Deciding between 2 cameras - my list of pros & cons but which matter most?

[sarcasticdesign]

There have been years and years of these Nikon vs Canon posts. There seems to be kind of a pattern to the professional reviews of these brands over the years as well.

1. Canon generally is ahead in the spec war, with more MPs per dollar than Nikon. Canon introduces higher MP designs earlier than Nikon.

2. Nikon seems to be more concerned with noise and artifacts than in pure MP power. The FX spec D700 is "only" 12MP, half that of Canon, for example.

3. Canons have more in-cameral sharpening and more saturated colors as a default. Nikons output a more subdued image, expecting post-processing.

4. Nikons generally are more ergonomic in terms of how the controls work and the menu system is usually less imposing.

5. Nikons usually seem to have a better build quality feeling to them. Even the entry level plastic D40s and the like are very solid feeling.

6. All in all, Nikon is a more conservative company, Canon more apt to dazzle people.

Something for everyone and if you love your equipment, then it is likely you will use it better.

One thing is missing, from what I can see, and that is reliability. Which brands are going to fall apart on you? Which companies have the best warranties and repair service?

Ken? Hey Ken! Yea, you, Mr. Rockwell! 'Sup! Welcome to the forum.

 

[OrangeCuse44]

There's a stickied topic of decent retailers at the top of this board. Buying from anywhere else is at your own peril.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/257862/

http://beatthat.com/merchants/show/photo-loon
looks like a scam
also, don't buy any tripod, it's an important item so you better research on that as well

Thanks to you both, do NOT want to get ripped off on such an important purchase. I did some further digging and for $737 plus shipping fumfie.com offers the D90 body only. I also did some research on the merchant to avoid any scams and feedback seems to be positive on resellerratings.com.

 

[jaduffy108]

IMO, either *system* is very good. I don't understand your comment about preferring Canon for changing iso, aperture. It's Canon that uses Menus more than Nikon.

I prefer Nikon's lighting system and ergonomics. I would suggest getting a Nikon D90....even used if necessary. There are "minty" ones around. Invest in glass.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

IMO, either *system* is very good. I don't understand your comment about preferring Canon for changing iso, aperture. It's Canon that uses Menus more than Nikon.

I prefer Nikon's lighting system and ergonomics. I would suggest getting a Nikon D90....even used if necessary. There are "minty" ones around. Invest in glass.

Both are about the same in relation to changing settings. All depends on camera model. For example, on my 40D I can change WB, ISO, AF-Drive, aperture, shutter speed, flash, and numerous other functions with with buttons in addition to menu uses. Not nearly as much on my XT, but still i can change a lot of things on this one with the use of buttons.

 

[OreoCookie]

Both are about the same in relation to changing settings. All depends on camera model. For example, on my 40D I can change WB, ISO, AF-Drive, aperture, shutter speed, flash, and numerous other functions with with buttons in addition to menu uses. Not nearly as much on my XT, but still i can change a lot of things on this one with the use of buttons.

You're right that this crucially depends on the camera model: since the cheaper ones tend not to have an lcd on the shoulder of the camera, they have to use the main lcd. These cameras tend to rely more on menus. That's one of the reasons I would really hesitate to buy a camera without an additional lcd.

However, I think there is a big difference in UI philosophy: Canon, in my (limited) experience, tends to assign at least two functions to all of its buttons. I prefer dedicated buttons if at all possible. Even if we can argue the details, Canons feel very different in my hands than cameras from pretty much any other manufacturer (and some people prefer it that way).

 

[joro]

I don’t think the menu controls would necessarily limit you at this point. Sure, getting started it may be difficult finding the controls you’re looking for but the more and more you use the camera the more second nature it would become. I’m personally a Canon shooter and I prefer their lineup of lens and bodies. In saying that, I don’t think you could go wrong sticking with Canon or Nikon because they both have a variety of choices in lenses, flashes, etc.

 

[OrangeCuse44]

Thanks again to everyone for their infinite wisdom...At this point after all the research I have done, it seems to boil down to this:

Canon = Ferrari
Nikon = Lamborghini

So, take your pick on what style feels good to you personally.

 

[SelfMadeCelo]

I just went through this decision. I ended up going with the D5000 mostly because I liked the way the camera felt while holding it. It was more comfortable to me than the Canon. Also the liked the way the info was presented on the screen. I'm a really visual person so seeing the aperture represented by a circle and blades made sense to me. I changed the custom function button below the flash button to change ISO so it's just hold the button and scroll the wheel to change ISO. Anyways, hope that helps somewhat lol

 

[OrangeCuse44]

I just went through this decision. I ended up going with the D5000 mostly because I liked the way the camera felt while holding it. It was more comfortable to me than the Canon. Also the liked the way the info was presented on the screen. I'm a really visual person so seeing the aperture represented by a circle and blades made sense to me. I changed the custom function button below the flash button to change ISO so it's just hold the button and scroll the wheel to change ISO. Anyways, hope that helps somewhat lol

Seems like exactly what I'm going to do. What lens did you go with by the way?

