# canon or nikon entry level dslr



## nojeb96

What makes better entry level dslr canon or nikon?


----------



## iresq

Yes.

You posted this in a Canon forum so you will probably get a lot of Canon answers.  Best advice, go to a camera store and try each out.  See what feels better in your own hands.  Both are good.  

If you want advise, do a quick search.  I think this question has been asked a time or two.


----------



## o hey tyler

Either/or. Whichever brand you choose, you will likely stick with. In the entry level bodies, one thing that discouraged me from getting a Nikon was the lack of an internal focus motor. But the lens that their entry level line has a focus motor in the lens. You can find every lens you'd want in the proper version to AF, but they cost more than lenses that DON'T have AF motors in them but can AF on bodies with an internal focus motor. That's where I see the D7k and up being where the value is in the Nikon system IMO.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Sony


----------



## o hey tyler

Schwettylens said:


> Sony



lawl


----------



## cgipson1

Schwettylens said:


> Sony



I really DO hope you are kidding!


----------



## Robin Usagani

kinda kidding.. but you could buy a refurb. sony a200 for like $200 with kit lens on ebay.  And this was like a year ago.


----------



## cgipson1

Schwettylens said:


> kinda kidding.. but you could buy a refurb. sony a200 for like $200 with kit lens on ebay.  And this was like a year ago.



yea.. and you could spend more and actually have a real camera!   Sony doesn't have me convinced yet.. I really think this is going to be a "Sony Betamax" scenario... or at least I hope so! Sony is too frigging proprietary and greedy to do it right. They always try to do it "THEIR" way, and set new standards that they can profit from. HD DVD was far superior to Sony Blu-Ray.. but they forced it through with their deep pockets, so we as consumers got screwed yet again!


----------



## jwbryson1

NIKON


----------



## Robin Usagani

But I cant play games with HD DVD.  Seriously I think thats why they lost.  Because people rather pay $$ on a gaming system that can play HD movies.



cgipson1 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> kinda kidding.. but you could buy a refurb. sony a200 for like $200 with kit lens on ebay.  And this was like a year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea.. and you could spend more and actually have a real camera!   Sony doesn't have me convinced yet.. I really think this is going to be a "Sony Betamax" scenario... or at least I hope so! Sony is too frigging proprietary and greedy to do it right. They always try to do it "THEIR" way, and set new standards that they can profit from. HD DVD was far superior to Sony Blu-Ray.. but they forced it through with their deep pockets, so we as consumers got screwed yet again!
Click to expand...


----------



## NyGregg

I thought this was a still photo forum...lol
 I like the Nikons. I just bought a D3100 for my wife and one for my sister. I bought myself a D7000. As I was doing the research, they both seem to be good. The reviews basically listed different features and said if you want to do "this" with your camera, then buy Nikon. If you want to do "that" with your camera, then buy Canon. There are small differences in the features but it's best for you to figure out what you plan on doing with the camera. As Iresq said, I think you should go to a store and get a feel for each. Then decide on what you really need yourself.


----------



## cgipson1

(I am going to get spanked for this!)

If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.

If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!

(running, ducking, hiding!)


----------



## Pictorbski

Nikon D7000


----------



## nojeb96

iresq said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> You posted this in a Canon forum so you will probably get a lot of Canon answers.  Best advice, go to a camera store and try each out.  See what feels better in your own hands.  Both are good.
> 
> If you want advise, do a quick search.  I think this question has been asked a time or two.



This is exactly what I thought.


----------



## EIngerson

iresq said:


> Yes.
> 
> You posted this in a Canon forum so you will probably get a lot of Canon answers. Best advice, go to a camera store and try each out. See what feels better in your own hands. Both are good.
> 
> If you want advise, do a quick search. I think this question has been asked a time or two.



Good advice right here.


----------



## Chann

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> But I cant play games with HD DVD.  Seriously I think thats why they lost.  Because people rather pay $$ on a gaming system that can play HD movies.



