Somewhat IMO. I wouldn't consider Nikon as being wrapped up in the megapixel war until they start having their cameras leapfrog competing cameras in megapixels; Nikon, IIRC, doesn't make their own sensors either, so if that's the case, they're at the mercy of their suppliers at any rate.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon or Canon...but with a twist
- Thread starter wgr73
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Somewhat IMO. I wouldn't consider Nikon as being wrapped up in the megapixel war until they start having their cameras leapfrog competing cameras in megapixels; Nikon, IIRC, doesn't make their own sensors either, so if that's the case, they're at the mercy of their suppliers at any rate.
That's an invalid conclusion- Nikon can have any sensor they want fabricated- they've done it in the past, and they'll likely do it again. Just because they don't have a fabrication investment doesn't mean they always use off-the-shelf sensors.
For instance, the D2h sensor was a Nikon design not used in any other camera, likewise the D2x sensor was a Nikon design with a pixel density unused elsewhere at the time. Nikon's use of a current Sony sensor on the D3x is rather unique in their pro line.
There's also some speculation that Nikon is leasing a Sony fab and using their base platforms but manufacturing them themselves. In the cases where Nikon does their own design, they can obviously always go to a new fab. In the case where another manufacturer's sensor meets their specs, they obviously gain higher margins while risking a sole-supplier bottleneck. That's still cheaper than building and maintaining their own fab.
In no case does either one mean they're solely at the mercy of what Sony produce for themselves. In fact, they're generally less encumbered than someone with a fab, who's only going to be able to produce what they're tooled up for, and retooling for a new process is significantly more expensive than shopping for a new supplier.
Ok, so I currently have the Nikon D60. Its a great camera but I find to change controls its too much menu work. I am looking at exchanging the D60 for the Canon 40D or the Nikon D80/90. I see a lot of people with Canons (went to a Nuggets game and all I saw were white lenses). I'm very familiar with Nikons, but hear nothing but good things about Canons...I'm stuck. I realize a lot of the decision is based on personal preference/ergonomics, and as far as lenses go...does Canon have as wide of a selection as Nikon? This is a hard pick. I will more than likely pick up a body, and get a lens...not a kit. My max is $900. Thanks guys
This is a trick question of sorts as you didn't quite explain what bothered you about your particular camera's menus nor did you provide what type of photography you like to do.
I had (until recent) a D200. It is a very good camera and it too had a myriad of menu options. What I found to be of interest to me is that over half of them I didn't concern myself with in the type of shooting I do. I shoot RAW RAW RAW all the way. I find that full control, some AE options was about all I needed and the sensor adjustment referred to as "ISO."
To be clear I do feel your pain on this issue but if you elect to get another camera do know there will be a learning curve to understanding its menu and all the options an combinations that are available to you.
Just as a suggestion you might want to venture over to http://www.dpreview.com and see their reviews. They have sections targeting the menu areas of the camera.
There are certain things I miss from the film days where there were more dials and an aperture ring that helped me handle the camera in a more natural way. Those days are gone and its an entire new world out there for digital imaging as opposed to film photography.
As far as Nikon vs Canon - you can get excellent results from both makers with the right models. I wouldn't look at brand loyalty as a factor as I can tell you the makers themselves are not "loyal" to their users but to how much money they can make. This is not a fault its simply about business.
For lenses, both makers have some good ones and not so good ones. Nikon's 17-55 is a very very good (and expensive) lens but is extremely bulky making it not the best player on the block if you need to stay light. It also blocks at some focal lengths the use of the built in flash if you need it.
3rd party lenses are available and it pays to read reports on their performance. Btw, your 70-200 VR Nikon lens is superb on the APS format Nikons and is just "good" on full frame such as the D700. It is a lens truly worth keeping.
As for me, I'll be getting most likely a D300 or D700 depending on when I am ready to purchase. The menus as you pointed out are a pain and at best I can say learn to get to exactly what you need and the rest you can play with later until it is second nature. Too bad they don't have semi and pro cameras that are more about RAW shooting and less about multi-level menus that give you items that you can do out of your camera and on your computer. The latter being a better choice by far.
Pixels - unless you are doing huge enlargements, using good software to exploit your image (such as Genuine Fractals 5/6 as example) then 10-12 megapixels should be fine.
bottom line..read the reviews at dpreview (or a similar site), do as others suggested and try out the cameras at a store and think about what do you really want out of a camera so that you can do the type of imaging you like.
- Phrehdd
Thanks guys. Well I have to let go of both the kit lens and the 50-200mm because it came with the kit from B&H...I would do an exchange for the D80 or D90. I would love to keep the lenses but I dont the think B&H would let me
Well I dont think its hurt to ask
And thats what I did! Supposedly I can keep the 55-200mm because it came free with the deal I got!! I have to send back the 18-55mm VR though. At least I'll have a lens to use for a bit.
