My Nikon/Canon dilemma

[blockburner28]

Too many good ideas on both sides (and the middle) to respond to all for right now. I'm really enjoying this thread.

According the DP Preview comparison,

“Although the Rebel T2i offers a competent AF system, the Nikon D90's advanced autofocus technology provides the advantage including better low light autofocus capabilities and offering greater reliability in our real world comparison tests.”

Any comments re: this from the people here?

What I meant by this is that most people buying this camera will not buy lenses sharp enough to take advantage of the high MP's, meaning that for most consumers, the cons of these sensors will outweigh the pros, without them knowing it. DP Preview calls it a marketing decision, and I don't disagree.

And according to the DP Preview tests, the T2i does not perform as well at high ISO as the D90. I do not know if this is due to the 18MP sensor, as the 18MP 7D holds up well in all respects to the 12MP D300s.

But the bigger issue for me is the T2i's 18MP sensor results in a substantially slower burst rate, less photos to fill the RAM buffer, and slower transfer of these photos into the "fast" 30MB/sec SDHC cards. (T2i’s burst rate is 3.7 frames per second (fps) with a buffer that will allow up to 6 RAW. Nikon D90 does 4.5 fps and up to 11 frames in RAW.)

For the record, I do not mind high MP sensors, and understand there are plenty of uses for them. And the 7D handles bursts quite well on 90MB/sec CF cards (I can't get over this video).

Regarding handling, both cameras make my left hand feel like it's being torqued counterclockwise, the D90 slightly less so. I guess the only way around this is a battery grip. Much more money than I wanted to spend on a consumer camera.

You hit some valid points with this one, so are you going with the Nikon d90?

 

[firestarter]

OK, Chris. Before getting lost in the minutia of ISO noise performance and lens choices, what do you actually want to shoot?

I must say that I'm confused that you're planning to build a cropped-sensor system around a lens like the 24-105. Have you no need to shoot wide angle at all?

Neither the 28mm f1.8 nor the 50mm f1.4 measure at all well wide open. You'd be much better off with Sigma's 30mm EX CD lens if you're looking for a fast standard prime.

I'm confused that you're obsessing about image quality issues surrounding noise performance, yet you're planning to use your buddy's slow and poor quality kit lens for most of your shooting.

Also - are you seriously discounting faster lenses because of their weight, yet considering buying a camera with a battery grip? Makes no sense to me.


Personally, I'd be interested in how much photographic experience you have - what do you have at the moment and where are you coming from? What do you usually shoot? There may be more sensible and pragmatic options to get to a cost effective camera kit than those that you've selected.

 

[Chris7]

?

You hit some valid points with this one, so are you going with the Nikon d90?

Actually, at this point, I'm more lost than when I started this thread.

Edit:

Personally, I'd be interested in how much photographic experience you have - what do you have at the moment and where are you coming from? What do you usually shoot? There may be more sensible and pragmatic options to get to a cost effective camera kit than those that you've selected.

Total beginner.

Back into (D)SLR's largely because of a fascination with composition and the ability for the still image to catch the instant, such as a person's expression that perhaps no one else saw. DSLR's seem incredible with their ability to shoot low light in color and in extremely fast bursts, something I never had when I was experimenting with 1600 speed black and white celluloid film some years ago.

My wife has a Lumix LX3, which is no fun for me. Use friend's XT and 28-105 3.5-4.5, as well as my 28mm 1.8.

Only really like to shoot slightly moving subjects, usually with a FOV of max 3 to 4 1/2 feet. Some Brian Peterson books are giving me ideas for wider shots, but I've never had use to go wider than my 28mm on a 1.6 crop (45mm equivalent). I wonder if either body, a 50 1.4, an a few filters might take care of most of my shooting, and give me something of high quality for when I have enough light to shoot ISO 100-200. (Though I'd much prefer to use a zoom, were not for the extra money, weight, and less DOF options).

The cameras I'm looking at are (I think ) the cheapest DSLR's that will do ISO 6400, though I might want to turn them into black and white only at this ISO (I can handle the grain on black and white, but really hate digital chroma noise).

