D90 or 500D...Please help

[compuwar]

You can use the 1.5 nikon lenses on full-frame, if you want to live with an reduced image circle. While this implementation is far more user friendly than canon EF-S, it’s not ideal.

Please do enlighten me to what's not ideal about being able to use my already paid-for DX format lenses on my D3x- because it seems pretty ideal to me to not have to always carry a second body to use something I already own- and if I'm doing it, I obviously (a) don't have the angle of view covered in FX and (b) am willing to accept a 10.5MP image as the result.

 

[TheStrudel]

It shoots the DX images at 10.5MP? I didn't know that. I thought it was 6.1 MP, though I guess that was on the 12 MP sensors as opposed to one twice as large. Handy to know. That strikes me as an acceptable compromise, though I'd still probably opt for the D3 instead of D3x if I was buying.

 

[localghost]

no, they won't. you just get vignetting.


huh? EF-S mount has nothing to do with image quality. it has to do with cost and weight, and Canon decided to add a rubber extension to prevent them from mounting on non-APS-C cameras.



don't the D700 and such have a DX shooting option?


the deal with Nikon is that the D40, D60, and D5000 MUST use AF-S lenses. that means you don't get autofocus if you want to use non-AF-S lenses...but there're plenty of AF-S lenses at every focal length range, so it shouldn't be a big issue unless you want older lenses. DX lenses will work on everything.

with Canon lenses, EF lenses will mount to any Canon SLR, and EF-S will only mount to the 20-50D and 300-500D without modification.

Please do enlighten me to what's not ideal about being able to use my already paid-for DX format lenses on my D3x- because it seems pretty ideal to me to not have to always carry a second body to use something I already own- and if I'm doing it, I obviously (a) don't have the angle of view covered in FX and (b) am willing to accept a 10.5MP image as the result.

„The "S" in EF-S stands for "short back focus", which means that the rear element of the lens is closer to the image sensor than on regular 35 mm SLR cameras.“ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-S

A shorter back focus can simplify and therefore (at least theoretically) improve lens design.

Nikon decided to keep the the same back focus and let the camera do the cropping. While it’s a lot better to be able to use your lenses with dramatically reduced image circle/resolution than not at all, I most definitely would not consider that an ideal use of any given available budget for any system.

 

[compuwar]

It shoots the DX images at 10.5MP? I didn't know that. I thought it was 6.1 MP, though I guess that was on the 12 MP sensors as opposed to one twice as large. Handy to know. That strikes me as an acceptable compromise, though I'd still probably opt for the D3 instead of D3x if I was buying.

For me, the ability to crop significantly was a high-value property of the tool. I rarely use high-ISOs, and I wanted to do extremely large prints and have the ability to court a gallery which specializes in extremely large prints. The fact that the DX crop will print about as large as the images from my D2x was a bonus.

 

[THX1139]

what about lenses, which company has better and cheaper lens?

Better AND cheaper? Pick one...

 

[OreoCookie]

Better AND cheaper? Pick one...

Usually third-party lenses are better and cheaper (better price/performance). They're available for Canon and Nikon …

For many purposes, third-party lenses are great. Of course, they are agnostic, they're good on Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax bodies. For instance, Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 zoom is amazing, better than the `originals' (Nikon's 12-24 mm or Canon's 10-22 mm lens).

Regarding original lenses, the (minor) differences start showing in higher price categories. For instance, Nikon offers a cheap 80-200 mm f/2.8 zoom which is heavier, but faster than Canon's 70-200 mm f/4 zoom. Optically, they're both excellent. Canon has a nice 17-40 mm f/4 zoom which Nikon does not have. On the other hand, Nikon's 18-200 mm superzoom is a lot better than Canon's. Both have very nice primes and -- unless you're willing to spend over $1.3k on a prime -- they are more or less similarly priced.

 

[localghost]

OK final deal

As a beginner should I get D90 or not? I am also getting a Canon XSi for $500 with kit lens and D90 with 18-105mm Lens for $1025. Should I just buy Canon and spend the money on lenses. I want to do some macro shots and Nikon Macro lenses are very expensive as compare to Canon. Your honest opinion will be greatly appreciate.

what about lenses, which company has better and cheaper lens?

Generally I’d spend my money rather on glass than on bodies. this would mean Xsi, but the price difference is negligible once you start buying multiple 500+ lenses. So if the choice is really limited to these two cameras and you want to keep it for more than two or three years, I’d recommend getting the D90 (if nothing else you’ll appreciate the bigger body / better ergonomics).

