Nikon or Canon: I don't kow about you but...

[flosseR]

I think the Nikon D90 so far is the best enthusiast camera I can find. I test-drove it for a while and in that price range, what can beat it? I mean seriously.
Next question, anyone know a good place where to buy it with discounts? I mean I need a good deal if I am to be able to afford that one.

//FR

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

I think the Nikon D90 so far is the best enthusiast camera I can find. I test-drove it for a while and in that price range, what can beat it? I mean seriously.
Next question, anyone know a good place where to buy it with discounts? I mean I need a good deal if I am to be able to afford that one.

//FR

Well I for one would never base my decision off a camera body. The most important thing is the glass available and canon simply has the edge in this dept.

As for buying, B&H photo has the best prices around.

 

[luminosity]

In what way does Canon have the edge? In terms of overall selection, I'd probably agree, but not in terms of quality. I think Nikon's 24-70mm 2.8 is second to none, and Canon has nothing better than it. Equal, perhaps, but nothing superior.

 

[srf4real]

Don't mean to throw a monkey in the mess, but in my opinion, Olympus has the best glass. Depends on what your needs are but there is def more out there than just the D90 for that much money.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

In what way does Canon have the edge? In terms of overall selection, I'd probably agree, but not in terms of quality. I think Nikon's 24-70mm 2.8 is second to none, and Canon has nothing better than it. Equal, perhaps, but nothing superior.

Absolutely, in overall selection. They simply have a much better selection of lenses. They have a better selection of high end zoom Lenses, A better selection of fast prime lenses and IS lenses. Plus they have the 135 Soft Focus which is one of my favorite lenses. Personally I think they have the edge in quality too as I think Nikons lenses are more contrasty however I wont bother arguing that and will just leave it at selection. Glass is the key.

 

[jaseone]

Here we go again...

I really don't think someone interested in a D90 is really going to care about Canon L series glass!

If they like the D90 and it feels good in their hands then just let them get the D90!

 

[pdxflint]

Let's please not get into another argument about who makes the best glass... most reputable lens makers make something that is outstanding in one way or another. Nikon's 12-24 is incredible. Canon's 50mm 1.2 is unique. Pentax makes extremely good glass. Olympus ain't too shabby. Leica, Zeiss, Bronica, and yes... even Tokina, Sigma and Tamron have some gems in their lineup. So, can we abstain from the general, blanket statements that one company or the other is the best? All it does is provoke brand-name arguments, and tends to get heated as I've noticed in the past.

Objectivity, and peace, brother!

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

Don't mean to throw a monkey in the mess, but in my opinion, Olympus has the best glass. Depends on what your needs are but there is def more out there than just the D90 for that much money.

I agree that we should not get into another debate on this matter. It always ends the same way. People disagreeing.

I stand by my original point and that is you should base your decision of a body off of the glass available for it.

 

[nissan.gtp]

B&H and Adorama are both very reliable and reputable

I got my D90 from Adorama, they had a very slightly better deal @ the time.

And just ordered a Panasonic DMC-LX3

 

[iBookG4user]

Here we go again...

I really don't think someone interested in a D90 is really going to care about Canon L series glass!

If they like the D90 and it feels good in their hands then just let them get the D90!

I bought a Canon 40D which is similar in price to the D90 and then well... You can see the rest in my signature, so you really can't say for sure what will happen after you buy a camera body.

As for the glass, there is great glass on both sides of the fence so either will make a great choice. There is some Nikon glass that I would love to have (200-400mm ƒ/4 VR, Canon please go make one of those!) and there is some Canon glass that I couldn't live without. I'd suggest making a tentative list of what glass you will want for both Nikon and Canon, factor in the camera body and see which is cheaper and get the cheaper one.

 

[pdxflint]

iBookG4user - nice list of lenses...! I won't try to beat that one... with anything in my camera bag.

 

[ChrisA]

I think the Nikon D90 so far is the best enthusiast camera I can find. I test-drove it for a while and in that price range, what can beat it? I mean seriously.
Next question, anyone know a good place where to buy it with discounts? I mean I need a good deal if I am to be able to afford that one.

//FR

What you are really choosing is a brand. Buy the D90 and then all the lenses and the next body will be Nikon, and the next body after that. You may want to base the decision on more then just one DSLR body. Nothing wrong with the D90. I use Nikon gear. But stand back an look at the kit of equipment you might want to have in 5 years and then select a brand

One you have the brand then look at lenses then buy the body that works best with those lenses.

You want to spit your budget between lenses and the body. By the time you have two or three lenses yu should have more money tied up in optics than in the body. DSLR bodies don't last very long. Not that they break but like computers they get out of date.

 

[Hmac]

Well I for one would never base my decision off a camera body. The most important thing is the glass available ....