I never thought of getting a battery grip before I played with these two cameras today, and don't want one. Realizing that both cameras made my left hand feel like it was being being torqued counterclockwise was a huge disappointment.

 

[firestarter]

Total beginner.

Back into (D)SLR's largely because of a fascination with composition and the ability for the still image to catch the instant, such as a person's expression that perhaps no one else saw. DSLR's seem incredible with their ability to shoot low light in color and in extremely fast bursts, something I never had when I was experimenting with 1600 speed black and white celluloid film some years ago.

My wife has a Lumix LX3, which is no fun for me. Use friend's XT and 28-105 3.5-4.5, as well as my 28mm 1.8.

Only really like to shoot slightly moving subjects, usually with a FOV of max 3 to 4 1/2 feet. Some Brian Peterson books are giving me ideas for wider shots, but I've never had use to go wider than my 28mm on a 1.6 crop (45mm equivalent).

The cameras I'm looking at are (I think ) the cheapest DSLR's that will do ISO 6400, though I might want to turn them into black and white only at this ISO (I can handle the grain on black and white, but really hate digital chroma noise).

I never thought of getting a battery grip before I played with these two cameras today, and don't want one. Realizing that both cameras made my left hand feel like it was being being torqued counterclockwise was a huge disappointment.

So it's people photography you want to do? I took a look at Brian Peterson's web page, and it looks good.

Getting the 'decisive moment' in people photography (or 'the still image to catch the instant, such as a person's expression that perhaps no one else saw') is SO not about megabytes per second card writing speed and low light focussing speed - it's about subtlety, being confident with people and having good composition. Carter Bresson didn't shoot at 10 frames per second (and you cannot rattle off a load of shots if you want to do candid photography - you'll upset the person you're shooting).

If I were you, I'd pick up a Rebel t1i, Nikon D5000 or something like that (possibly get a used one) and buy a good lens like the 30mmf1.4 Sigma, then just practice. You'll get much better pictures with a fast lens than the slow zooms you're considering:
- You'll get to use the more accurate cross autofocus sensors on Canon cameras
- You'll have 2 or 3 stops more light coming into the camera, and be able to use a lower ISO so less noise
- You'll get fantastic depth of field control, and really be able to separate your subject from the background

Unless you have some sort of permanent physical issue with camera weight, you will feel uncomfortable holding one in the beginning, but that will pass. Just get something and practice. Don't obsess about stretching to getting the best camera ever at this point, since in 2 years time everything will have got better/cheaper and you might be wanting to upgrade. The biggest hurdle in achieving great images now will be your skill, not any camera that you buy.

 

[blockburner28]

So it's people photography you want to do? I took a look at Brian Peterson's web page, and it looks good.

Getting the 'decisive moment' in people photography (or 'the still image to catch the instant, such as a person's expression that perhaps no one else saw') is SO not about megabytes per second card writing speed and low light focussing speed - it's about subtlety, being confident with people and having good composition. Carter Bresson didn't shoot at 10 frames per second (and you cannot rattle off a load of shots if you want to do candid photography - you'll upset the person you're shooting).

If I were you, I'd pick up a Rebel t1i, Nikon D5000 or something like that (possibly get a used one) and buy a good lens like the 30mmf1.4 Sigma, then just practice. You'll get much better pictures with a fast lens than the slow zooms you're considering:
- You'll get to use the more accurate cross autofocus sensors on Canon cameras
- You'll have 2 or 3 stops more light coming into the camera, and be able to use a lower ISO so less noise
- You'll get fantastic depth of field control, and really be able to separate your subject from the background

Unless you have some sort of permanent physical issue with camera weight, you will feel uncomfortable holding one in the beginning, but that will pass. Just get something and practice. Don't obsess about stretching to getting the best camera ever at this point, since in 2 years time everything will have got better/cheaper and you might be wanting to upgrade. The biggest hurdle in achieving great images now will be your skill, not any camera that you buy.

I don't know why, but I have a fetish for the nikon d90. I'm like a hour away from going get it right now lol. Would I be stupid to get the nikon d90 or would I be smart to stick with my canon t1i?

 

[Westside guy]

I don't know why, but I have a fetish for the nikon d90. I'm like a hour away from going get it right now lol. Would I be stupid to get the nikon d90 or would I be smart to stick with my canon t1i?