A strong point for canon in respect to price/performance are the f4-zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200; between 500 and 1200 bucks), a lot better than the kit lens. I also like the small primes (85 f1.8, 35 f2 etc) a lot – very good optically, inconspicuous, downright cheap. Maybe someone can chime in with Nikon examples for good price/performance, as I don’t know their lens line up very well.

Make a list of the lenses you need and can afford for a small kit during the next couple of years (reviews at http://www.photozone.de/, http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/, ...) and choose the body accordingly.

 

[CountBrass]

Don't buy either.

Buy a Nikon D3000 instead. If you're really impatient (the D3000 isn't avalable yet) buy it's predecessor, the D40. I'd reccomend being patient and waiting a couple of weeks for the D3000 as it has a 2nd gen sensor.

Several reasons for recommending the D40 (all except the price applies to the D3000 as well):
1. It's dirt cheap: less than a top end compact.
2. It's a really good camera.
3. It takes standard Nikon lenses despite being 2/3 the size of a standard DSLR.
4. It's easy to use.
5. The reason I choose Nikon: your lenses won't be made obsolete. Your biggest investment will (should) be in glass. Nikon don't obsolete their lenses, Canon do.
6. Canon don't make a really wide-angle or fisheye lens for their DSLR cameras.

Don't be tempted by the D40x or the D60: they have more pixels but they are slower cameras, inferior in every other way to the D40.

If you really must have a D90 (why?) then buy it's replacement instead, the D5000.

Edward

 

[localghost]

Buy a Nikon D3000 instead. If you're really impatient (the D3000 isn't avalable yet) buy it's predecessor, the D40. I'd reccomend being patient and waiting a couple of weeks for the D3000 as it has a 2nd gen sensor.

Several reasons for recommending the D40 (all except the price applies to the D3000 as well):
1. It's dirt cheap: less than a top end compact.
2. It's a really good camera.
3. It takes standard Nikon lenses despite being 2/3 the size of a standard DSLR.
4. It's easy to use.
5. The reason I choose Nikon: your lenses won't be made obsolete. Your biggest investment will (should) be in glass. Nikon don't obsolete their lenses, Canon do.
6. Canon don't make a really wide-angle or fisheye lens for their DSLR cameras.

Don't be tempted by the D40x or the D60: they have more pixels but they are slower cameras, inferior in every other way to the D40.

If you really must have a D90 (why?) then buy it's replacement instead, the D5000.

Edward

That’s plain wrong. The EF-mount was introduced 1987 in the advent of autofucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_lens_mount) an is here to stay. There are no plans nor rumors to change it. You could even say it’s less likely with Canon, since their implementation is the newest. It’s wider than Nikons, so you can mount Nikon lenses on Canon (loosing autofocus) but not vice versa (without loosing infinity focus).


The only exception to this are medium format rumors for both Nikon an Canon which will a) coexist with 35mm DSLRs b) be very expensive (have a look at the recent tilt shift lenses with a bigger image circle to get an idea; current medium-format bodies cost a multiple of Canon or Nikon top-end offerings, so be prepared to spent at least 20.000 for a basic kit).

My Canon 15mm fisheye is excellent, very useful even on a crop camera. There is also 8mm sigma fisheye for Canon (gets good reviews). Nikon right now has a wide angle advantage if a) you want extreme angle on full frame b) want zoom c) care for sharpness but not for distortions d) can spent about 1500. Canon has excellent primes like the 14 f2.8 II, 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4 which Nikon does not. All of them in a price range probably not very relevant to the OP.

 

[OreoCookie]

That’s plain wrong. The EF-mount was introduced 1987 in the advent of autofucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_lens_mount) an is here to stay. There are no plans nor rumors to change it. You could even say it’s less likely with Canon, since their implementation is the newest. It’s wider than Nikons, so you can mount Nikon lenses on Canon (loosing autofocus) but not vice versa (without loosing infinity focus).

The point is that there are essentially two different Canon mounts as EF-S lenses either don't fit full-frame or large-frame bodies or they may even damage the camera.

You can still mount DX lenses on full frame Nikon bodies and the camera will switch automatically to DX mode (unless it's a third-party lens or you manually override it). And you can use many old lenses (although that advantage is getting less and less relevant with time). (BTW, Nikon also has a 14 mm f/2.8 prime; however, the new 14-24 mm f/2.8 zoom is optically superior.)

In any case, I don't think this discussion is particularly relevant to the OP.

 

[mattyb240]

This thread is really irritating to read, to the OP you have had countless pieces of advice pretty much all of them valid.

