# Is canon really that bad?



## Parks71 (Apr 5, 2010)

I am looking to buy my first DSLR and I have a cannon P&S that I love to I really wanted to go canon again. I usually do a lot of research before making a purchase like this and I have heard that human skill makes a much bigger difference than the camera body. I understand that however I also look for the most bang for my buck like most people.

I know nothing about DSLR and most of you will probably say either one will be better than I have but I want a camera that I can grow into and I dont want to get a cheap one that I will want to replace in 6 months or a year.

With all that said, I thought I found the perfect camera, the T2i Rebel. I really liked the fact I can shoot high def video so I wont have to carry around a video recorder as well. Thats a huge selling point for me but then again I am buying a DSLR not a video camera, that was just a big selling point, kill two birds with one stone.

So I research it and I find this review Canon Rebel T2i / EOS 550D Compared to the Nikon D90 Side by Side

The review looks very well written but either the D90 runs circles around the T2i or the reviewer is very biased. 

The only thing the T2i seems to do better is the video. I just find it hard to believe that according to the review, the Nikon is that much better and the T2i is a brand new camera where as the D90 is a few years old.

Some points that really stuck out to me.

Look at the flash pictures the compare the two, the shirt is orange but the cannon flash makes it look red? Thats pretty bad.

They claim that the 18 MP is pretty much a gimmick

They Nikon can focus much faster? I thought I read else where that the Cannon was actually faster than the Nikon? I also read that the Nikon was much slower in LV mode but this article doesnt say that.

Nikon has better high ISO pictures.

Nikon has much better battery life

Nikon has a better lense

Nikon has a bigger sensor

Nikon is quieter 

Nikon is faster

Nikon has built in instruction 

Nikon body is built better 

Nikon body is water resistant

Nikon has better view magnification

Nikon has way more buttons/options

I could go on and on but if you read the review one would wonder how is canon even keeps the doors open. I just thought the two would be much closer when comparing. I dont mind one of them doing a few things better but it just seems like its a no contest. I have also read peoples reviews where they said they bought the canon and it felt like an expensive P&S, they took it back and got the D90 and were much happier but I dont hear people buying the D90 and takig that back.

On a side note, am I missing any cameras in this price range that may do both?? Sony? I realize I am buying a system not just a camera so I want to get it right the first time. Thanks for any help.

While I am very attracted to the video performance of the Canon, I dont want to get a much inferior camera just to get video as well.


----------



## Dmitri (Apr 5, 2010)

Neither company is better than the other for photography. However, if you are buying a camera for it's video capabilities, I think you're not too concerned with quality but rather with convenience. In that case, I would say get whichever one weighs less.


----------



## Vinny (Apr 5, 2010)

I think I read the same article before buying my DSLR and other articles and they always said Nikon was better in some way vs all the others. Although I did buy a Nikon I sometimes wonder how it consistantly squeaked by having better performance in a "lab" setting; it made me wonder a little about the validity of the testing. Or is Nikon still that good! 

I don't think any of the cameras are garbage, give any of them to a person who knows how to take photos and you probably couldn't tell the difference. As for the movie taking, I think it's a nice novelty or for those times you want a quick video but I would prefer to have a camcorder for that function.


----------



## usayit (Apr 5, 2010)

I take online reviews with a grain of salt....

Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i review: Real-life JPEG resolution, Canon 550D / T2i vs Nikon D90 | Cameralabs

places the two closer together... mentioning a slight edge to the Canon.

If you dig hard enough, you'll find another review with the opposite.


Honestly, you should be looking at glass


----------



## Parks71 (Apr 5, 2010)

I am worried about quality or I wouldnt have posted this, however, anyone buying something new is also worried about convenience and if you say your not your just lying to yourself. Would you carry around a camera that was the absolute best but was 50 pounds? No you wouldnt. I could keep using my very convenient small P&S camera.

Back on topic, thanks for the review, was very nice to read. How about the flash comparision of the first review though? Do you think a different flash could fix that issue? 

I will look at glass but not now, I have A LOT to learn with the stock glass first then I will move on.


----------



## Santa Gertrudis (Apr 5, 2010)

usayit said:


> Honestly, you should be looking at glass



Agreed. Look at what each company offers as far as lenses go, and what might or might not be more attractive to you.