I think you would be smart to try turning that "don't know why" into actual quantifiable reasons before you put your money down.

However unless you've got more equipment than is listed in your sig, you're not particularly invested in high-quality Canon gear - so as long as you can afford it, in the end it's up to you. But please realize no matter what brand you currently use, there will always be newer introductions from a different manufacturer that offer something you don't currently have.

 

[firestarter]

I don't know why, but I have a fetish for the nikon d90. I'm like a hour away from going get it right now lol. Would I be stupid to get the nikon d90 or would I be smart to stick with my canon t1i?

How will a d90 improve your photography?

I looked at a couple of pictures you put on photo of the day... I think there's work you could do on composition and post processing - and the d90 isn't going to help that.

Put the work in to practice and improve on what you have. Maybe get a prime lens, use that to give yourself some discipline and practice.

 

[Chris7]

So it's people photography you want to do?

Sorry. I thought that's what the word "subject" referred to, but I'm new to the jargon.

...the 'decisive moment' in people photography (or 'the still image to catch the instant, such as a person's expression that perhaps no one else saw') is SO not about megabytes per second card writing speed and low light focussing speed - it's about subtlety, being confident with people and having good composition. Carter Bresson didn't shoot at 10 frames per second (and you cannot rattle off a load of shots if you want to do candid photography - you'll upset the person you're shooting)...

I couldn't agree more. Expert/master photographers probably know intuitively when this moment is, and press the shutter button milliseconds before the instant they're trying to capture (just making this up, but sounds like a pretty good guess).

Except that with bursts I can catch instants that I did not see myself. I video recorded my dad giving a talk at 24P. He wanted a still from the video. I scrolled through the frames with my wife for a few minutes and we found the ONE that had that extra sparkle in his eye. I realized just how much I was missing in the other frames.

…buy a good lens like the 30mmf1.4 Sigma, then just practice. You'll get much better pictures with a fast lens than the slow zooms you're considering…

I will probably keep my 28mm 1.8 if I stay with Canon. Would you suggest getting either a 50mm 1.4 or an 85mm 1.8 also (partly for outdoor shooting)?

…Unless you have some sort of permanent physical issue with camera weight, you will feel uncomfortable holding one in the beginning, but that will pass. Just get something and practice. Don't obsess about stretching to getting the best camera ever at this point, since in 2 years time everything will have got better/cheaper and you might be wanting to upgrade.

The weight had more to do with wanting my wife to use the camera too, since I like her eye and taking pictures is something fun to do together. Two years sounds about right for an upgraded body.

 

[blockburner28]

I think you would be smart to try turning that "don't know why" into actual quantifiable reasons before you put your money down.

However unless you've got more equipment than is listed in your sig, you're not particularly invested in high-quality Canon gear - so as long as you can afford it, in the end it's up to you. But please realize no matter what brand you currently use, there will always be newer introductions from a different manufacturer that offer something you don't currently have.

I ordered the canon 50mm 1.8, but i will resell it when it comes in. I just fell in love with the nikon look. hood lens etc. I can't seem to locate a sb600 flash

 

[blockburner28]

How will a d90 improve your photography?

I looked at a couple of pictures you put on photo of the day... I think there's work you could do on composition and post processing - and the d90 isn't going to help that.

Put the work in to practice and improve on what you have. Maybe get a prime lens, use that to give yourself some discipline and practice.

I just need something that will last me in the future for when i improve. I plan on starting a business with this and also doing family portraits in my home. i also heard the nikon d90 is good for low light. Is it true that the canon 55-250 only fit on EOS canon cameras? If so I dont want to keep something i can't keep in the future.

 

[firestarter]

I couldn't agree more. Expert/master photographers probably know intuitively when this moment is, and press the shutter button milliseconds before the instant they're trying to capture (just making this up, but sounds like a pretty good guess).

Except that with bursts I can catch instants that I did not see myself. I video recorded my dad giving a talk at 24P. He wanted a still from the video. I scrolled through the frames with my wife for a few minutes and we found the ONE that had that extra sparkle in his eye. I realized just how much I was missing in the other frames.