Yeah, I've never understood why people think that. I agree it was true in the old days of film, where the body was just box with a shutter and with rollers to hold the film, but now, instead of film, we have an expensive non-interchangeable electronic sensor. Relative to image quality, the lens has become secondary to the performance of the sensor and its associated electronics. The lens may be a potentially limiting step, but it's not a determiner, and certainly not "the most important thing". Likely some day in the future course of digital photography it will be, but not today.

In the meantime, saying "Canon has the edge in lens quality" is about as true as saying "Nikon has the edge in sensor performance". Both statements might be accurate in some individual products, but certainly not across the board.

 

[Cliff3]

Yeah, I've never understood why people think that. I agree it was true in the old days of film, where the body was just box with a shutter and with rollers to hold the film, but now, instead of film, we have an expensive non-interchangeable electronic sensor. Relative to image quality, the lens has become secondary to the performance of the sensor and its associated electronics. The lens may be a potentially limiting step, but it's not a determiner, and certainly not "the most important thing". Likely some day in the future course of digital photography it will be, but not today.

Actually, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Lenses play a huge role in image quality, but with film being replaced by sensors, bodies aren't as homogeneous as they used to be. The important thing to take away is that when you buy a camera, you are buying into a system. That is probably more true now than it was before the digital era.

 

[iBookG4user]

Yeah, I've never understood why people think that. I agree it was true in the old days of film, where the body was just box with a shutter and with rollers to hold the film, but now, instead of film, we have an expensive non-interchangeable electronic sensor. Relative to image quality, the lens has become secondary to the performance of the sensor and its associated electronics. The lens may be a potentially limiting step, but it's not a determiner, and certainly not "the most important thing". Likely some day in the future course of digital photography it will be, but not today.

In the meantime, saying "Canon has the edge in lens quality" is about as true as saying "Nikon has the edge in sensor performance". Both statements might be accurate in some individual products, but certainly not across the board.

I've used lenses and bodies on both ends of the spectrum ($100 kit lens to multi thousand dollar super telephotos, and XTi to 1Ds mark III) and I can say that the glass makes much more of a difference than the body. Sure ISO performance may change here and there and there might be a resolution bump, but the IQ on any modern dSLR is pretty darn good. The lenses however determine the IQ, a cheaper lens on an expensive camera will yield a worse image than an expensive lens on a cheaper camera (In this case please assume that the more expensive the better the quality).

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Good glass is the most expensive proposition. Bodies are second to glass, and depreciate at quite a faster rate than good glass.

 

[Cliff3]

Good glass is the most expensive proposition. Bodies are second to glass, and depreciate at quite a faster rate than good glass. One can buy the top of the line body today, and a little over a year later (when the newer model is produced), the older one loses nearly half of its monetary value.

Nikon's refresh cycle for professional bodies appears to be 4 years. I don't track Canon that closely, but I think their development cycle is similar. I've been using my D2X for 4 years, and only recently upgraded to the current generation (D700). Bodies do certainly depreciate rapidly though...

The nice thing about lenses is that good glass never goes out of style. There are some great used values out there. Both of my telephotos were bought used, and I always look to the used market first when trying to fill a need.

 

[luminosity]

If you bought a Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 a month ago (or year) and kept it in mint condition, it could well be worth more now than it was when you bought it, thanks to price increases.

 

[wheelhot]

Care about lenses more then your body. Correct me if Im wrong, but Canon has a slidge edge in telephoto lenses then Nikkon and Nikkon got an edge then Canon at wide angle to normal lenses?

Both still make very good lenses though.

 

[srf4real]

Lol ain't that the truth... the body price is only a glimpse of what slr photography will cost. How high is your enthusiasm? Get ready to spend twice the cost of that body on a single decent zoom lens.

I apologize if I seemed a tad antagonistic in my last post. Just saying that there might be more value found in a different brand without sacrificing good quality lenses for the sake of money. If it's the right one for you, FR, then you know more than anyone else. Any other camera but mine doesn't feel right to me either.

 

[FX120]

Care about lenses more then your body. Correct me if Im wrong, but Canon has a slidge edge in telephoto lenses then Nikkon and Nikkon got an edge then Canon at wide angle to normal lenses?

Both still make very good lenses though.

Wide angle, maybe, but I woud say that they're equal in the "normal" range.

 

[Crkwolf]

Make sure you can live with your decision

I just bought my D90 at B&H and received fantastic service. Although I'm still waiting for it to come, it should be here by Tuesday. You're looking for a deal, but be careful stay away from companies that offer it at ridiculously low prices e.g.$500, because generally speaking they are scams. I had heard really nothing but praise about B&H, a lot of good stuff about Adorama and I had checked into Amazon. I had purchased "stuff" from Amazon before but when I noticed the D90 kept fluctuating in price while it sat in my wish list.