I must ask this question, have you actually looked into how a camera works? What aperture, iso, and shutter speed are? How you can control them? If not then look into it, then decide how quick you want to access these features, then go hold the camera bodies and see which you like more ergonomically.

Having an SLR won't make you a pro, but it will enable you to take much better pictures if you are willing to put the effort in! It seems as though you want the best and cheapest camera, it doesn't happen. As already stated, all the pros and cons equal out between what ever brand be it Canon or Nikon. However I wouldn't recommend the D40 unless you want to use it as a point and shoot. But thats not a slate on D40 users as it can take great pictures! It's just I know people who use them and I find it great to hold but hate having to push buttons to do simple stuff.

D90 and Xsi are great cameras just go whichever feels better. And to be honest OP if you can't decide after all this information I would just go and flip a coin as its clear you aren't taking it in.

 

[Jupi]

Go with the feel...

syedrizvi21, heed the advise of many people commenting on this thread, go to the store and "feel" both cameras.

Almost 3 months ago, after reading countless forums and reviews I went to Henry's to purchase T1i. My heart was set on it and all I wanted to do is pay for it. After handling the camera for a few minutes I decided to give d5000 a try just to compare, some things on T1i didn't feel 100% comfortable - the weight distribution, the feel when you turn the control wheel, placement of dials and buttons, etc. I gave d5000 a try and then, following salesperson's advise, D90.

After holding D90 in my hands for a few minutes and taking a couple of pictures, making few adjustments, I decided that this is the camera for me. It took me almost a month to finally be comfortable with spending more money and buy it, but in the end I'm extremely happy with my decision. I've got decent lenses for it too (18-200 VR and 35mm 1.8G), so in the end I think I'd made a right decision.

My point is this. Go to the store, and try a few cameras out. You may, in the end, go with something different altogether.

(The reason I didn't go with Nikon d300, it felt to big for me, I thought I'd think twice taking it with me on the walk just in case)

 

[romanaz]

Usually third-party lenses are better and cheaper (better price/performance). They're available for Canon and Nikon …

For many purposes, third-party lenses are great. Of course, they are agnostic, they're good on Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax bodies. For instance, Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 zoom is amazing, better than the `originals' (Nikon's 12-24 mm or Canon's 10-22 mm lens).

Regarding original lenses, the (minor) differences start showing in higher price categories. For instance, Nikon offers a cheap 80-200 mm f/2.8 zoom which is heavier, but faster than Canon's 70-200 mm f/4 zoom. Optically, they're both excellent. Canon has a nice 17-40 mm f/4 zoom which Nikon does not have. On the other hand, Nikon's 18-200 mm superzoom is a lot better than Canon's. Both have very nice primes and -- unless you're willing to spend over $1.3k on a prime -- they are more or less similarly priced.

I'm sure Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 is just as heavy as Canon's 70-200 f/2.8. Nikon doesn't have (AFAIK) a 70-200 f/4 equivalent to canons. Each brand has lens's that trump the others in certain areas. But even so, to most people, those don't make much of a difference, more so looking @ the mid-range zooms, like the 17-55 or the 17-85 type lens's.

I know for me, since I'm a big fan of primes, I like the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2, and I'm sure I'll probably pick up at least one of them, as well as a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, as it would be a perfect lens for what I do. =D

to the OP, pick whatever one you like, they both will get the job done. But make sure you feel the cameras first and feel how their next step up camera's feel. For me, I enjoy the Canon feel and placement of buttons opposed to Nikon and especially sony. Plus my 40D is a bigger camera for my bigger hands, I'd have to pony up to a D300 for a similar size.

 

[localghost]

The point is that there are essentially two different Canon mounts as EF-S lenses either don't fit full-frame or large-frame bodies or they may even damage the camera.

You can still mount DX lenses on full frame Nikon bodies and the camera will switch automatically to DX mode (unless it's a third-party lens or you manually override it).

We already discussed that, I think the differences are clear now.

And you can use many old lenses (although that advantage is getting less and less relevant with time). (BTW, Nikon also has a 14 mm f/2.8 prime; however, the new 14-24 mm f/2.8 zoom is optically superior.)

In any case, I don't think this discussion is particularly relevant to the OP.

Did you even bother to read the 14mm review you linked? Not so good … . You can use all Canon EF Lenses since 1987 on the current bodies (like the wonderful 80-200 2.8), almost everything before that would have been manual focus. If you want to use old manual focus lenses, go ahead and put the MF-Nikons on your canon body, nothing wrong with that. The selection is in any case a lot bigger with canon.