Hmm. If you were doing a paid shoot with a model or shooting a close family member that might work - but in candid photography you just can't stick a camera in someone's face and rattle off 20 shots. It is possible to catch 'decisive moments' with a single shot with practice.

I will probably keep my 28mm 1.8 if I stay with Canon. Would you suggest getting either a 50mm 1.4 or an 85mm 1.8 also (partly for outdoor shooting)?

I'd get the 85f1.8. Wide open it's plenty sharp, and has a fantastic smooth background blur. I don't think the 50mmf1.4 is usably sharp until you reach f2, and if you're going to shoot at f2 you may as well have saved the money and bought the 50f1.8 (which is a good lens).

The weight had more to do with wanting my wife to use the camera too, since I like her eye and taking pictures is something fun to do together. Two years sounds about right for an upgraded body.

She'll get used to the weight too. Seriously, women do use 'proper' cameras! My sister had a 5DII and 24-70f2.8 before I bought one.

How will a d90 improve your photography?

I looked at a couple of pictures you put on photo of the day... I think there's work you could do on composition and post processing - and the d90 isn't going to help that.

Put the work in to practice and improve on what you have. Maybe get a prime lens, use that to give yourself some discipline and practice.

I just need something that will last me in the future for when i improve. I plan on starting a business with this and also doing family portraits in my home. i also heard the nikon d90 is good for low light. Is it true that the canon 55-250 only fit on EOS canon cameras? If so I dont want to keep something i can't keep in the future.

Your Canon lenses won't work on a Nikon.

You don't need good low light performance to do portraits in your home... you'll use flash lighting on ISO 100 and frankly any DSLR should give you great results. You should be looking to buy lighting gear, not wasting money on changing camera brands (and search the forum for advice on studio lighting).

If you need more camera in the future, then wait until the future to buy more camera. Cameras improve and get cheaper - no sense buying capability today that you don't need.

 

[blockburner28]

yeah I know the lenses wouldn't work on the nikon, but sorry i forgot to add that i am still with in my 35 day return perios along with 05 restocking fee. I love my canon to death, but before i get deep into this I think the d90 would be a good starting point for me the 18-105 kit lens and the 50mm 1.8

 

[firestarter]

yeah I know the lenses wouldn't work on the nikon, but sorry i forgot to add that i am still with in my 35 day return perios along with 05 restocking fee. I love my canon to death, but before i get deep into this I think the d90 would be a good starting point for me the 18-105 kit lens and the 50mm 1.8

It really won't make a significant difference to what you can do with your photography, but if you think you'd be happier with it then go for it.

I personally think you're wasting your time.

 

[compuwar]

I just need something that will last me in the future for when i improve. I plan on starting a business with this and also doing family portraits in my home. i also heard the nikon d90 is good for low light. Is it true that the canon 55-250 only fit on EOS canon cameras? If so I dont want to keep something i can't keep in the future.

For portraits, you want actual lighting. 2 lights as a minimum, probably 3 or 4 is optimal. Your key light looks best either shot through a shoot-through umbrella or softbox, the fill light through a light silver reflective umbrella and then you'll want a 15 degree grid for a hair light for when you're not doing high-key shots and to also use that light as a background light most of the time to achieve some subject/background seperation (or a fourth light to just work as a background light and you can optionally grid a hair light when you need it.) Each light will need a light stand. Adorama had some nice shoot-through/relective umbrellas at a reasonable cost a few months ago at a reasonable price- three of those should be good for almost any setup you'd want to make.

Then you'll want a background stand, a bag of clamps from your favorite home improvement store, and at least two backgrounds. Muslins are easier to work with and cheaper to ship than seamless paper. Get at least a black and a white one, consider also a mottled blue one. Use a spray bottle to get the wrinkles out as you stretch the muslin on your background stand.

If you're just going to be shooting at home, something like the 320WS AB400's will be good enough. You'll generally be shooting around f/8, so don't worry about lenses- almost anything you have with the focal length for your subjects will work.

Buy a copy of Light: Science and Magic.