 

[SelfMadeCelo]

Seems like exactly what I'm going to do. What lens did you go with by the way?

Right now I have the kit 18-55mm and I got a 55-200mm f/4-5.6 too. Once I outgrow these two lenses (and when the wife lets me) I'll start upgrading. I'm renting a 50mm f/1.4 in a few weeks to play around with though.

 

[Detlev_73]

Canon T1i

I just bought a Canon T1i about 3 weeks ago; it is my first dSLR and I LOVE it. I'm a little biased towards Canon, because I've owned a G5, G7, and two digital point-and-shoots from Canon. Each time I've scoured CNET.com, and other websites reviewing digital cameras. In my opinion Canon has the best quality product out there, and this coincides with the reviews that I personally have read. I'm sure Nikon is a great product too, but I'm just biased towards Canon for some reason. Just my $0.02-worth.

 

[akdj]

B&H, Adorama, Abes, J&R...there's others, but those are the 4 I've had great luck with. I've had great luck, locally...might be something to try. If you've got a local camera dealer...even Best Buy (if that's your only choice), try to establish a relationship with someone at the shop. Even if it's 50-75 bucks more, you'll have a local support network and a place to ask questions, try new gear, etc. I've paid a bit of a premium, but I like supporting the local guys, as the internet is slowly making the B&M storefronts vanish.

When something looks to good to be true, it most likely is, especially online. You know that though Don't buy a piece of sensitive electronics, like a dSLR from someone you're not completely comfortable with. This includes ebay, Craigslist, etc. There are some excellet websites that have for sale forums (Photography on the net is one of my favorites as a Canon fan, but Nikon has extensive forums as well)...and generally, these are cameras taken care of by folks that appreciate the hobby. Do your research if buying used and Use your common sense. Just one drop of these cameras, without obvious external damage...can have a major effect on it's internal mechanisms.

Good Luck

Just in addition...it seems like I saw BOTH a nice little Nikon setup (5000, maybe?) and a Canon 50d and T1i setups at Costco that were very reasonable. I think it came with a bag, extra battery, SD card, etc...excellent prices and Costco has a helluva return policy Not necessarily the best place to establish a relationship with a photo guru...but if the price is right!

 

[AlaskaMoose]

You're right that this crucially depends on the camera model: since the cheaper ones tend not to have an lcd on the shoulder of the camera, they have to use the main lcd. These cameras tend to rely more on menus. That's one of the reasons I would really hesitate to buy a camera without an additional lcd.

However, I think there is a big difference in UI philosophy: Canon, in my (limited) experience, tends to assign at least two functions to all of its buttons. I prefer dedicated buttons if at all possible. Even if we can argue the details, Canons feel very different in my hands than cameras from pretty much any other manufacturer (and some people prefer it that way).

Believe me when I tell you that it's all in your mind. The whole thing depends on which camera, regardless of brand, you become familiar with. Once you become familiar with the camera, the buttons layout feels just right to you. It's true that some of the buttons on my 40D (for example) have more than one function, but that's a feature that I like. I don't want too many buttons, just the right ones.

For example, lets say that I want to know the mounted flash's EC at the moment. In that case I press and hold the ISO button while looking through the viewfinder, and I can see the FEC indicator. If I then need to increase or decrease ISO speed, I then press and release the ISO button, and while still looking through the viewfinder I change the ISO speed with the wheel by my right thumb at the back of the camera. As the ISO speed changes, I can see it through the viewfinder, but I can also see it on the LCD screen if I want.

I can do these things without having to remove my eye from the eyepiece, but I can also use the menus if I wanted to. I am certain that one you become familiar with your Nikon camera it feels just right in your hands, and very often you change the settings without having to look at the buttons. It sort of becomes second nature to you, like driving an automobile you enjoy.

 

[OreoCookie]

Believe me when I tell you that it's all in your mind. The whole thing depends on which camera, regardless of brand, you become familiar with.

No, it's not in my head.
Of course, I can learn how to use any modern dslr, that's not the question here. But I don't think I can grow to like it. And even if I can, why not take a solution I'm happy with right away?

I've had 2 slrs and 3 dslrs from two manufacturers: with the exception of my first (a Nikon F50 where Nikon experimented with some button interface), I've immediately liked how they felt in my hand.