If you don't wan't to sell your crop-lenses later, just buy full frame lenses right from the start - plenty to choose from.

 

[flosseR]

Buy a Nikon D3000 instead. If you're really impatient (the D3000 isn't avalable yet) buy it's predecessor, the D40. I'd reccomend being patient and waiting a couple of weeks for the D3000 as it has a 2nd gen sensor.

Several reasons for recommending the D40 (all except the price applies to the D3000 as well):
1. It's dirt cheap: less than a top end compact.
2. It's a really good camera.
3. It takes standard Nikon lenses despite being 2/3 the size of a standard DSLR.
4. It's easy to use.
5. The reason I choose Nikon: your lenses won't be made obsolete. Your biggest investment will (should) be in glass. Nikon don't obsolete their lenses, Canon do.
6. Canon don't make a really wide-angle or fisheye lens for their DSLR cameras.

Don't be tempted by the D40x or the D60: they have more pixels but they are slower cameras, inferior in every other way to the D40.

If you really must have a D90 (why?) then buy it's replacement instead, the D5000.

Edward

I dont know where to start arguing with this post. Are you for real or are you just trolling? I am guessing the second. but just a few questions: D5000 replaced the d90? interesting notion. D3000 is the way to go? the OP asked for D90 or D500.... I am happy for you if you are happy with your D40 purchase, since you must own one.

to the OP:
I own a D90 and nearly NO Nikon Glass.
I do semi wide angle (sold my 10-20mm, its fun for a while but gets old really fast) at 17mm.
I own quite a few 3rd party lenses and am more than happy wih it. I am really happy with my D90 and I went with the D90 for the high ISO quality. I debated a long time with myself to go Canon or Nikon, after coming from Olympus, but in the end its a preference choice.
I got a prosumer body that will last me a few years and I just upgrade the glass as I go along until I can justify another body.

//FR
PS:it IS frustrating to read this thread.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

PS:it IS frustrating to read this thread.

It is, so much misinformation and fanboyism floating around in here.

SLC

 

[Demosthenes X]

I prefer Nikon's ergonomics to Canon's, and imo their menu system and controls are far more user-friendly.

You mentioned lenses, and as it happens I was talking about lenses just last night with my local camera store. The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage. Nikon, OTOH, makes good lenses at every price point. So while Canon lenses might be cheap compared to Nikon lenses, they're not nearly as good.

That said, Sigma and Tamron both make excellent third-party lenses.

I'd buy the Nikon, because I prefer them. But there's nothing wrong with Canon's offerings, either.

 

[compuwar]

The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage.

The cleark is likely to be an idiot. Canon used to make relatively poor kit lenses, that's not been true for at least 2 years now.

 

[localghost]

I prefer Nikon's ergonomics to Canon's, and imo their menu system and controls are far more user-friendly.

You mentioned lenses, and as it happens I was talking about lenses just last night with my local camera store. The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage. Nikon, OTOH, makes good lenses at every price point. So while Canon lenses might be cheap compared to Nikon lenses, they're not nearly as good.

That said, Sigma and Tamron both make excellent third-party lenses.

I'd buy the Nikon, because I prefer them. But there's nothing wrong with Canon's offerings, either.

(prices for europe, in euro)
Decent Kit EF-S 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS < 100
Good 50mm 1.8 < 100
Hyped but still fine EF-S 55-250mm 4.0-5.6 IS < 200
Very good 35mm 2.0 < 250
Decent EF-S 17-85mm < 300
Very good 50mm 1.4 USM ca 300
Excellent EF 85mm 1.8 < 350
Excellent EF-S 60mm 2.8 Makro < 350
Excellent EF 100mm 2.0 ca 400
Decent EF-S 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS < 400
Good EF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM < 450
Excellent EF 70-200mm 4.0 L USM ca 550
Excellent EF 15mm 2.8 Fisheye < 600
Very good EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM < 700
Good EF 17-40mm 4.0 L USM < 700
Excellent EF 200mm 2.8 L II USM < 700
Very good EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM < 900
Very good EF 24-105mm 4.0 L IS USM < 1000
Excellent EF 135mm 2.0 L USM < 1000
Excellent EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM < 1000
Very good EF 70-200mm 2.8 L ca 1000

 

[OreoCookie]

I'm sure Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 is just as heavy as Canon's 70-200 f/2.8. Nikon doesn't have (AFAIK) a 70-200 f/4 equivalent to canons.