My decision to get the D90 was based on several things. While to more serious photographers they may not agree with my why, nonetheless, it played a part. The video feature. I take more photographs than video but with my Kodak DX7440, I took videos here and there. I knew I would miss it if I didn't have it, but I longed for a better camera and hoped to be able to keep the video feature. I could not afford a D300, D700 or a D3, while I would love to have one even without the video. I just didn't want to have to wait that long to afford one. So I got the best that I could live with, afford and still be able to purchase the lenses for it.

I do a lot of landscape photography and spent over a month researching what I thought I should get and afford. Coming to forums such as this was a great help. I am new to the DSLR and really had no clue, but I'm not a bad shot and some think I have a good eye when I'm not playing around. If it meant selling other "toys" to bump up the quality I was willing to do it, within reason of course. You will end up spending money, I know I ended spending more than I thought I would. There were the other essentials, tripod, camera bag, (a purse won't cut it like before, lol) extra charger, extra battery etc. I still want to get a battery grip and Capture NX2, that will have to wait; I'm out of money.

Now I'm rambling, if most of what you want is in both then go with the brand you like best. If there is something on one you can't or don't want to live with out, then get that. As in all electronics, as soon as you buy something, there will be something else you think is better etc. The point is, is to get out and take your pictures with a camera you can live with. If you are a few hundred dollars away from the one you really want, wait, if not, what are you waiting for, get the one you can live with that will suit your needs.

Just my .02 and my opinion right or wrong.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Relative to image quality, the lens has become secondary to the performance of the sensor and its associated electronics. The lens may be a potentially limiting step, but it's not a determiner, and certainly not "the most important thing". Likely some day in the future course of digital photography it will be, but not today.

You can't be serious, unless you intend to compare completely different classes of sensors. Maybe if you compare a medium format sensor with an APS-C, you might be able to say the sensor is the "most important thing", but that's an irrelevant comparison for any camera shopper. If you compare currently manufactured sensors across a certain class, the variation will be nominal compared to the variation in a given category of lenses. The difference between the sensors in, say, a Nikon D90 or a Pentax K20D or a Canon 50D will pale in comparison to the difference between the quality of a cheap, slow zoom and something that is fast, sharp, and stabilized. Putting a cheap lens in front of a good sensor is like hooking up a trailer to a race car.

 

[THX1139]

It's not always about the glass!

Yes, I said it! Before you go buy any camera equipment, you need to examine what your short and long term uses are going to be. Someone who is going to be a sports or action photographer is going to have different needs than a nature or landscape photographer. What about a graphic designer who needs the occasional reference photo, or image for a particular design? Do they need to have all the best glass and most variety of focal lengths? Maybe a graphic designer just needs a good body that offers simplicity and a good focal range? How about the enthusiast who goes on the weekends and shoots whatever is of interest so that it can go onto flickr or their favorite photo blog? Do you think they need or can afford a variety of expensive glass? How many people can actually afford a 300 2.8 or other exotic glass? Chances are, if you NEED that kind of lens, you are probably not looking at an economical body, unless it's a backup.

For what the OP posted as his needs, a Nikon D-90 is a great choice. I have one and couldn't be happier. I have that and the stock lens, plus a rather cheap 80-200. It covers most of my needs because I'm a graphic designer. If I were a commercial photographer, my needs would be different.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Yes, I said it! Before you go buy any camera equipment, you need to examine what your short and long term uses are going to be. Someone who is going to be a sports or action photographer is going to have different needs than a nature or landscape photographer. What about a graphic designer who needs the occasional reference photo, or image for a particular design? Do they need to have all the best glass and most variety of focal lengths? Maybe a graphic designer just needs a good body that offers simplicity and a good focal range? How about the enthusiast who goes on the weekends and shoots whatever is of interest so that it can go onto flickr or their favorite photo blog? Do you think they need or can afford a variety of expensive glass? How many people can actually afford a 300 2.8 or other exotic glass? Chances are, if you NEED that kind of lens, you are probably not looking at an economical body, unless it's a backup.

For what the OP posted as his needs, a Nikon D-90 is a great choice. I have one and couldn't be happier. I have that and the stock lens, plus a rather cheap 80-200. It covers most of my needs because I'm a graphic designer. If I were a commercial photographer, my needs would be different.

Not all good glass is expensive. The point is that the glass does matter more than the sensor in any given class. For example, if you like to shoot bands in dimly lit nightclubs, you won't do so well with the kit lens. But if you get the 50mm f/1.8 (a very economical lens), you stand a much better chance of getting some sharp shots. Cranking up the ISO on the camera is not going to help as much as having a fast lens.

Likewise, if you want to shoot portraits with great subject/background separation, you'll want a lens with a large aperture. There's nothing the camera body can do to create that effect on its own.

As for the D90: yes, it's a great camera and probably a fine choice for the OP.