That'll get you way better portraits than almost anything you can do. You may have to get a hot shoe to PC Sync adapter for a low-end camera, they're less than $8. (or if you have a built-in flash, you can manually set that to be your fill, then 3 lights will give you a key, background and hair/rim light- though you'll probably want to figure some way to diffuse the built-in a bit.)

Paul

 

[firestarter]

blockburner28 - why don't you start a new thread with this, rather than derailing Chris7's question...

 

[blockburner28]

It really won't make a significant difference to what you can do with your photography, but if you think you'd be happier with it then go for it.

I personally think you're wasting your time.

What about the wireless lighting system? wouldn't it save me money?

 

[firestarter]

What about the wireless lighting system? wouldn't it save me money?

No. You'd be shooting manually and not using TTL.

Start a new thread.

 

[compuwar]

No. You'd be shooting manually and not using TTL.

Start a new thread.

If I read him right, and he's talking about a D90/SB600, then CLS will work with TTL/iTTL. For places it'll work, it saves money over radio triggers.

Paull

 

[blockburner28]

Sorry for deraiiling the thread chris.

 

[OreoCookie]

If I were you, I'd pick up a Rebel t1i, Nikon D5000 or something like that (possibly get a used one) and buy a good lens like the 30mmf1.4 Sigma, then just practice. You'll get much better pictures with a fast lens than the slow zooms you're considering:
- You'll get to use the more accurate cross autofocus sensors on Canon cameras
- You'll have 2 or 3 stops more light coming into the camera, and be able to use a lower ISO so less noise
- You'll get fantastic depth of field control, and really be able to separate your subject from the background

Very good advice. I have said lens and it is by far my most-used lens. Nice thing is that it doesn't matter whether you get a Canon or a Nikon. Since it is a quality lens, you can always sell it at very little loss (lenses retain value really well).

Actually, at this point, I'm more lost than when I started this thread.

Edit:
Total beginner.

Then I strongly suggest you scrap your currents plans, you're caught up in fps, MB/s, ISO and such. All the while you don't have a very good grasp of what this translates to when you're taking pictures. You replace situations that should be solved with skill and experience with `technology.' Shooting at ISO 6,400 isn't desirable at all, even if the noise is lower than that of the competition, for instance.

Firestarter brings up a good point in a later post: while you can compensate somewhat for lack of proficiency with better technology, you'll always do better if you learn to use your equipment properly. And I think his proposal points in the right direction: get a body which you feel comfortable with (if you like smaller bodies, have a look at the entry-level Olympus bodies, for instance) and a ~50 mm equivalent lens. An entry-level body will be just fine. If you prefer, you can get a used prosumer body instead. Perhaps you can add an external flash at some point. This will make a huge difference, much more than you think at this point. Then get out and take lots of pictures.

 

[Chris7]

Firestarter brings up a good point in a later post: while you can compensate somewhat for lack of proficiency with better technology, you'll always do better if you learn to use your equipment properly. And I think his proposal points in the right direction: get a body which you feel comfortable with (if you like smaller bodies, have a look at the entry-level Olympus bodies, for instance) and a ~50 mm equivalent lens. An entry-level body will be just fine... Perhaps you can add an external flash at some point. This will make a huge difference, much more than you think at this point. Then get out and take lots of pictures.

Makes sense, thanks. Wanting to avoid the flash, though -- don't want to wait 5 seconds between moments (personal preferance only -- I realize any good photographer is quite adept at effectively using a flash, and can catch the instant). Prefer bigger bodies, it turns out.

Going to take a break from this thread for a few days and catch up on some work. A sincere thanks to all who helped.

 

[Chris7]

Thanks for the info/opinions on upcoming sensor technology, davegoody, Hmak, Ruahrc, El Cabong, Westside guy, and compuwar.

...I'm confused that you're obsessing about image quality issues surrounding noise performance, yet you're planning to use your buddy's slow and poor quality kit lens for most of your shooting...

I’m banking on my friend buying the 24-105 4L and borrowing it at times. Side question: does lens quality matter less or more when shooting at overly high ISO (e.g. ISO 3200 on a t2i or 1280 a 5D Mk. II)?

