offers two 70-300s and the 200-400/4

Canon has no 18-200 IS. The long end of Sigma's is f/6.3 compared to Nikon's f/5.6

If you're shooting with an 18-200 it's pretty-much because you don't want to change lenses.

Canon has more tilt-shift lenses.

Yes, one more than Nikon. (24mm, 45mm and 90mm vs 24mm and 85mm) Prototypes of a 45mm Nikkor are circulating, so if you're looking more than a few months into the future, it'll be a wash. You may still also be able to find samples of the old Nikkor 35mm PC-E.

The newer Nikkors may be supply-limited for a while though, so I still recommend Canon for serious architecture shooters.

Canon has no Nano Crystal Coating
etc.

But Canon does coat their lenses.

Again, it's effectively a wash. Coverage is there, with individual differences that don't tilt the balance either way for most shooters (70-200/4, 200-400VR...)

 

[cube]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7308

That's why I said not comparable. The Nikons have more control.

 

[compuwar]

That's why I said not comparable. The Nikons have more control.

But quite frankly these days Photoshop gives you more control than either option.

 

[cube]

But Canon does coat their lenses.

So? Everybody coats their lenses. That's not the point.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/20/index.htm

 

[cube]

Canon has two, a 70-300 and a 400/4. Nikon offers two 70-300s and the 200-400/4

Again, Nikon offers no Diffractive Optics technology.

 

[cube]

If you're shooting with an 18-200 it's pretty-much because you don't want to change lenses.

And Nikon offers you a better option. That's the point.

 

[compuwar]

Again, Nikon offers no Diffractive Optics technology.

While you may consider it enough of a difference to make a system choice over, I don't. Can you provide a comparison where these lenses make a significant difference? If it's that big, why doesn't Canon do it over a wider range of glass?

 

[cube]

While you may consider it enough of a difference to make a system choice over, I don't. Can you provide a comparison where these lenses make a significant difference? If it's that big, why doesn't Canon do it over a wider range of glass?

The DO lenses were not successful because the experts who have tried them say they have worse image quality than normal lenses.

I don't care, I wish Nikon provided this option of lighter and more compact lenses. I would go for them (for the stuff that I can afford).

 

[compuwar]

And Nikon offers you a better option. That's the point.

My point continues to be that the differences aren't significant enough to produce a clear choice. I'd even go far enough to say that defocusing lenses are soon to be a thing of the past, there are Photoshop actions that produce better results (because they can identify the eyes and work around them) than a general blur over the entire image.

Please note that I continue to say "essentially the same" and "equivalent" rather than "exactly the same."

I've yet to see a picture taken with a Canon lens where an acceptably equivalent picture couldn't have been taken with a Nikon lens. The reverse is also true.

 

[cube]

I was saying Nikon offers you a better option if you want to carry/buy only one lens, namely their 18-200.

 

[compuwar]

I was saying Nikon offers you a better option if you want to carry/buy only one lens, namely their 18-200.

But based upon your post, your rationale seems to be that you'd get Nikon over Canon because the Nikkor is 1/3 of a stop faster than the Sigma. To me that's a strange rationale for settling on a camera system- while a stop can be a big difference, 1/3 of a stop is marginal in terms of ISO noise between the same generation of sensors for the two manufacturers, and especially since we're discussing a consumer-grade superzoom- which is a compromise on so many levels.

 

[cube]

But it's also Nikon and not Sigma.