Sorry this is off-topic but I doubt Sony's Blueray won because of the gaming. If you recall, Xbox 360 played HD DVD while Sony's Playstation was Blueray. So each was partnered with a gaming system. It was after HD DVD died that XBOX switched to Blueray.  I really do not know how Sony won. Maybe they learned from when they lost VHS vs Beta. 

On topic, from my experience, Canon users are smarter and better looking.  So it's your choice!  

Seriously, you really cannot go wrong here. Both are excellent camera lines with full line of accessories.  The link below may help you decide. 

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/canon-vs-nikon.html


----------



## airgunr

Both are excellent systems.  Look at more than the body though.  It's the entire system of lensed, flashes, accessories, etc.  

I personally chose Nikon because of the backwards compatability of lenses.  You usually can mount almost all of Nikons F mount lenses to them.  There are some limitations as far as G series lenses in older cameras and limited functions with older lenses on new cameras.

Cannon has two main series of lenses.  The old FD mount and the new EF mount.  You can't mount the older ones with out buying some type of adatptor.  This should not discourage you but is something to take into account.


----------



## Crollo

Chann said:


> It was after HD DVD died that XBOX switched to Blueray.



Groan.


----------



## SeaGreen

I'm entry-level and I've been debating the two for quite some time. It seems that it's an apples vs. oranges situation. I decided on the Canon T2i.  I hear that Nikon has better lens systems but I just don't know all that much about DSLRs yet, nor is my skill level up to par for that to be a deciding factor.  I went for the overall package, I think the T2i provides a good platform on which to learn DSLR photography, a bit of growing room and produces good quality photos. And the price isn't too bad either.  Once I become more advanced and know what specifications I want I may switch to another brand, but time and experience will tell.  Again, they are both very good, but it just comes down to personal preference and a bit of research.


----------



## Audible_Chocolate

nikon. works for me. i like the layout better


----------



## cepwin

I strongly agree with the advice to try them both at a store.  Both the Canon Rebel series (T2i/T3i) and Nikon (D3100/D5100) are good cameras...I was going to get the T2i until I decided the Nikon felt better in my hands.  Also, I agree that it is a system...once you get into a brand all you accessories (inc. lenses that can be pricey) will be for that system so you'll likely end up upgrading within that brand when the time comes. I don't think you can go wrong with either Nikon or Canon as they both make fine cameras.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

I was entry level once.  Then  after fooling with a D5000, D7000 I eventually purchased a D700.

I should've took advice and started with it.


----------



## LuckySe7en

If you wanna look cool, get Nikon.  If you wanna look serious, get Canon.  kidding, kidding.  They're both great cameras and being that you're looking into an entry level from each manufacturer, you'll be blown away by either one.  
I think the real questions is which color do you like better?  Red or Yellow?


----------



## Netskimmer

2WheelPhoto said:


> I was entry level once.



Yeah, but that was waaaaayyyyy back in....9 months ago. 



2WheelPhoto said:


> Then  after fooling with a D5000, D7000 I eventually purchased a D700.
> 
> I should've took advice and started with it.



What is your budget? Nothing wrong with starting out with higher end equipment, if you have the money ($2,000-$2,800 + lens(es)) and you know you'll be in photography for the long haul a d700 MIGHT be a way to go. If not then I would suggest an entry level camera and a decent lens. If you want to get into the higher end stuff, just take some time to work on your photog skills and build a collection of nice pro glass then look for a higher end prosumer/pro camera body. By the time you are ready for that D700 the price will more than likely have dropped considerably.

As for which is better, neither. They both have strengths and weaknesses and they change from one generation to the next. Both make great cameras.


----------



## mjhoward

Chann said:


> I really do not know how Sony won. Maybe they learned from when they lost VHS vs Beta.