I was going to use the cheap zoom primarily for practice. One rout would to get a another prime for outdoors (the 28mm requires that I get really close to the subject). I don't think I could control a DOF field of less than about 1 foot (about FOV of 3 ft at f/4), but I could get more in the picture at f/2 with a FOV of 4 1/2 feet at f/2 and just crop later as needed (something I can't do at high ISO without increasing noise).

Given this, would the people here recommend a 50mm or 85mm (80 and 134mm equivalent) for outdoor portraiture with slightly moving subjects?

You're thoroughly overestimating the topic of lenses and bodies and forgetting about the most important factor of all: handling. The dilemma settles relatively quickly if you try Canon and Nikon bodies in a store... Get a body that feels great in your hands.…

Both the t2i and D90 feel wrong, maybe its because they're too small. Not sure. I'll check out those lenses if I go Nikon.

...BTW I am in complete agreement with OreoCookie's post (except the part where he implies talking monkeys are a bad thing).

I went to Best Buy yesterday. I liked the monkeys because they did not talk too much and I did not feel obligated to buy from them.

I don't see where the issue is. If you intend on going Canon eventually, and if your friends also shoot Canon (better gear pool for all of you) then what's there to decide? Get the Canon. The high ISO of the modern bodies is very close nowadays it probably does not matter much...

I'm leaning closer and closer to this view.

OP is on the right track - choose the platform based on the lenses you want to use. Check out used prices on bodies (and lenses), but if you can spring for a 7D... that would offer what you are looking for…

I realized yesterday that I don't like the feel of either the D90 or the t2i. I want the 7D. So I’ll probably just go Canon now and upgrade after I have some experience.

...She'll get used to the weight too. Seriously, women do use 'proper' cameras! My sister had a 5DII and 24-70f2.8 before I bought one...

Many thanks to those who mentioned handling as an important factor. The extra comfort of the 7D's larger body may make up for the added 13 oz. in my wife’s hands. I live in a smallish city where I cannot actually hold a 7D (Wolf Camera’s contract with Canon is being renegotiated or something), but from what I can tell the D300s and 7D may have similar handling – they have exactly the same dimensions, which I suspect is no coincidence on Canon’s part.

A sincere thanks to all who help on this thread. Going to get some work done, will check back in a few days.

 

[OreoCookie]

Makes sense, thanks. Wanting to avoid the flash, though -- don't want to wait 5 seconds between moments. Prefer bigger bodies, it turns out.

With bigger flashes, you never have to wait 5 seconds in most situations. I can flash at least 3-5 times indoors before having to wait for my flash to recycle. Even then, a full recycle takes of the order of 3 seconds.

This means I can flash at 3 fps for a second or so.

 

[Chris7]

meant to post this earlier but in apparently did not (in a rush)

(did not mean to post here)

 

[Ruahrc]

For when you get back...

I’m banking on my friend buying the 24-105 4L and borrowing it at times. Side question: does lens quality matter less or more when shooting at overly high ISO (e.g. ISO 3200 on a t2i or 1280 a 5D Mk. II)?

You're still in that strange contradiction where you insist on high ISO performance yet are going to be shooting with a relatively "slow" f/4 lens. If you exchanged that for a f1.4, that's 3 stops faster, meaning what you previously would need ISO6400 for you could shoot at ISO800, which is more than doable with any modern body. If ambient light portraiture is where you really are going, you will find almost no use for that 24-105.

Given this, would the people here recommend a 50mm or 85mm (80 and 134mm equivalent) for outdoor portraiture with slightly moving subjects?

The 50 on a 1.6 crop body is a very good length for portraiture. It's very close to 85mm on full frame, which was a very popular length for portrait lenses in the film world (hence the existence of the fast 85mm lenses). 85 might be a little better suited for candid type shots because you get more working distance (again, note how N and C make a fast 135m lens, for longer working distance portrait photography). It will really depend more on what working distance you prefer/want.

Both the t2i and D90 feel wrong, maybe its because they're too small. Not sure. I'll check out those lenses if I go Nikon.

Can you describe this better? In what way. Given that you're a beginner, a lot of that could just be improper camera handling. You mentioned earlier that it felt like you were torquing your left hand too much, what does that mean exactly?

Ruahrc