I am certain that one you become familiar with your Nikon camera it feels just right in your hands, and very often you change the settings without having to look at the buttons. It sort of becomes second nature to you, like driving an automobile you enjoy.

No, that's really not it: when I switched from an Olympus to a Nikon (E-20 --> D70), I didn't need to read any manual or time to get accustomed to the camera. I could just start taking pictures. And those two cameras were different in many respects. I loved the way the camera felt in my hands. (Then I tried a D80 and wanted one solely because of the viewfinder.)

What you describe to me sounds like an arranged marriage: over time you will get to know and love her. I'm talking about love at first sight

 

[OrangeCuse44]

Well, just got back from the local camera store so I thought I'd share my thoughts:

Held and messed around with the Canon T1i, Nikon D5000, & Nikon D90

-Canon was awkward to hold, almost felt as if I could only place 1 or 2 fingers on the grip and definitely could see this being an issue. The battery grip helped a little but I'd rather not rely on an extension to a camera right off the bat just to make it feel comfortable.
-The Nikons felt very comfortable to hold and although they were heavier (which I think I actually prefer), it just fit my hand so much better
-Canon's LCD was extremely impressive
-Canon & Nikon D5000 were pretty similar in ways to change the aperture settings, etc
-Hated the D5000's screen. Seemed cheap compared to the Canon and the swivel aspect was actually a drawback for me, I just don't care for it. Of course the canon boasted a bigger screen and higher resolution so I was aware of this going in, but the difference is huge when comparing side to side

The biggest thing of all - The Nikon D90 took the best features of the Canon & D5000 and put them into one body. Although I wasn't originally planning on spending so much, I really think it is worth it. You need to be comfortable shooting first and foremost, so the Nikons in general seem to be the way to go. Now, hopefully I can find a good deal on a D90!

 

[crain300]

i have a d90 camera it is very nice
i hope you consider this one before making your choice

 

[Phrasikleia]

I don't think you'll regret getting the D90. Do your homework on the lens too, though.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

No, it's not in my head.
Of course, I can learn how to use any modern dslr, that's not the question here. But I don't think I can grow to like it. And even if I can, why not take a solution I'm happy with right away?

I've had 2 slrs and 3 dslrs from two manufacturers: with the exception of my first (a Nikon F50 where Nikon experimented with some button interface), I've immediately liked how they felt in my hand.

No, that's really not it: when I switched from an Olympus to a Nikon (E-20 --> D70), I didn't need to read any manual or time to get accustomed to the camera. I could just start taking pictures. And those two cameras were different in many respects. I loved the way the camera felt in my hands. (Then I tried a D80 and wanted one solely because of the viewfinder.)

What you describe to me sounds like an arranged marriage: over time you will get to know and love her. I'm talking about love at first sight

Well, my points still stand: the camera you become most familiar with (in relation to button layout), regardless of brand, feels just right. Some like Canon, while others like Nikon. That's the way it is. Why arguing about it?

 

[pdxflint]

I did most of my 35mm journalism work with Canon EOS cameras, and they became almost second nature to operate on the fly - loved the Canon experience... but wasn't too impressed with the build quality on anything less than the EOS 1 series. My A2 was a great durable camera that had great features and was fast, but it still was plasticy. When I first went digital I bought a D50 because they had a great price at the time for a 'refurb' kit, and the camera just felt so much more solid than the digital Rebels I had looked at. So, for build "feel" the Nikons seemed to have something, at least in the entry level and mid-level camera bodies.

But... there were a number of things that were hard to get used to - attaching the lens, focusing, zooming... all opposite. The Canon command dial in front of the shutter release is so perfectly placed, and the Nikon thumb command doesn't feel as natural as the Canon command dial on the back - which is brilliant in many ways. Also, the command dial on the front of the Nikons is much more awkward to reach for without thinking than the Canons, at least from the perspective of this former Canon shooter. So, ergonomically, I'm still conditioned by my old semi-pro Canon and it's fast reactions.

Yet, I do love the Nikon designs, how the cameras look, how they feel in the hand, and build quality generally up and down the product line, but there are some minor things that I'd change... is it enough to make me switch back? No, it's not. It's probably a bit like learning to drive in England, then having to switch to the other side of the road - there's more to it than just what side of the road to drive on... it's the instinctive things you do when not thinking, and they take a while to unlearn. As I've gotten higher up the food chain (D300) with the Nikon family, I'm suddenly experiencing the kind of instant response and fingertip control of much of my shooting like I did back shooting Canon film SLRs.

In the end, both are amazing product lines. I've been on both sides of the fence, and think this competitive rivalry is one of the best things happening for serious photographers.