Pretty sure it had to do with the fact that a Blu-Ray player was built into and included with the PS3 while you had to pay extra for an add-on for the XBOX 360.  One other perk that the Blu-Ray media had over HD-DVD was that it was much denser at 25GB per layer over the 15GB per layer of HD DVD.  The differences that viewers saw ultimately ended up being over each manufacturers choice of Codec for video.  Sony being sony, chose to use MPEG2 because it didn't want to use Microsoft's VC-1 codec (possibly avoiding some sort of usage or licensing fee) and Microsoft chose VC-1 because, well, they created it.

OP, I would choose Nikon as an entry level DSLR.  They have a much better sensor than the entry level Canon's.  If you plan to accumulate gear and make a high end kit at some point, you may want to look further down the road at what each have to offer in your area of interest and use that system though.


----------



## nojeb96

Netskimmer said:
			
		

> By the time you are ready for that D700 the price will more than likely have dropped considerably.



Or they could make one even better for the same price the d700 is.  And a lens that could have a motor in it that makes it's own pixels to go with  the camera.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Nikon is currently better, the body and the lens. Look at the charts in DxOMark which tests the sensors and lenses, it would show that many Nikon is better. Canon always overprice things its lenses. Canon lenses with similar optical quality compared to Sigma cost a lot more.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

nojeb96 said:


> Netskimmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time you are ready for that D700 the price will more than likely have dropped considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they could make one even better for the same price the d700 is.  And a lens that could have a motor in it that makes it's own pixels to go with  the camera.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?


----------



## nojeb96

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?



Well every camera has to be upgraded by the manafacturer doesn't it and it eventually gets better.


----------



## photographyxfactor

Dont just read on them, go into a store and handle them, see which one fits you, see which one has controls that make the most sense to you....consider the lens line up..consider what type of photography you want to do....everyone has their opinions on the best camera(s)...but YOU will be the one using whatever it is you wind up with.


----------



## Camarena

canon.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/camarena_india/


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

In the Ford vs. Chevy debate the Pentax is a Dodge !


----------



## o hey tyler

cgipson1 said:


> (I am going to get spanked for this!)
> 
> If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.
> 
> If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!
> 
> (running, ducking, hiding!)



Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info. 

It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass. 

The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?


----------



## EchoingWhisper

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (I am going to get spanked for this!)
> 
> If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.
> 
> If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!
> 
> (running, ducking, hiding!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.
> 
> It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.
> 
> The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?
Click to expand...


From my observation, comparing 2 (24-70 and 70-200) out 3 of the trinity released at around the same time (Canon doesn't have a 14-24mm, so I couldn't say anything bout' it), Canon have inferior image quality compared to Nikon and similar image quality compared to Sigma (let's avoid the talk about build quality) at slightly cheaper prices. Both Canon and Nikon have price differences, Canon may be more expensive at some and Nikon may be more expensive at others, so it's not fair to say Canon is 'cheaper'.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

Actually it is best to leave it to the OP to decide which one have better ergonomics. The technological difference between Canon and Nikon isn't too big for the OP to realise, and less so if you don't compare them side by side.


----------



## o hey tyler

EchoingWhisper said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (I am going to get spanked for this!)
> 
> If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.
> 
> If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!
> 
> (running, ducking, hiding!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.
> 
> It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.
> 
> The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my observation, comparing 2 (24-70 and 70-200) out 3 of the trinity released at around the same time (Canon doesn't have a 14-24mm, so I couldn't say anything bout' it), Canon have inferior image quality compared to Nikon and similar image quality compared to Sigma (let's avoid the talk about build quality) at slightly cheaper prices. Both Canon and Nikon have price differences, Canon may be more expensive at some and Nikon may be more expensive at others, so it's not fair to say Canon is 'cheaper'.
Click to expand...


I didn't say Canon was cheaper, I said it was less expensive. 

