John2A Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 OK I went to the camera store today and I am more confused than before. I would like to get a Digital SLR for the upcoming Baby girl. I have decided that it would be either the Nikon D90 or Cannon D50. I like the way both feel in my hand and the options that they both have. This will mostly be used for taking bragging pics for the grand parents, scrap books and the such. I want something that if I hand it off to the wife she can set in auto and still get better pics than we are getting out of the point and shoots. Does any one out there have any advice? I used to be into photography years ago (mostly film) so I have some clues but still not ready to pull the trigger just yet. Thanks so much, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwmiket Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) I think it was mentioned before, but I'll say this is very much like Ford. vs. Chevy....or Glock vs. 1911. They are both GREAT cameras. Camera body is less important than the lenses. Spend your money on good glass. Either of those cameras will do everything you will probably ever need. I just went thru this process mid-summer, so I know the temptations. Lighting & lenses will be your friends. There are some great photographers on this board who can offer great advice and assistance, but I'm betting they'll agree. Oh, in case you wondered--- I never could choose. I bought both. -Mike Edited November 2, 2009 by dfwmiket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Either will work. Both have fans and detractors (brand and model) and unless you already have a stash of lenses, which doesn't matter. You might look at the "consumer" models of the two. The Canon Rebel (I think the Ti1 is the current one) and the Nikon might be the D3000. Either would save you some change form the higher-end 90 and 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The only thing I'll add (because I'm in agreement with the above) is that you might want to search around for real work work done with each camera - or each camera family. There is definitely a subtle flavor to both brands in terms of their color reproduction and "look". It's subtle, though. That said, I had a chance to shoot a big sporting event this year with several other talented photographers, and have had a chance to see images from each in a blind fashion. I can pick out Nikon vs. Canon images 80+% of the time based on that subtle flavor And, I can pick my own images out accurately around 95% of the time (several of the guys have a good eye, and take good compositions, but I can spot my camera settings - ie, even more flavoring - amongst all of that, too...) Buy either one - or the consumer model, as Pat says - and shoot the hell out of it, learning all the while By the time you wear that camera out, you'll either know quite a bit about photography, or you wasted a ton of pixels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punished Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) I have owned a Canon Digital Rebel XTi for 2 years now. I really want to move up to a 5D but I am currently broke and I want a new gun first. Anyway, I have just recently reached the limit of my XTi because I would like to start making money for my work. While the XTi takes great photos, it just isnt there if I want to blow the image up to poster size. As stated before, Nikon or canon are both great choices. They have different button setups as you noticed while messing with them. See which one you like better. Once you start buying lenses you will be hard pressed to change companies as it is a pain to build back up to what you had with the other company without realizing the cost. and if you are not hard pressed on buying from a local store. Look at B&H photo or Newegg.com to buy from. B&H is where I buy almost everything I have. anyway, here are a couple shots from me. Just to show you what can be done with their basic DSLR. (trying to give you a variety of shots) Edited November 2, 2009 by Punished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cheely Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 We have a D40 and D90. Very pleased with the performance and features of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I have a Nikon D40 that I'm very happy with. And the lense advice is good. I paid more for the lense than I did for the camera. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I technically take pictures for a living, kind of. I started with film and went to digital. I've used just about every digital SLR on the market and honestly, for what you say you want it for, there are really some better cameras out there. The Sony F828 has Zeiss glass and is a great camera. It will be much more versatile and easy for even a novice to use. My current favorite is an Olympus 1030SW. I blow up photos for court displays and have no complaints at 10 Meg. I've compared photos in many environments to the F-828, the D50, D90 and the Pentax. My Pentax digital SLR does mostly sit on the shelf. The Canon Rebel series is a pretty good in between setup. The lens on the Nikon have a slight edge over the Canon IMHO. The 1030 is nice and compact and will have you taking more photos, with much less stress than lugging around the full sized SLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLG8R Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) I have a D90. That said, read up on the nikon family of cameras on www.kenrockwell.com. It's a fantastic resource and review website. His advice is that the D40 is more than enough for most people, and for what you describe wanting to use it for... spend the extra cash on a good lens, 18-200... Kenrockwell.com Edited November 3, 2009 by FLG8R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punished Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I technically take pictures for a living, kind of. I started with film and went to digital. I've used just about every digital SLR on the market and honestly, for what you say you want it for, there are really some better cameras out there. The Sony F828 has Zeiss glass and is a great camera. It will be much more versatile and easy for even a novice to use. My current favorite is an Olympus 1030SW. I blow up photos for court displays and have no complaints at 10 Meg. I've compared photos in many environments to the F-828, the D50, D90 and the Pentax. My Pentax digital SLR does mostly sit on the shelf. The Canon Rebel series is a pretty good in between setup. The lens on the Nikon have a slight edge over the Canon IMHO. The 1030 is nice and compact and will have you taking more photos, with much less stress than lugging around the full sized SLR. I agree with you. Except for I dont really recommend Olympus, Pentax or Sony to people for DSLRs. They are great cameras but my reasoning is majority of the people I run into within the photography realm use Canon or Nikon. For new people, they are easier helped when someone is already familiar with the system they are using. If my buddy bought an Olympus I would have to sit down and seriously go over how the buttons are set up and the menu settings. Which can become a pain if they could have just had one of the main 2 and been easily helped. (if that made sense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JQ- Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) Try this site for researching..especially the buy & sell section. Plan to spend more on good glass. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ Also body prices drop fast like a PC...but lenses retain their value. I'm a Canon guy. I've heard the Nikons are some better for sports (ie 9 frames per second) and the Canons better for their lenses...but like others said...ford v chevy...either will suit you fine for what you seek. Some of them also are coming out with video capability on the SLR's too...to further confuse matters Good luck. Edited November 3, 2009 by hk_mtbr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Nikon. Kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xfactor Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I've always had Nikons... my next will surely be a Nikon as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Actually, don't overlook the Canon G11, either... It's (almost) and SLR hiding in a point and shoot body. It still has a little bit of shutter lag, but it's a lot better than most P&S cameras, it has good manual controls, makes great JPEGs, has good glass, and shoots RAW format if you want it. All for $500. It meets your criteria enough that you should at least give it a look in a store Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I've heard the Nikons are some better for sports (ie 9 frames per second) and the Canons better for their lenses... Where did you hear that? The Canon 1DMkIII and the new MkIV both do 10fps (I think the new Nikons do, too...???). The new Nikon series of lenses that they've release over the past two years is dynamite. Canon's about to leap frog again on noise performance - if they get the autofocus right on the MkIV, they'll be back in the lead for sports again until the D4 or whatever it'll be called... Use what you got. Buy the best glass you can afford. Shoot shoot shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JQ- Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 ^^from nikon guys of course Go Canon - beat Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I am a beginner, but I bought the D90 last December, and am still amazed but how good it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Oh, and don't let the megapixel wars lure you to spending more money than you want. My first digital was the Canon Digital Rebel, in all of its 6.3 megapixel glory. I shot a photo for an article, which the Editor saw fit to run on both pages. (Known in magazine circles as "double-truck.") As soon as I saw it, I could have slapped myself. There, on the slide of the pistol, clear as day, was one of my thumbprints. So, if someone says "this is better because it has more" don't be spending more money. If you're going to be making prints larger than 11"x17" you may, may need more than 8 mP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JQ- Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Oh, and don't let the megapixel wars lure you to spending more money than you want.My first digital was the Canon Digital Rebel, in all of its 6.3 megapixel glory. I shot a photo for an article, which the Editor saw fit to run on both pages. (Known in magazine circles as "double-truck.") As soon as I saw it, I could have slapped myself. There, on the slide of the pistol, clear as day, was one of my thumbprints. So, if someone says "this is better because it has more" don't be spending more money. If you're going to be making prints larger than 11"x17" you may, may need more than 8 mP. True. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2A Posted November 3, 2009 Author Share Posted November 3, 2009 Thanks everyone, It sounds like whatever I choose will fill the need of better pictures for the soon to be light of my life. I really do appreciate the advice and wisdom that all have shared. Now begins the search for the best deal I can find. That might be the deal maker there. I do have another question both the Nikon and Cannon come with a 15-80 lense. Would I be better off just getting the body and skipping the kit and get a Micro lense and then add a gen purpose lense latter on. I am assuming that for the first couple of months they will mostly be close ups and from what I have read the Micro works better for these types of shots. Thanks again, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Something in the middle zoom range you describe - 15-80 sounds like a weird one, but I'm not up on the kit lenses so much - are what you want. Macro lenses are for taking real up close (possibly magnified) pictures. Unless you're wanting to just shoot, say, an eyeball or something, a general lens will serve you well. They should focus reasonably close (within a couple of feet), which is what you're really looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Generally with kit lenses you're getting what you pay for --- which isn't much..... Tell us what you want to shoot, and we may be able to suggest better options --- with and without breaking the bank..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Kit lenses are built to a price point, not a performance spec. You can get good ones, and average ones. However, for family snaps, and sunsets from the deck, you're probably going to have to spend as much on another lens as you did on the camera body, if you want significant performance over the kit lens. In most instances, if you elect to get a body only, you save $50 from the body plus kit lens price. and until you buy the other lens, you can't take photos. So, take a look in the shop and see if the lens does what you want. If so, go for it. And macro lenses (not zoom with macro) are for extreme closeups. Like, the smeared primer for a reloading thread question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Not to totally disagree with Patrick, but Canon produces lenses in three grades: L or professional quality at the top of the heap --- and these will cost you in many cases quite a bit more than a body; a mid range of quality lenses, including most of the prime (non-zoom) lenses as well as some zooms, and then the lowest level of quality which are almost all zooms. The kit lenses are pulled from that lowest rung. While the "L" lenses are great, and while I mostly used them in my professional career, that had more to do with wide aperture (2.8 or better) availability and constant apertures (2.8 all the way through the zoom range, instead of a change from 3.5-4.5) than it did with optical quality. The optical quality was a nice bonus --- but I'd stack pictures shot with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 up against images shot with the 28-70/2.8L and 70-200 2.8L. The goal of not buying the kit lens would be to get you into that middle range..... If you're starting this --- give some though to planning a lens system, if if you need to complete it by buying say one lens per year. You might want to start with a decent mid-range zoom, then add a wide angle, or a longer telephoto, or a macro lens, or a portrait lens, or a telephoto zoom. At some point you'd consider a flash, a second camera body, teleconverters or extension tubes, all based on what you want to shoot..... Thinking and planning now will help you be frugal about this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davecutts Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Dave I'm looking to get my wife a smaller camera for back-up/casual (she's just replaced her broken Reble XS with a 5D). What's up with the G10 vs. the G11, I know it's not all about MP's but why would they go from 14 to 10? Actually, don't overlook the Canon G11, either... It's (almost) and SLR hiding in a point and shoot body. It still has a little bit of shutter lag, but it's a lot better than most P&S cameras, it has good manual controls, makes great JPEGs, has good glass, and shoots RAW format if you want it. All for $500. It meets your criteria enough that you should at least give it a look in a store Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now