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

[Doylem]

Putting a cheap lens in front of a good sensor is like hooking up a trailer to a race car.

Sounds like the 'all-purpose' vehicle I've always craved.
.
Nikon... Canon...
.
.
Canon... Nikon...
.
.
.
.
Hmmmmm... time to go and take some pix...

 

[compuwar]

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.

(It's Nikon for the camera and Nikkor for the lenses)

Depends on what you mean by "Slight edge." Canon's supertelephotos are much cheaper than Nikon's, but nothing in anyone's line-up holds a candle to the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 VR over a full frame sensor (check the MTFs.) In truth though, I can't see distortion or resolution issues with my older AF-S II version on a D2x, which has the smallest pixel pitch of just about anything. Plus, there's more to a lens than contrast and resolution- though they're very good primary indicators of quality- and you can't outperform a bad MTF.

Here's the deal though- look at prints (evaluating on the screen is nowhere near enough quality) and see if you can tell the camera/lens brand- because I'm betting that 99% of people couldn't tell even side-by-side which brand it was. You can tell lens quality levels side-by-side, but only when the technique is the same.

 

[Hmac]

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.

Totally serious. No offense, but I don't agree with you at all. I have cheap lenses and I have expensive lenses and use both with my D3 and D2H. The performance of the body (sensor, processor, AF, WB, firmware) has far more impact on IQ of a given image, or perhaps even more importantly, the ability to even CAPTURE that image, than lens performance. IMHO, spending $1800 on a 70-200VR instead of $200 on a 55-200VR won't give as good a general image capture improvement as spending $1700 on a D300 instead of $500 on a D40.

Sorry, I realize it runs counter to the general mantra, especially from old-timers like me who were taught from film days that the lens was everything, but today IMHO, until we reach some level of parity and end-point in sensor performance -- until image sensors can perform on par with the human eye (resolution, focus, dyamic range, noise) -- the path to better images will revolve around the sensor, not the lens.

 

[Grimace]

Well, in my experience, I have seen a significant sharpness difference in X (cheap) lens vs. Y (more expensive) lens. That isn't to say that there aren't good lenses that run cheap (50mm f/1.8) but you really can't make up for softness and available light.

 

[Hmac]

Well, in my experience, I have seen a significant sharpness difference in X (cheap) lens vs. Y (more expensive) lens. That isn't to say that there aren't good lenses that run cheap (50mm f/1.8) but you really can't make up for softness and available light.

In the field (as opposed to the test bench) I suspect that a body with an accurate autofocus system is more important to the general run of photographers than a lens with a high MTF or CST.

 

[srf4real]

The sensors in the D300 or D90 vs. the D40 are not in the same class. Besides, it is like saying it doesn't matter what kind of bait (lens) is used to catch fish (get sweet shots) as long as you have a good hook (sensor). The right bait catches fish all day that the wrong bait just won't. You need a sensor, but I have seen pics taken with a 5Mp five year old sensor (E-1) with Olympus Super High Grade glass that blow doors on more recent pics shot with the best sensors of today behind shoddy lenses. The finest sensor only records what it can see and that is through the lens.

 

[Hmac]

The sensors in the D300 or D90 vs. the D40 are not in the same class.

Right. That's exactly what we're talking about....spending one's upgrade money on a better body as opposed to spending it on a better lens.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

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.

Sorry but this is in fact totally incorrect and if you have never understood why people think that then that is because you have never understood the technical aspects of what were talking about, no offense intended. The advent of digital has only made the glass selection that much more important because digital now has more resolving power than film. With film you had a situation where the resolving power of alot of the glass was better than the resolving power of the film. That basically meant that you weren't even accessing the full power of the lens so a lot of times and under certain shooting conditions switching to a higher quality lens didn't make any difference whatsoever in the overall image quality. Now we have digital cameras that have more resolving power than the lenses and that means that lens selection is vastly more important with these cameras than with older film based cameras. This is why you are seeing lenses specifically designed for digital cameras and this is why I am updating a lot of my large format lenses with digital large format lenses.

as for your last statement, I already said that I was specifically referring to LENS SELECTION and Canon does have a much better selection of lenses. I also stated that my preference for Canon's quality is because Nikons Glass is more contrasty and I prefer the latter. There are people who prefer more contrasty glass and they would obviously prefer Nikon Glass. Regardless my original statement about Canon having the edge was if reference to the selection and had nothing to do with image quality and it stands uncorrected. As some posters have already stated including myself there is no point arguing about it. If you want to think otherwise then so be it.