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,300
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,900
Difference = ~600

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,300
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,400
Difference = ~100

Canon 35mm f/1.4 =  ~1,400
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 = ~1,600
Difference = ~200

Total Price Difference = $900 (just for glass) 

Canon 5D Mark III (body only) = $3,500 
Nikon D800 (Body only) = $3,000

If you go with Canon, you're still spending $400 less. Which would be great to put towards a speedlight.


----------



## hukim0531

If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100.  I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced.  I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with.  I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly.  To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I didn't say Canon was cheaper, I said it was less expensive.
> 
> Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,300
> Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,900
> Difference = ~600
> 
> Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,300
> Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,400
> Difference = ~100
> 
> Canon 35mm f/1.4 =  ~1,400
> Nikon 35mm f/1.4 = ~1,600
> Difference = ~200
> 
> Total Price Difference = $900 (just for glass)
> 
> Canon 5D Mark III (body only) = $3,500
> Nikon D800 (Body only) = $3,000
> 
> If you go with Canon, you're still spending $400 less. Which would be great to put towards a speedlight.



Search for both 24-70 and 70-200 that are released at around the same time at dxomark and compare them with d3x and 1d3 (d3x and 1d3 has very similar points for the same sigma and tamron lenses.) See the quality difference and you'll understand why the Nikon is priced higher.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

hukim0531 said:
			
		

> If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100.  I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced.  I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with.  I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly.  To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.



Did you notice that some Sigma lenses are sharper than Canon's?


----------



## pgriz

Actually, neither.  At least not until you know "what you don't know".  So get either camera brand entry level with kit lens, learn the basics of exposure, etc. and with that knowledge think about what is really important to you photographically.  THEN make the system purchase decision - because you ARE buying into a system.  Actually, you may want to think about buying used (either make) to keep the initial costs down. 

Once you have enough experience and understanding, then go with the best system you can afford.  Oh, and while you're in the learning process, join a photo club, and pay attention to what the really good photographers are doing and how they are doing it.  Chances are, the equipment is less of an issue for them compared to the skills and knowledge.  

(ducks into bunker as I'm gonna get it from all sides...)


----------



## cgipson1

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (I am going to get spanked for this!)
> 
> If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.
> 
> If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!
> 
> (running, ducking, hiding!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.
> 
> It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.
> 
> The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?
Click to expand...


Dude.. lighten up! Surely you got the "(running, ducking, hiding!)" reference.. as being a JOKE! I know you understand humor.. you use it occasionally also....


----------



## cgipson1

pgriz said:


> Actually, neither.  At least not until you know "what you don't know".  So get either camera brand entry level with kit lens, learn the basics of exposure, etc. and with that knowledge think about what is really important to you photographically.  THEN make the system purchase decision - because you ARE buying into a system.  Actually, you may want to think about buying used (either make) to keep the initial costs down.
> 
> Once you have enough experience and understanding, then go with the best system you can afford.  Oh, and while you're in the learning process, join a photo club, and pay attention to what the really good photographers are doing and how they are doing it.  Chances are, the equipment is less of an issue for them compared to the skills and knowledge.
> 
> (ducks into bunker as I'm gonna get it from all sides...)



Not from me.. I agree with you totally! At least you have a sense of humor!


----------



## hukim0531

EchoingWhisper said:


> hukim0531 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100.  I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced.  I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with.  I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly.  To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice that some Sigma lenses are sharper than Canon's?
Click to expand...


That is either (1) you're lucky with the Sigma lottery or (2) you send in lens+camera to their service center for calibration.  I've had two duds so I finally sent in my T2i with Sigma 30mm.  POTN members say it could take up to a month TAT.  I hope that's not true, but I'm sick of the lottery.  I never win!


----------



## EchoingWhisper

hukim0531 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hukim0531 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100.  I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced.  I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with.  I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly.  To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice that some Sigma lenses are sharper than Canon's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is either (1) you're lucky with the Sigma lottery or (2) you send in lens+camera to their service center for calibration.  I've had two duds so I finally sent in my T2i with Sigma 30mm.  POTN members say it could take up to a month TAT.  I hope that's not true, but I'm sick of the lottery.  I never win!
Click to expand...