That's exactly what I've said. However, the price-points of both lenses are comparable (depending on the version of the Canon, of course). Nikon also has an expensive variant of this lens (the 70-200 mm).

 

[toxic]

You mentioned lenses, and as it happens I was talking about lenses just last night with my local camera store. The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage. Nikon, OTOH, makes good lenses at every price point. So while Canon lenses might be cheap compared to Nikon lenses, they're not nearly as good.

there are just as many bad Canon consumer lenses as there are Nikons.

18-55 I, II, USM
17-85 IS (arguably)
20 f/2.8
24-90
28-105 f/4-5.6
75-300
...and that's about it. the 28-105, 24-90, and 18-55s are all discontinued.

tell me, are all fifty billion Nikon standard zooms great?

 

[CountBrass]

I dont know where to start arguing with this post. Are you for real or are you just trolling? I am guessing the second. but just a few questions: D5000 replaced the d90? interesting notion. D3000 is the way to go? the OP asked for D90 or D500.... I am happy for you if you are happy with your D40 purchase, since you must own one.

to the OP:
I own a D90 and nearly NO Nikon Glass.
I do semi wide angle (sold my 10-20mm, its fun for a while but gets old really fast) at 17mm.
I own quite a few 3rd party lenses and am more than happy wih it. I am really happy with my D90 and I went with the D90 for the high ISO quality. I debated a long time with myself to go Canon or Nikon, after coming from Olympus, but in the end its a preference choice.
I got a prosumer body that will last me a few years and I just upgrade the glass as I go along until I can justify another body.

//FR
PS:it IS frustrating to read this thread.

It is frustrating read a thread with so many pixel counters, like you, and so few photographers. Problem with asking this kind of question on a computer rather than a photography forum I guess. Not sure how listing the gear you own adds any weight to your opinion though. "Ooh look I've bought some glass, I've no clue about how to use it and can't show you any pictures but I've thrown money at the subject so I must know what I'm talking about: you should waste your money following my recommendations as well."

The D40 is an excellent camera. I own one. I also own a D700. The difference between my D40 and D700 and your D90 is simply that I use mine to take photographs instead of just wanking over them.

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?

My recommendation still stands though, unless you plan on regularly printing poster/A2+ sized prints, buy a D40. It's a better camera than the D90 and D5000. Only it's imminent replacement, the D3000 (basically a gen 2 D40), looks to be better.

 

[CountBrass]

It is, so much misinformation and fanboyism floating around in here.

SLC

Well duh. This is a camera forum on a Mac site, what do you expect?

Pretty dumb place to ask any kind of photography question: the chances are you'll get 10 responses from pixel counters / equipment wankers for every 1 from someone who uses their camera to, you know, take photographs.

The responses that do make me laugh are the ones that try to justify their own poor decisions and persuade the suckers to follow suit. "I bought a D90 and some ****** Sigma glass and therefore so should you, even if the D90 has been superceded and Sigma produced the cheapest and nastiest glass you can buy." The thing is, this guy doesn't care because he doesn't take any photographs anyway.

 

[cube]

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?

You keep repeating this falsehood. This completely discredits your posts.

 

[romanaz]

It is frustrating read a thread with so many pixel counters, like you, and so few photographers. Problem with asking this kind of question on a computer rather than a photography forum I guess. Not sure how listing the gear you own adds any weight to your opinion though. "Ooh look I've bought some glass, I've no clue about how to use it and can't show you any pictures but I've thrown money at the subject so I must know what I'm talking about: you should waste your money following my recommendations as well."

The D40 is an excellent camera. I own one. I also own a D700. The difference between my D40 and D700 and your D90 is simply that I use mine to take photographs instead of just wanking over them.

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?

My recommendation still stands though, unless you plan on regularly printing poster/A2+ sized prints, buy a D40. It's a better camera than the D90 and D5000. Only it's imminent replacement, the D3000 (basically a gen 2 D40), looks to be better.

I'm not a nikon user, but I can clearly see that the D5000 is not a D90 replacement. First off, handling of it, its made of plastic and smaller then the D90. From what I've read, its the D90 sensor in a smaller body with that articulating display. Wheres my second control dial? Wheres the in-body focus motor? How about the better viewfinder? And I'm also sure Nikon as a business wouldn't replace a over 1000 dollar camera body with a sub-1000 dollar camera body.

And the D3000 is more of a D60 replacement, similar specs in terms of sensor and resolution are concerned. You recommending getting a D40 is like me recommending getting the original Rebel at this point. Its outdated technology, which while it can be had for cheap, you would be better off getting a newer camera to start with.