----------



## Joves (Apr 5, 2010)

Well you can go look at DxO as well to compare them.


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 5, 2010)

Joves said:


> Well you can go look at DxO as well to compare them.


Only if you can understand what DxO means. It doesn't compare anything in terms of features or function. It compares purely sensors in a removed-from-camera-body type situation.

As far as comparing them, three points come to mind.  The differences between Nikon and Canon bodies usually comes down to personal preference more often than anything else.  No one will be able to tell what kind body you use by looking at a final image.  And glass/lenses are far more important than bodies most of the time.


----------



## Green Li (Apr 5, 2010)

both platforms are great. and both have issues 
but you cannot go wrong with any on them.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 5, 2010)

T2i vs D90, the D90 wins hands down. Mainly because the T2i is more against the D5000. The D90 is a prosumer camera while the T2i is a consumer camera. Basically like pitting a beginner camera versus a better camera "level". Regardless I THINK Nikon is better and classier and will ALWAYS buy Nikons. But it's your choice, either are great.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Joves said:
> 
> 
> > Well you can go look at DxO as well to compare them.
> ...



I can get used to a button layout, I'd rather haev better performance which Nikon OBVIOUSLY does better.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 5, 2010)

Santa Gertrudis said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, you should be looking at glass
> ...



While glass is more important after getting a DSLR while buying your first FOCUS on what DSLR is better and more affordable. Many people will say buy a cheap body and focus on glass but if the body sucks doesn't matter if you buy 15k glass. :greenpbl:


----------



## FrankLamont (Apr 5, 2010)

Is Nikon really that good? Yep.

Canon bad? Not in the slightest.

In the separate lines of prosumer, consumer and pro bodies (though they don't match perfectly, as seen with the 500D->D90, etc.), Nikon and Canon always go ahead and the back down again. They're both solid companies.

I'm a Canon user. Still, it doesn't matter. 

Now, _Olympus_ is a different matter altogether...


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 5, 2010)

Live_free said:


> T2i vs D90, the D90 wins hands down. Mainly because the T2i is more against the D5000. The D90 is a prosumer camera while the T2i is a consumer camera. Basically like pitting a beginner camera versus a better camera "level". Regardless I THINK Nikon is better and classier and will ALWAYS buy Nikons. But it's your choice, either are great.


 
Yeah, other than the extreme entry level cameras (D3000/Rebel XS), Nikon and Canon kind of stagger their cameras. It seems to look like run 7D > D300 > 50D > D90 > T2i > D5000.  It's really tough to accurately and fairly compare them without taking price or bias into consideration.

Back to the main point though; no. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Canon. In fact, next time you see a professional sporting event, try to count how many big white telephoto lenses you can see. Those are all Canons.


----------



## Dmitri (Apr 5, 2010)

Parks71 said:


> I am worried about quality or I wouldnt have posted this, however, anyone buying something new is also worried about convenience and if you say your not your just lying to yourself. *Would you carry around a camera that was the absolute best but was 50 pounds? No you wouldnt.* I could keep using my very convenient small P&S camera.



You're right, photographers NEVER inconvenience themselves for their photos. They don't lug around tripods, monopods, backbacks full of lenses, filters, gadgets and doodads. They don't take time to set up lighting. They don't go to a place several times at different times of the day to try to get the best lighting, or sit in one spot for hours to try to snap a shot of a shy animal. Photographers are notoriously impatient and lazy.
/sarcasm

So basically what I'm saying is that while I appreciate you asking a question, and then answering it for me, you're answer is wrong and I stand by my original answer: Canon is fine, and if you want convenience than buy whichever weighs less.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > T2i vs D90, the D90 wins hands down. Mainly because the T2i is more against the D5000. The D90 is a prosumer camera while the T2i is a consumer camera. Basically like pitting a beginner camera versus a better camera "level". Regardless I THINK Nikon is better and classier and will ALWAYS buy Nikons. But it's your choice, either are great.
> ...




D300s > 7D > D90 > 50D > T2i > D5000.

Fixed  


The 50D has some problems (from what I've read) and many prefer the 40D. So I'd say the D90 is better. But hey I think wether you work with nikon or canon will change that. 