I don't know about their quality control, but some of their score seems higher than Canon in DxOMark for some lenses and many of their lenses have similar sharpness with Canon. But about the build quality, Canon wins all the time.


----------



## hukim0531

Many of the Canon lenses are older design.  If they don't want their customer base to switch over to the dark side, they need to refresh their lens line ups more quickly and more affordable.  Unfortunately their newer newer lens releases seem to be very expansive and at marginal to no improvements in optic quality.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

I compared the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED which were both released at around the same time. The cameras used for comparison are 1DsM3 and D3x (the comparison is fair, try comparing several Sigma/Tamron lenses on them, they have around the same overall score).
This time, Nikon exceeded Canon's image quality by 6 points. (27 vs 21)
When I compared the Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, the Nikon beat Canon by 6 point.
(Note: doubling the points = doubling the image quality)
Which means, Nikon has around 30% better image quality for this two lenses.

I didn't compare the 14-24mm because Canon doesn't have an equivalent, and I also didn't compare the II version because DxOMark don't have its score yet.​


----------



## ecphoto

Buy a 550D and call it a day.

I've owned, Sony, Minolta, Olympus, pentax and Nikon. I just recently purchased my first canon and have never been happier.

Just about everyone here is biased. I recommend going to a local camera store and trying our models to see what feels good to you. Once youve decided, buy online from someone like B&H or Adorama.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

ecphoto said:


> Buy a 550D and call it a day.
> 
> I've owned, Sony, Minolta, Olympus, pentax and Nikon. I just recently purchased my first canon and have never been happier.
> 
> Just about everyone here is biased. I recommend going to a local camera store and trying our models to see what feels good to you. Once youve decided, buy online from someone like B&H or Adorama.



I agree. Everyone is biased. The decision is up to the OP, just don't stray away from 'the Big Two'.


----------



## Alex_B

Buy what brand your friends have, then you will be able to swap lenses and get advice from them.

If you do not have any friends (like myself) throw a coin.


It does not really matter. Both companies will probably survive for quite some time to come, and both will market good and horrible cameras and lenses from time to time.


----------



## hukim0531

Alex_B said:


> Buy what brand your friends have, then you will be able to swap lenses and get advice from them.
> 
> If you do not have any friends (like myself) throw a coin.
> 
> 
> It does not really matter. Both companies will probably survive for quite some time to come, and both will market good and horrible cameras and lenses from time to time.



+1


----------



## EchoingWhisper

hukim0531 said:
			
		

> +1



+2


----------



## Crollo

ecphoto said:


> Buy a 550D and call it a day.
> I've owned, Sony, Minolta, Olympus, pentax and Nikon. I just recently purchased my first canon and have never been happier.





> Just about everyone here is biased.



Groan.


----------



## Mygixxer

Alex_B said:


> Buy what brand your friends have, then you will be able to swap lenses and get advice from them.
> 
> If you do not have any friends (like myself) throw a coin.
> 
> 
> It does not really matter. Both companies will probably survive for quite some time to come, and both will market good and horrible cameras and lenses from time to time.



+3

I started with Nikon and Loved it till i didn't. Now I'm shooting with a Canon 550D and it feels so much nicer in my hand. Its all personal preference when talking between the 2 big ones. what canon brings to the table at each level of quality/performance, nikon will have something just as equal and visa versa. In the end its the subtle differences that will either turn you on or off to one.


