Deciding on Nikon D90 or Canon 500D

[Maxxamillian]

A different thought...

I have a cousin that is in the same boat. She is coming to stay with my wife and I for the summer...and if she picks the wrong body / brand then she misses out on getting to play with some of the photo equipment I've accumulated.

You might want to take a look around at what your friends / family are using--if you plan it right then you might be able to use their equipment which could in turn slow the expense of photography for you.

Make no mistake about it, at most levels photography is expensive.

Good luck!

 

[cube]

I would also wait for the K-7.

 

[mrbash]

I own a Canon 350D, 40D and a 5D. However, I feel that the Nikon bodies are better, and have more features than the Canon bodies. That's why they cost more than the Canon. For example they have a LCD projection in the view-finder, built-in remote flash transmitter. The bodies are also much more solid.

If you are looking to make a long-term investment, go with Nikon. You'll end up saving money not just on accessories (cannon has fewer features, and the accessories cost more) but the Nikon lenses are cheaper.

 

[aaronw1986]

I own a Canon 350D, 40D and a 5D. However, I feel that the Nikon bodies are better, and have more features than the Canon bodies. That's why they cost more than the Canon. For example they have a LCD projection in the view-finder, built-in remote flash transmitter. The bodies are also much more solid.

If you are looking to make a long-term investment, go with Nikon. You'll end up saving money not just on accessories (cannon has fewer features, and the accessories cost more) but the Nikon lenses are cheaper.

Did you just say Nikon lenses are cheaper,

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Deleted double post.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I own a Canon 350D, 40D and a 5D. However, I feel that the Nikon bodies are better, and have more features than the Canon bodies. That's why they cost more than the Canon. For example they have a LCD projection in the view-finder, built-in remote flash transmitter. The bodies are also much more solid.

If you are looking to make a long-term investment, go with Nikon. You'll end up saving money not just on accessories (cannon has fewer features, and the accessories cost more) but the Nikon lenses are cheaper.

Feelings have nothing to do with reality. If that was the case, then all would be buying Nikon instead of Canon. The reality is that both Nikon and Canon cameras are very similar in features. One model may have something the other model doesn't have, which broadens your choices. Both have similar accessories, and the lenses from both are quite similar in IQ and price depending on which lens you choose. You aren't comparing apples and oranges here, but apples and apples or oranges and oranges.

 

[mrbash]

Did you just say Nikon lenses are cheaper,

Yes. Compared with Canon L series lenses the Nikon lenses are more affordable.

 

[luminosity]

Yes. Compared with Canon L series lenses the Nikon lenses are more affordable.

That just isn't so, or at least not straight across as you seem to be implying. If you want to compare consumer-level Nikon glass with L lenses, then sure, it's more affordable. But, if you're looking at premium glass on both sides, then Canon has better prices on some of the lenses. The Canon 24-70L retails (with rebate) for just under $1200 at B&H (meaning the cheapest and best place, generally speaking), whereas the Nikon 24-70 checks in at a bit over $1,700, assuming you're going for the USA versions.

There are other variations, like with the 17-55 2.8 for both sides. The Nikon 17-55 is a gold ring lens, a top-flight piece of glass, particularly in terms of construction. The latter is where it's superior to the Canon version, which happens to be a couple hundred dollars cheaper. You sacrifice build quality, though (it's not an L lens), and having banged my 17-55 into a brick wall adjoining a door frame (the barrel, not the actual glass), I can tell you that build is sometimes important. My lens chipped the brick. I suspect the Canon might have met its end, or suffered heavy damage.

At any rate, it goes on. The Canon 85mm 1.8 is cheaper than the Nikon 85mm 1.8. The Canon 85mm 1.2 is more expensive than Nikon's 1.4 version, but of course you're getting an extra stop too. And so it goes throughout the lineups.

 

[TheStrudel]

Another piece of advice:

TRY both cameras in question. Go to a camera store, pick one up, and test the feel of them. As a Nikon user (D80), I know some Canon DSLRs are superior in terms of image quality or features. But I also prefer Nikon's handle on ergonomics and find it much more usable. Other people will disagree with me and find Canon DSLRs easier to handle. This is a very personal decision and it's one you'll have to live with. If you're not invested in a lens system already, try both machines (extensively, if possible), and pick the one that will work best for you long-term. Don't go on specs or price. Go with what feels best.

 

[thefos.]

i recently took up surf photography and am tossing up between a nikon d90 with 2 lenses (18-55mm and 50-200mm) or a canon 500d with 1 lens (18-200mm). the nikon has an rate of 4.5 fps and the canon and a 3.4 fps rating. i will be taking quiet alot of sequence shots and would like to know what camera would be the best for this line of photography. any advice is appreciated.