Glass is, more than ever, the most important aspect to a camera system. It always has been that way and it always will be that way.

 

[wheelhot]

(It's Nikon for the camera and Nikkor for the lenses)

Depends on what you mean by "Slight edge." Canon's supertelephotos are much cheaper than Nikon's, but nothing in anyone's line-up holds a candle to the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 VR over a full frame sensor (check the MTFs.) In truth though, I can't see distortion or resolution issues with my older AF-S II version on a D2x, which has the smallest pixel pitch of just about anything. Plus, there's more to a lens than contrast and resolution- though they're very good primary indicators of quality- and you can't outperform a bad MTF.

Here's the deal though- look at prints (evaluating on the screen is nowhere near enough quality) and see if you can tell the camera/lens brand- because I'm betting that 99% of people couldn't tell even side-by-side which brand it was. You can tell lens quality levels side-by-side, but only when the technique is the same.

Ah okay, I always got confused, should I say it Nikkor lens? Nikkor glass? Nikkor? or Nikon lens?

Hmm, yea the technique must be the same though, so Im guessing studio tests???

 

[hogfaninga]

Totally serious. No offense, but I don't agree with you at all. I have cheap lenses and I have expensive lenses and use both with my D3 and D2H. The performance of the body (sensor, processor, AF, WB, firmware) has far more impact on IQ of a given image, or perhaps even more importantly, the ability to even CAPTURE that image, than lens performance. IMHO, spending $1800 on a 70-200VR instead of $200 on a 55-200VR won't give as good a general image capture improvement as spending $1700 on a D300 instead of $500 on a D40.

Sorry, I realize it runs counter to the general mantra, especially from old-timers like me who were taught from film days that the lens was everything, but today IMHO, until we reach some level of parity and end-point in sensor performance -- until image sensors can perform on par with the human eye (resolution, focus, dyamic range, noise) -- the path to better images will revolve around the sensor, not the lens.

I happen to agree with you on this issue and in real life have experienced it. It isn't a popular opinion to have here, but who cares.

Regardless this is the last place I would come to for camera advice (for Mac advice it is awesome). Go to a dedicated camera board where a large number of people give advice so you get a lot more opinions. It seems to be the same few who post in this forum and dominate the discussion. Also look at articles on it especially those without biases. Google is your friend here.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

Totally serious. No offense, but I don't agree with you at all. I have cheap lenses and I have expensive lenses and use both with my D3 and D2H. The performance of the body (sensor, processor, AF, WB, firmware) has far more impact on IQ of a given image, or perhaps even more importantly, the ability to even CAPTURE that image, than lens performance. IMHO, spending $1800 on a 70-200VR instead of $200 on a 55-200VR won't give as good a general image capture improvement as spending $1700 on a D300 instead of $500 on a D40.

Sorry, I realize it runs counter to the general mantra, especially from old-timers like me who were taught from film days that the lens was everything, but today IMHO, until we reach some level of parity and end-point in sensor performance -- until image sensors can perform on par with the human eye (resolution, focus, dyamic range, noise) -- the path to better images will revolve around the sensor, not the lens.

This just isnt true. Try taking that 70-200VR and do some tests wide open. Then compare them to the 55-200VR wide open. The image difference will be HUGE!!! Sure stopped down to f11 or some other smaller aperture things get a bit harder to tell. Its with the larger apertures that the more expensive glass comes into its own.

Sorry but as much as some may think this is a matter of opinion, it really isnt. The quality of glass is simply more important than the sensor or body. Again digital and the higher resolving power of digital has only made the selection of glass that much more important, not the other way around. If you honestly still think otherwise then contact all of the companies and ask them. Email Lieca, Canon, Hasselblad, Schnieder, Nikon, B&W, and ask them which is more important and each and every one of them will tell you that its the glass.