Other reasons: (Sensor only, most important part really)
50D vs Nikon D90
Compare cameras

7D vs D300s
Compare cameras


Just for fun D90 vs 7D
Compare cameras

yes d90 wins...


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2010)

Looking at the Cameralabs image quality comparison that Usayit referenced above, at Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i review: Real-life JPEG resolution, Canon 550D / T2i vs Nikon D90 | Cameralabs

you can look at the top image, of the distant mountain, and see the chromatic aberration or "color fringing" quite clearly at the top of the mountain range shot, as well as several color fringing around the hull of the sailboat; one difference is that the Nikon D90 can automatically remove that chromatic aberration by mapping it out, right in the camera, while there are no Canon bodies that offer that feature. Chromatic aberration is one of the lens flaws that plague lower-quality lenses, which the 18-55 and 18-105 and 18-135mm kit zoom lenses actually are. The difference is resolution between an 18 megapixel Canon sensor and a Nikon with a 12.2 megapixel Sony-made sensor is not all "that high", and as the images on the two web sites show, megapixel count is not, by any means, the sole determinant of final image resolution or final image quality: Nikon has developed a system of in-camera chromatic  aberration removal, by which the camera recognizes all the AF Nikkor lenses, and based on the known image characteristics of all the lenses, the in-camera image processing can remove vestigal chromatic aberration from the pictures: no other camera maker can do that in-camera.

As to the comparison, currently, the D90 is the top consumer body from Nikon. If one goes to the Nikon USA web site, and the Canon USA web site, it is obvious that the Nikon is the fourth camera up from the bottom. Same with the Rebel 550D, aka Rebel T2i--both are the fourth camera up from the bottom in their respective makers' d-slr lineup. Both are priced within $50 of one another.

The Canon clearly has the superior video recording, sound recording options, and the more-convenient and newer video recording features/options, which is a big,big lure to many people who want to use a camera like this for family and social photography use. Although a lot of people profess not to want video capability in a d-slr, I think it's pretty clear that Canon is clearly the leader in d-slr video, across the board. There are many people for whom video recording features and options represent a pretty big draw/feature/value proposition,and I think the T2i aims squarely at those folks.


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 5, 2010)

Live_free said:


> The 50D has some problems (from what I've read) and many prefer the 40D. So I'd say the D90 is better.


That's cool. I own a 50D and enjoy the fast burst rate, fast AF, and every bit of image quality.    Don't know what these "problems" are... But I'm sure they're a huge deal if you've read about them. :thumbup:


----------



## FrankLamont (Apr 5, 2010)

> D300s > 7D > D90 > 50D > T2i > D5000.
> 
> Fixed


A more accurate representation is D300s/D300=7D > 50D/40D > D90/D80 > T21 or 550D/T1i or 500D = (a little less) D5000 > 1000D/XS = (a little less) D3000.

Obviously past models have been given so the line can be more easily recognised.

Note that colour fringing can be more effectively removed - in either camera - by shooting RAW and quickly editing the fringing out in post production, rather than in-camera JPGs.


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 5, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Nikon has developed a system of in-camera chromatic aberration removal, by which the camera recognizes all the AF Nikkor lenses, and based on the known image characteristics of all the lenses, the in-camera image processing can remove vestigal chromatic aberration from the pictures: no other camera maker can do that in-camera.


It's really not much different than Canon's Peripheral Illumination Correction. Not that it does the same exact thing, but both take care of minor fixable post production issues in-camera. One does CA the other does vignetting, and both are easily addressed in PP. Having long since ditched lower end lenses, CA is virtually a non-issue to me, but it's nice to see Nikon cater towards their low end glass with this feature.

Edit: yeah, if there are issues with CA, shooting in raw makes it even easier to deal with.


----------



## bitteraspects (Apr 6, 2010)

usayit said:


> Honestly, you should be looking at L glass



quoted for truth


----------



## Parks71 (Apr 6, 2010)

So what most of you are saying is, from a pure taking picture stand point, the D90 wins right? Sounds like everyone agrees on that. I just dont know how important this video feature is to me if you can only get 12 mins on a 8 gig card.

