I've decided to get serious about photography, camera recommendations?

[OreoCookie]

Haha, apart from my kit lens (18-55)... no M/A option for me... either either auto, or a switch to full manual... no override. I think the 55-200mm VR Nikkor is the same way. As far as I know, all other AF-S lenses have the "instant override".

My 18-70 lens does -- and it's probably the reason I'll keep it for now. If you can get the hands on the 18-70 lens, it'll be your bread-and-butter lens.

 

[Abstract]

Also, the noise in a Canon is monochromatic, Nikons is RGB.

I just want to say that what I quoted is also completely backwards. Canon noise is RGB. Nikons produce essentially no colour noise.

All the stuff you said about noise before the quote is also wrong until you talk about full frame DSLRs, but I think someone else has already beaten me to it. Using APS-C sized sensors, Canon is sliiightly better than Nikon, which is sliightly better than the others, but not enough to notice in print, or even on a computer screen unless you zoom in to 1:1. The 5D is the best camera, or at least it has the best image quality. Maybe 2nd best. I like the Fuji S5 Pro, which uses Nikon's F-mount.

If you're looking at the typical DSLR, then there is very little difference between a Canon and a Nikon, except the ergonomics. Lenses are comparable in labs and reviews and such, but shooting the same photo with a Canon and Nikon will produce a different photo, and so far, I enjoy what I'm getting out of my Nikon.

 

[netdog]

I agree with this to an extent. However, if someone is really going to be serious about photography they have to realize that they're buying into a lens system. Glass outlasts bodies. I'd make my choice based on a lens system first and foremost and then look at the other things like user interface next.

Agree completely.

 

[netdog]

I say screw these Nikon and Canon fanboys.

It's like GM and Ford arguing over whether the Corvette or the Mustang is the best road car made.

I say get a Leica with a piece of their 14-55mm 2.8 glass on it and see what contrast really is.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I say screw these Nikon and Canon fanboys.

It's like GM and Ford arguing over whether the Corvette or the Mustang is the best road car made.

I say get a Leica with a piece of their 14-55mm 2.8 glass on it and see what contrast really is.

Amen! Hasselblad all the way. Or should i say medium format all the way. Then again... just give me the Red One Digital Cinematography camera and I will be happy

All the stuff you said about noise before the quote is also wrong until you talk about full frame DSLRs, but I think someone else has already beaten me to it. Using APS-C sized sensors, Canon is sliiightly better than Nikon, which is sliightly better than the others, but not enough to notice in print, or even on a computer screen unless you zoom in to 1:1. The 5D is the best camera, or at least it has the best image quality. Maybe 2nd best. I like the Fuji S5 Pro, which uses Nikon's F-mount.

Noise? I don't see it. But... I will show you what I am talking about when I say what noise? This images (is one of the bad ones in a stack... I hate parties for the most part, but if I like my client I will shoot one for them) was taken with a Nikon... with a 10.2MP sensor at ISO1600, f3.5 and no flash. This is as bad as I think it will ever get right? There is noise, but how much? And please don't tell me that any Canon before the Mark III would have had no noise what so ever since that is just not true.



Now I like Canon's stuff... and if I don't see a Mark III stomping D3, or if it has too many disappointments then I might jump ship, but there is no such thing as 'the best' camera company. In my opinion... Pentax has had more innovation with their K10D battery grip than Nikon or Canon combined.

p.s. I agree... the Fuji S5 has the best of both worlds... Nikon body w/F-mount and the Fuji sensor, by far the best I have seen at the price range.

 

[compuwar]

The 5D is the best camera, or at least it has the best image quality. Maybe 2nd best. I like the Fuji S5 Pro, which uses Nikon's F-mount.

While I much prefer the IQ of a 4x5 back or one of the MF digitals to the 5D, the S5Pro is indeed a force. If I were shooting weddings, I'd be seriously looking at the S5 because of the dynamic range difference for shooting folks in black and white in challenging light.

Here's DPR's take on the min and max *usable* DR
S5Pro: 9.3-11.8 EV
5D: 7.3-8.3 EV

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/page18.asp

Scroll down to "Dynamic Range Compared" and check out the step wedge. Talk about additional shadow and highlight detail!

Better Light claims up to 12 stops in a single pass. I'm not sure where the newest 'blad figures, but with an ROI at under 6 weddings, I'd sure have an H3D-31 as my primary camera and a couple of S5s as alternate bodies. 43mm, now THAT's full-frame.

 

[compuwar]

I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

As a matter of fact, if the OP would like, I can post a section of image at 100% crop, taken at ISO 1600. Then someone with a Nikon camera can do the same thing. I only say this, because I spend a fair amount of time at ISO 1600 in dark churches - with absolutely no fear whatsoever of noise. And again, everyone I know uses the in camera noise reduction.

Funny how you've gone from ISO 400 being "unacceptable" to wanting to pixel peep two stops further down the line. However, here's a thread at DPR of shots from a Nikon body (D2H) at 1600 and 3200, care to point out what exactly is "unacceptable" about them, since they're clearly well over ISO 400?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24039551&changemode=1

FWIW, I've never printed anything large enough that a 100% crop was representative of the print at a viewing distance the same as from my screen to my eyes, but I imagine I'd need to go to several feet's worth of output to get there. But then I never thought 25x of magnification on film grain affected my prints either.