 

[Crkwolf]

The OP's Question was

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

I think we've strayed a bit guys.

 

[compuwar]

IMHO, spending $1800 on a 70-200VR instead of $200 on a 55-200VR won't give as good a general image capture improvement as spending $1700 on a D300 instead of $500 on a D40.

Please provide photographic evidence. Everything I've shot shows this to not be true- that is, the clarity and quality of a shot with a consumer lens is easily discernible when compared to that of a professional lens- and you can tell a shot with a good sharp lens, even on a low-end body.

In fact, if you go to the DPR reviews and look at the test images, it's often quite difficult to tell which is which (like the Kodak chart shots from the D40 and D300- the differences are more in exposure and color balance than they are in IQ.)

Also, the faster lens is going to give you significantly more shooting options and depth of field options than the slower lens. Plus the MTBF of the body is going to be significantly greater than that of the lens, so your dollars are much, much more expensive if you spend them on the body.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

Please provide photographic evidence. Everything I've shot shows this to not be true- that is, the clarity and quality of a shot with a consumer lens is easily discernible when compared to that of a professional lens- and you can tell a shot with a good sharp lens, even on a low-end body.

In fact, if you go to the DPR reviews and look at the test images, it's often quite difficult to tell which is which (like the Kodak chart shots from the D40 and D300- the differences are more in exposure and color balance than they are in IQ.)

Also, the faster lens is going to give you significantly more shooting options and depth of field options than the slower lens. Plus the MTBF of the body is going to be significantly greater than that of the lens, so your dollars are much, much more expensive if you spend them on the body.

Its not true especially when you shoot wide open. Again shooting with large apertures is where the expensive glass really comes into its own and there is just no comparison between consumer level lenses and the high end pro lenses when shooting at those apertures. The differences will be DRAMATIC!! I worked in a professional photo lab during my freshman and sophomore years in college and we used to get these tech sheets from these companies that run these sorts of tests and it was really the first time that I saw a lot of the different canon and nikon consumer level lenses tested against the pro lenses in identical shooting conditions and the differences were mind blowing at the large apertures. As you stop down the difference becomes less and less. I never purchased another consumer level lens again after reading those. I wish I still had access to them so I could post them up but you have to pay a pretty hefty fee for those reports.

 

[THX1139]

I think we've strayed a bit guys.

Yeah, it's getting to be a bit of a pi$$ing match in here and doesn't really have anything to do with the original question. The bottom line is you buy the best camera/lens combination that you can afford for what you need. Arguing that one lens is better than another, or that you should buy X camera and spend money on more expensive glass is a moot point.

The op sounds like he is just starting out, so a basic lens combination with D90 sounds like a good way for him get started.

I remember when I first got into photography and had to have all the best and most expensive gear. I bought Hasselblads and expensive fast zooms for my 35mm gear. At one point I had 2 F4s and a couple of N90s with a wide range of fast lenses that was in addition to all my two and a quarter gear. I invested thousands in glass and bodies. And you know what? My photography didn't improve because I didn't invest equal time in learning how to make a good image. I wound up selling everything in favor of going in a new direction. Anyway, all of this arguing back and forth would make sense if the OP was talking about his long term goals and deciding how to purchase for the future.

 

[THX1139]

...Again shooting with large apertures is where the expensive glass really comes into its own and there is just no comparison between consumer level lenses and the high end pro lenses when shooting at those apertures. The differences will be DRAMATIC!! ...

So, what you are saying is that expensive glass is what makes a great photo? Hmmm... and all of this time I thought it was a combination of lighting, composition and subject matter. If I buy a 300 2.8 will I be able to take award winning images? Just wondering....

 

[Phrasikleia]

So, what you are saying is that expensive glass is what makes a great photo?

Where did GotMyOrangeCrus say that? You're putting words in his mouth.

It is true that much of this thread is not a direct response to the OP, but I think it's helpful to point out to a person that they may not be asking the right question to begin with.