I went and seen them both, well they didnt have the 550 so I held the 500 and I must say that the D90 felt and looked much nicer. It had a lot more buttons and seemed very well thought out. The cannon was smaller and lighter which is a good thing but it also made it feel cheaper I guess. Still cant decide though. Which brands glass is usually less expensive?

You guys talking glass, should I not get the kit? If you could only get 1 lense now, which one would it be? I know nothing about this stuff but plan on shooting pretty much everything from portraits to landscape.


----------



## Formatted (Apr 6, 2010)

Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!

To add this to a mix

EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!


----------



## inTempus (Apr 6, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!
> 
> To add this to a mix
> 
> EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!



That's not true.  EF lenses will mount to any Canon body and all functions including autofocus and metering will work.  This is not true with Nikon.  While it's true all Nikon lenses will mount, many older lenses will not function 100% on all Nikon bodies.  You can also mount Nikon lenses to Canon but not visa versa.

EF-S lenses will only mount to 1.6 bodies.

With that being said, between the two I would get the D90.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 6, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Formatted said:
> 
> 
> > Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!
> ...


 
And there's only about 6-7 EF-S lenses in Canon's 60 +/- lens line up.



Parks71 said:


> So what most of you are saying is, from a pure taking picture stand point, the D90 wins right? Sounds like everyone agrees on that. I just dont know how important this video feature is to me if you can only get 12 mins on a 8 gig card.
> 
> I went and seen them both, well they didnt have the 550 so I held the 500 and I must say that the D90 felt and looked much nicer. It had a lot more buttons and seemed very well thought out. The cannon was smaller and lighter which is a good thing but it also made it feel cheaper I guess. Still cant decide though. Which brands glass is usually less expensive?
> 
> You guys talking glass, should I not get the kit? If you could only get 1 lense now, which one would it be? I know nothing about this stuff but plan on shooting pretty much everything from portraits to landscape.


 
What do you see yourself doing with photography? There was a recent poll on one forum about how much of you spent on photography and you'd be surprised at the fact that about half the answers were $10,000+

It's not cheap and quality is not cheap. If you're asking about quality lenses, people are 99% of the time not going to recommend a lens under $500. 75% of the time, probably under $1000. There's a very real difference in spending $150 on a Quantaray 70-300 vs. $1600 on a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

When people say look at lenses, that's one of the major aspects. All of the entry level DSLRs will do a fantastic job. Knowledge is the biggest thing to have in this hobby/passtime/career of photography. I could hand you my $2700 camera with a $1500 lens and $1000 of lighting equipment and right now you'd probably be clueless as to what to do with it where as if you know what you're doing, you can get away with using a 5 year old $250 used DSLR, 18-55 kit lens, and $300 in lights.

Equipment matters to a point, but regardless of whether you go Canon or Nikon, it's not going to matter at all. Except for the video function that is.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 6, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > I THINK Nikon is better and classier and will ALWAYS buy Nikons.
> ...


 
It's due to an infinite loop of denial caused by the a disillusionment.

First they believe they're classy and better, then they find out they're wrong, but then they become in denial of the fact and believe that they're classy and better again.

It's really a sad state. Fortunately Canon users, users of some of the world's best photographic equipment, are more grounded in reality. My theory is that we don't suffer as much shock when finding out the prices of high quality lenses since Canon's lenses generally aren't as expensive.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 6, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon has developed a system of in-camera chromatic aberration removal, by which the camera recognizes all the AF Nikkor lenses, and based on the known image characteristics of all the lenses, the in-camera image processing can remove vestigal chromatic aberration from the pictures: no other camera maker can do that in-camera.
> ...