Is there any lenses ~$100-150 you guys recommend thats fairly good?? I'll be getting the D90 so I pretty sure I can use older lenses now! Thanks
And thats what I did! Supposedly I can keep the 55-200mm because it came free with the deal I got!! I have to send back the 18-55mm VR though. At least I'll have a lens to use for a bit.
Is there any lenses ~$100-150 you guys recommend thats fairly good?? I'll be getting the D90 so I pretty sure I can use older lenses now! Thanks
Without question, the 50mm AF-D 1.8. Maybe the most bang for the buck lens ever made by Nikon.
Agreed, the 50 1.8 is a great low budget lens. It will teach you how to cope without being able to zoom.
To the OP, I thought you mentioned in an earlier post that you had the 18-55 VR and a 70-200 VR, not the 55-200. That my friend is a huge difference in quality size and price. Although it looks as though you had the 55-200 cause B&H would never give the 70-200 out for free.
Anyways good luck with your D90, haven't used one, as I have a D300 and D200 but have heard nothing but good things about it.
There's a large second-hand Nikon market, so far as I know. How big are we talking about?
UPDATE: So now I'm re-thinking, what would be wiser move...???
Canon 40D + better lenses OR Nikon D90 + budget lenses
I can get a 40D for around $700 and have $300 dollars to buy a nice lens. Or I can spend $899 for the D90 body and use my 55-200mm lens. I'm looking into the Canon sensors and I'm leaning towards them. I read somewhere that Nikon is behind Canon in their sensor dept. Out of the two choices what would you guys do? Thanks a lot!
Canon 40D + better lenses OR Nikon D90 + budget lenses
I can get a 40D for around $700 and have $300 dollars to buy a nice lens. Or I can spend $899 for the D90 body and use my 55-200mm lens. I'm looking into the Canon sensors and I'm leaning towards them. I read somewhere that Nikon is behind Canon in their sensor dept. Out of the two choices what would you guys do? Thanks a lot!
Nikon's d90 sensor is basically the same as in the D300. High ISO performance is actually better in the d90.
Nikon and Canon's sensors differ mainly in their image processors. Both the D90 and 40D use CMOS, rather than CCD.
The D90 was released this year, the 40D in May of 2007. The 40D is probably the better sports camera, as it can shoot at 3 and 6 FPS, but the D90 is the better camera overall, I think.
But, as always, remember that you're buying into a system, and that the camera body is just the starting point. I'd look as much at the glass available as anything else, along with the flash systems and so on.
The D90 was released this year, the 40D in May of 2007. The 40D is probably the better sports camera, as it can shoot at 3 and 6 FPS, but the D90 is the better camera overall, I think.
But, as always, remember that you're buying into a system, and that the camera body is just the starting point. I'd look as much at the glass available as anything else, along with the flash systems and so on.
Yes, thank you. I have been thinking a lot about Canon. Both seem good. Either way I go I'm gonna buy a lower priced cam (D80 or 40D) and spend more of the money on lenses...I think this is the better way to go. Better bodies will come later once I get the gist of it.
Interesting!!!
This is what I plan on doing....I know it would be a waste. So I'm leaning towards the 40D by Canon.
UPDATE: So now I'm re-thinking, what would be wiser move...???
Canon 40D + better lenses OR Nikon D90 + budget lenses
I can get a 40D for around $700 and have $300 dollars to buy a nice lens. Or I can spend $899 for the D90 body and use my 55-200mm lens. I'm looking into the Canon sensors and I'm leaning towards them. I read somewhere that Nikon is behind Canon in their sensor dept. Out of the two choices what would you guys do? Thanks a lot!
Glass always wins, though $300 may not buy all the lens quality you want, so be sure to research the options fully. Nikon is not behind Canon in terms of sensors at the moment, and Canon is no longer behind Nikon in low-cost lens performance. These things tend to swing back and forth though- you're likely to not switch often, so point-in-time comparisons aren't as helpful as they first seem.
But if you get the chance to get better-performing glass with the Canon, then that's the way to go, no question. You can't go back and re-shoot all your pictures when you trade up lenses.
Im set with Canon as of now (lol, I know I've been swaying back and forth but im sure now). I'm looking for the Canon 40D...any good places you guys recommend (other than B&H, Adorama?). My max is $1000...so point me in the right direction for the body + lens....or a kit. Thanks Right now I am looking at the 18-135 40D kit for $972.
Right now I am looking at the 18-135 40D kit for $972.