The D90 will be an nice choice. Pick up a 50mm f/1.8 lens to go along with whatever kit or zoom you start with - great bang for the buck and will allow you to experience an optically fast lens really inexpensively. This will give you a taste of what fast glass feels like, compared to the typical f/3.5-5.6 zooms most people use.

Good luck, and support your local camera shop if you can.

 

[OreoCookie]

Well, my points still stand: the camera you become most familiar with (in relation to button layout), regardless of brand, feels just right. Some like Canon, while others like Nikon. That's the way it is. Why arguing about it?

No, that's not what I said (although I think our conclusion is the same): I said that without being very much familiar with the details of operation, some bodies feel better in our hands than others from the very beginning.

That's why I'm advocating what you would probably suggest as well: go to a store, try out the different cameras and pick the one that you like best. It's not about the camera, it's about the pictures

 

[aaronw1986]

You really need to go try them out. I was interested in going Canon, but holding them in the store made me choose Nikon. Much more comfortable to hold for me.

 

[OrangeCuse44]

Thanks again for all the responses to my original question. As I mentioned a few posts up, Nikon is what felt right in my hands. Now that I'm almost certain I will be purchasing either the D5000 or D90, I started looking into lenses.

I am thinking about the 35mm f/1.8, Ken Rockwell is in love with this lens and lists it as 1/3 of his "dream team," and/or the 50mm f/1.8. Would it be a waste getting both? Am I overlapping features of these lenses? My main interests in photography at this point are landscapes/buildings, macro, and portraits.

Additionally, am I at any disadvantage buying a prime lens as compared to a zoom lens? Everything I read states using a prime lens involves "moving your feet" to get the shot you want, but how much does this matter? Thanks!

 

[OreoCookie]

I am thinking about the 35mm f/1.8, Ken Rockwell is in love with this lens and lists it as 1/3 of his "dream team," and/or the 50mm f/1.8. Would it be a waste getting both? Am I overlapping features of these lenses? My main interests in photography at this point are landscapes/buildings, macro, and portraits.

The 50 mm is a very good portrait lens already. It corresponds to 75 mm on full frame which is on the wide end of portrait lenses. I find this focal length very pleasing, otherwise, the working distance is large -- which can become quite cumbersome if you are working indoors.

Additionally, am I at any disadvantage buying a prime lens as compared to a zoom lens? Everything I read states using a prime lens involves "moving your feet" to get the shot you want, but how much does this matter? Thanks!

Primes force you to work with less. This is one typical task they make you do in photo workshops: if you have a zoom, you set the focal length to some pre-determined setting and tape it. It makes you think about composition more and to quite literally explore new angles. It is also more natural since your eyes don't zoom

 

[jampat]

I am thinking about the 35mm f/1.8, Ken Rockwell is in love with this lens and lists it as 1/3 of his "dream team," and/or the 50mm f/1.8. Would it be a waste getting both? Am I overlapping features of these lenses? My main interests in photography at this point are landscapes/buildings, macro, and portraits.

Neither of those lenses will be amazing for what you are planning on shooting. The 50mm will be decent for portraits, but I personally like a longer lens to flatten things out a little more.

I tried to shoot architecture for a short while with a 30mm and a 50mm and wasn't happy with the results. They weren't wide enough for a lot of the shots I wanted and way too wide to highlight details. I am sure some people like these lenses in this application, but they weren't for me.

Neither lens should be great for macro photography (without something like a reverser ring). With those lenses you will likely be ~1:7 at best. Real macro lenses hit 1:1. Basically you can probably get a whole cell phone in the frame at max magnification.

Those lenses will start to shine when the light starts to slip away, they will blow any equivalently priced zoom out of the water in dim light. Try to borrow or rent one and see how you like the lens. Alternatively, buy a used lens, if you don't like it, you will lose nothing on the sale.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I am thinking about the 35mm f/1.8, Ken Rockwell is in love with this lens and lists it as 1/3 of his "dream team," and/or the 50mm f/1.8.

OK, I'll be the one to tell you that Ken Rockwell is the last place you want to go for advice. Read him as entertainment, not as a source of serious information. If ever he says something reasonable (which he has in this case), it's pure coincidence.

Those two primes are useful lenses, but not so much for portraits or macro. You'll want a true 1:1 macro lens for macro ("micro" in Nikkor terms), and you'll want something longer for portraits: 85mm is a good minimum focal length for portraits. So if you want to do macro photography and portraits, consider the 105mm micro; it will serve you well for both. It's quite an investment, but I would argue it would make sense to get the less expensive camera body so that you can put more money into a good lens like that one. The lens will last you many years longer than the camera body will.

Then you would need something for wider shots, in which case you might consider the kit zoom or else that 35mm prime.