No, peripheral illumination correction is not even remotely similar to chromatic aberration correction. The two are entirely different concepts and different features. And,seriously, chromatic aberration is not a "minor" issue--it is one of the single most detrimental optical flaws that ruin images.
It is a significant issue with most of the EF-S lens lineup, especially on the newer high-density sensors like those sensors found in the T2i and the EOS 7D; it's kind of sad really, to see how even the 17-55 EF-S, a very costly lens, is not well-corrected enough to alleviate chromatic aberration at the short end when it is used on the EOS 7D and its almost 18-megapixel sensor. The low-end Canon kit lenses are significantly worse in terms of their chromatic aberration problems; Canon has hit a "wall" in terms of small pixel size and pixel density on 1.6x sized sensors; the lenses they have in their lineup were not designed with this type of pixel density in mind, and Canon will need to re-compute and re-engineer a number of their lower- to mid-priced lenses as pixel density moves to 18+ MP on 1.6x...otherwise, there will be absolutely no increase in net resolution and total optical performance for the vast majority of users using "traditional" lenses. Look at Sony's 70-200 f/2.8 lens review at dPreview: it is a 2003 Minolta designed lens, re-badged, and it get dinged for it inability to deliver high enough Modulation Transfer Function figures on APS-C; in other words, it's a film-era lens designed for full-frame,and it's NOT optically good enough on new, high-MP count APS-C sensor sized digital bodies.

There's a very real reason Canon has had to re-design its 24 and 45mm shift lenses, the 100mm macro, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS,and the 16-35-Mark II /2.8 L, as well as a few other lenses: the newest sensors, with the tiny pixels packed ultra-densely, absolutely require high-resolution lenses that are almost totally free of optical problems. Stuffing 18 megapixels into consumer bodies does not automatically lead to higher resolution or better picture quality, especially when the lenses most buyers will use are older designs that were engineered either for film use, like the now ancient 28-135 IS (1992 design, sold as a kit lens with the 7D in the USA, but NOT Japan or Europe), or the cheap kit zooms designed originally for 8 or 8.2MP sensors.
All the camera makers are either at, or approaching this "wall" of lens ability vs sensor resolution demands. 

In the "consumer" category, where the EOS 550D and the Nikon D90 both reside, the typical user is a JPEG shooter and a user of flash for many indoor/social photography situations, so that's one reason the in-camera CA correction is a feature Nikon has gone with in the D90, and it's also why the Canon T2i has so many Scene Modes on the top dial--both those cameras are aimed at casual "consumer" users who just want good pictures with affordable bodies, as well as video clips. Canon's video sizes are hugely bloated, but higher quality than the Nikon offers. But then, quality usually has costs or penalties associated with it. I think the Original Poster's premise is typical of the degree of confusion and surprise many consumers and beginners are confronted with when they find out that a 12.2 megapixel camera produces pictures that are as good as, or better than, a competing company's 18 megapixel camera--they can hardly get past the megapixel hype,and are surprised that more is not always hugely "better".


----------



## TiaS (Apr 6, 2010)

I got my first DSLR and it was a Nikon. It was malfunctioning in the first few weeks. I looked online and saw that one of the issues I got with it were common. I returned it for a Canon after only 2 weeks of use. I have used my Canon ever since. 

You will find arguments for both sides of the debate. What it boils down to is that they are both great cameras (obviously not my experience) and that they both have a good name. Pick what works for you. I am happy with my Canon and don't plan on turning back on that.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 6, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!
> 
> To add this to a mix
> 
> EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!



You need to get your facts right before you go spouting off about Nikon, I have 3 friends that went from Canon 1Dmk3 to Nikon D3 and even the D3 has problems they are now back with with Canon 1Dmk4


----------



## Parks71 (Apr 6, 2010)

Interesting information about the glass. So the D90 can use just about any lens Nikon makes where as the canon T2i can only use about 6 different lenses due to the smaller frame size? 


On both cameras, is the kit lens that bad to the point its not worth the extra 100-200 dollars? Should I just get the body and buy a 500-800 lens? Will it even matter for me at this point being a total noob to this? Thanks for all the information guys.


----------



## Dao (Apr 6, 2010)

The Canon T2i can use any EF or EF-S lens from Canon which is pretty much all AF lenses from Canon since 198x.

Remember, the light enter the camera body via the LENS.  So no matter how great the camera is, if the image that projected on the sensor is not as so good, the end result is going to be .... not so good.


----------



## inTempus (Apr 6, 2010)

Parks71 said:


> Interesting information about the glass. So the D90 can use just about any lens Nikon makes where as the canon T2i can only use about 6 different lenses due to the smaller frame size?
> 
> 
> On both cameras, is the kit lens that bad to the point its not worth the extra 100-200 dollars? Should I just get the body and buy a 500-800 lens? Will it even matter for me at this point being a total noob to this? Thanks for all the information guys.



You've completely misread what has been posted.  The T2i can use, without limitation, every single lens currently in Canon's lineup.  That includes both EF and EF-S lenses.


----------



## rufus5150 (Apr 6, 2010)

Methinks we're being trolled.


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 6, 2010)

Parks
I do not think it really matters which of the two brands you decide to purchase. If you become dissatisfied with either, return it.

So, go buy one and take some shots. Then you will know whether or not the camera works for you. You could even rent each one and shoot both for comparison.


I own a Canon. My friend owns a Nikon....we are still friends. :mrgreen: Only...I am smarter than he is.:mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## usayit (Apr 6, 2010)

erose86 said:


> rufus5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Methinks we're being trolled.
> ...



Seems to me that most posts that pitch Nikon versus Canon for trivial reasons are from the clueless.  We should all be shooting with Leica M-mounts...  Lenses from the 1930s to the present mounted to the newest M8/M9 bodies operate 100% as originally intended.


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 6, 2010)

Derrel said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


It's pretty clear you missed my point. You noted a feature which the D90 has, which uses a programmed algorithm to address a flaw in lenses which is usually fixed in PP. Similarly, Canon has a feature which uses a programmed algorithm to address a different flaw in lenses which is also usually fixed in PP. 

The pre-loaded and long-winded rant on 18mp sensors was predictable. But I did find it humorous to hear someone phrase Canon releasing great new lenses for new high res sensors as a *BAD* thing! :lmao:

The only remotely valid argument is putting the sensor in a consumer body using cheap consumer lenses (like the 550D). (I also disagree with shipping that garbage 28-135 lens with the 7D, but anyone who would know the difference would buy body/lens separately anyway). But even then, a cheap lens is going to produce cheap results regardless of sensor. But putting good glass on the high MP sensor will yield a significant improvement, in addition to more detail and more ability to tight crop images. The main argument I hear is that without super high end glass, there are no gains over a lower MP camera. But if the image is "roughly the same" with crappy glass, and "significantly better and shows more detail" with high end glass, what then? 

If your argument is: A cheap Nikon camera with a cheap kit lens will take slightly better pictures than a cheap Canon camera with a cheap kit lens, with no post production, then.... cool? Good for Nikon grabbing on to the casual photography market? 

Other than using these "points" as a segue for spouting text-walls of anti-Canon talk, what are you contributing by posting?

Whew! Now that I got that out of my system, the Original Poster probably wouldnt really be able to tell any difference between the cameras anyway, and it really doesnt matter which one is bought. Either is fine and comes down to personal prefrerence. Anyone who says otherwise is just kidding themselves. Worry about learning to use it and buying nice glass. No one is going to be able to tell what kind of camera you used when looking at a final image. :thumbup:


----------



## Live_free (Apr 6, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...




Simply a preference.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 6, 2010)

usayit said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > rufus5150 said:
> ...



What are trolls?   :er:


----------



## usayit (Apr 6, 2010)

Live_free said:


> What are trolls?   :er:



Urban Dictionary: troll

TPF is infested with them....  

Kinda like the three stooges around here.... except with only Larry and Curly with Moe jacking off somewhere in the corner.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 6, 2010)

usayit said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > What are trolls?   :er:
> ...



What is TPF? :er:


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 7, 2010)

usayit said:


> Live_free said:
> 
> 
> > What are trolls? :er:
> ...


 
I may have to report this post. I'm never going to be able to watch the three stooges ever again thanks to you...


----------



## Shane Anderson (Apr 8, 2010)

Parks

I recently entered the DSLR world with only a rudimentary prior knowledge of cameras. For what it's worth, my selection and though process went something like this:

1. Did some initial basic research that told me a few things - (a) Canon and Nikon are the two dominant brands, (b) lots of pros, serious amateurs and hobbyists use both brands so neither is likely to be bad (c) I knew where to start looking in their lineups based on my budget and capabilities.

2. I started looking at the models at the bottom end of their lineups - for Nikon the D3000/D5000/D90, and for Canon the Rebel series. For some reason I took a liking to Nikon - call it looks, ergonomics, the colour of the box, the logo whatever - but it wasn't about the technical capabilities. This might sound odd but the fact is that as far as I could see as a new DSLR user, the technical specs between the two become a wash, so the deciding factor ended up somewhere else.

3. I had a bit of knowledge about photography before hand and thought that I would pick it up quickly so I didn't want to get something that I would grow out of too quick, therefore I didn't really look at the D3000 much. D5000 or D90 seemed to be more my thing. My budget didn't stretch to the D90 (if I was being realistic) and when I researched the D5000 a little more it appears that, being a newer model, it had received the benefits of trickle down technology from the D90 and on the technical side is actually very close. So the D5000 for me.

Of course the D5000 has some drawbacks, the major one being it doesn't have an autofocus screw drive so while any Nikon F mount lens will fit, only the newer AF-S series will autofocus. To me this didn't seem to be a big deal, as Nikon is introducing more and more AF-S lenses.

With lenses, I was very tightly budget constrained so I went with the kit 18-55 Nikkor, which these days comes with VR (Nikon's brand of image stabilisation). Just a few days ago I also bought the 55-200 Nikkor for about CAD$330 so now I have focal lengths covered from 18mm to 200mm for a VERY reasonable price. Are these top grade lenses? No but they are far from bad and just about unbeatable for the price.

Also, if I have a special requirement with lenses, my plan is to rent for those occasions. I did that about a month ago with an indoor supercross race here in Toronto. I knew for an indoor motorsport race I was going to need some good glass, so for the grand total of $45 for an entire weekend I was able to rent a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Might seem like overkill on the little D5000, but it was the best thing I ever did - I couldn't believe how much difference quality glass makes!

My goal with this combination is to learn to shoot as best I can until I've reached the limits of this gear, at which point I will looking at upgrading. I figure that by then I will have the technique to take advantage of better gear (and the investment it represents), and I will also know what type of shooting I do most so I will be able to make a better choice about the next level of bodies, lens etc.

Long post, I know, and the point wasn't to convince you to buy a D5000, or a Nikon; my real points are:

(1) know what you want to do and know what your capabilities are;
(2) research as much as you can;
(3) don't get hung up on brands, it's not the deciding factor;
(4) look closely at the specs in the lineups for two reasons (a) as you've found out, it's rare that two models from different brands line up exactly; and (b) it's often the case that there are models that stand out in terms of value because of age and new model releases (the D5000 technically is about 90% of the D90 for about two-thirds the price because the D90 is now a few years old).
(5) buy the best you can afford, but don't feel limited by it because...
(6) the price tag or logo on the gear doesn't stop you from improving your skills and technique.

For the record, I don't think I would be any worse off if I'd have gone the Canon route.


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 9, 2010)

Shane Anderson said:


> Also, if I have a special requirement with lenses, my plan is to rent for those occasions. I did that about a month ago with an indoor supercross race here in Toronto. I knew for an indoor motorsport race I was going to need some good glass, so for the grand total of $45 for an entire weekend I was able to rent a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Might seem like overkill on the little D5000, but it was the best thing I ever did - I couldn't believe how much difference quality glass makes!


The only problem with this is it leads to empty wallet syndrome. After having used a 70-200 2.8, you then desparately want to buy one :love:


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 9, 2010)

OK, if you want quality photos bad enough to wade through 3 pages on the subject then you need one of these..

Toyoview 45CF 4x5 Field Camera with Rodenstock Geronar 210mm f/6.8 lens & #1 Lensboard | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

good shooting!


----------



## Shane Anderson (Apr 9, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Shane Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if I have a special requirement with lenses, my plan is to rent for those occasions. I did that about a month ago with an indoor supercross race here in Toronto. I knew for an indoor motorsport race I was going to need some good glass, so for the grand total of $45 for an entire weekend I was able to rent a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Might seem like overkill on the little D5000, but it was the best thing I ever did - I couldn't believe how much difference quality glass makes!
> ...


 
Yes there is that problem!!  Fortunately (or unfortunately?) my wallet is already too empty!


----------



## gsgary (Apr 9, 2010)

4MP Canon i rest my case
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/Micheal-Whittaker/568967218_hKn28-L.jpg

http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/be0c3505-after/568919592_MiKbu-L.jpg


----------