----------



## EchoingWhisper

I've used both the D5100 and 550D. Here's a comment. 550D feels better (comfortable) in the hand. D5100's button and dials placement are better and less confusing. I find it easier to shoot manually on D5100. D5100 has slightly better metering and better noise performance. D5100 has one important feature - auto ISO with minimum shutter speed - I use it all the time. And one thing, I find Canon white balance is always too warm and greenish, and Nikon is slightly cool and purplish, with Canon being very much worse in this aspect. I also prefer the menu of Canon, but prefer the Live View and display when shooting of Nikon. Next thing is, I prefer Canon's lenses' zoom grip. Next is, I find that the 18-135mm balances the 550D really well. For the D5100, all of my current lenses doesn't balance well with the camera.

Don't take my views too seriously though, because I'm a D5100 user.

I didn't use the 550D long enough to give you any specific stuff.


----------



## hukim0531

EchoingWhisper said:


> I compared the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED which were both released at around the same time. The cameras used for comparison are 1DsM3 and D3x (the comparison is fair, try comparing several Sigma/Tamron lenses on them, they have around the same overall score).
> This time, Nikon exceeded Canon's image quality by 6 points. (27 vs 21)
> When I compared the Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, the Nikon beat Canon by 6 point.
> (Note: doubling the points = doubling the image quality)
> Which means, Nikon has around 30% better image quality for this two lenses.
> 
> I didn't compare the 14-24mm because Canon doesn't have an equivalent, and I also didn't compare the II version because DxOMark don't have its score yet.​



DxOMark, what's that?  Is that a Nikon fanboy's bible?  

/jk


----------



## o hey tyler

cgipson1 said:


> I know you understand humor.. you use it occasionally also....



ME? Use humor? Never.


----------



## IByte

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!



I swear I used a similar statement when a client asked about a Mac(shudders).


----------



## Sage97

EchoingWhisper said:


> I've used both the D5100 and 550D. Here's a comment. 550D feels better (comfortable) in the hand. D5100's button and dials placement are better and less confusing. I find it easier to shoot manually on D5100. D5100 has slightly better metering and better noise performance. D5100 has one important feature - auto ISO with minimum shutter speed - I use it all the time. And one thing, I find Canon white balance is always too warm and greenish, and Nikon is slightly cool and purplish, with Canon being very much worse in this aspect. I also prefer the menu of Canon, but prefer the Live View and display when shooting of Nikon. Next thing is, I prefer Canon's lenses' zoom grip. Next is, I find that the 18-135mm balances the 550D really well. For the D5100, all of my current lenses doesn't balance well with the camera.
> 
> Don't take my views too seriously though, because I'm a D5100 user.
> 
> I didn't use the 550D long enough to give you any specific stuff.



Hello Echoingwhisper,

Would you happen to have any sample pics of your D5100? I had to return a D7000 due to a defective AF and noticed the D5100 reduced price. This noobie would really appreciate it. Thank you.


----------



## o hey tyler

Sage97 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've used both the D5100 and 550D. Here's a comment. 550D feels better (comfortable) in the hand. D5100's button and dials placement are better and less confusing. I find it easier to shoot manually on D5100. D5100 has slightly better metering and better noise performance. D5100 has one important feature - auto ISO with minimum shutter speed - I use it all the time. And one thing, I find Canon white balance is always too warm and greenish, and Nikon is slightly cool and purplish, with Canon being very much worse in this aspect. I also prefer the menu of Canon, but prefer the Live View and display when shooting of Nikon. Next thing is, I prefer Canon's lenses' zoom grip. Next is, I find that the 18-135mm balances the 550D really well. For the D5100, all of my current lenses doesn't balance well with the camera.
> 
> Don't take my views too seriously though, because I'm a D5100 user.
> 
> I didn't use the 550D long enough to give you any specific stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Echoingwhisper,
> 
> Would you happen to have any sample pics of your D5100? I had to return a D7000 due to a defective AF and noticed the D5100 reduced price. This noobie would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Click to expand...


As far as I can tell, EchoingWhisper doesn't take photos with his camera... but I could be wrong.


----------



## hukim0531

Sage97 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've used both the D5100 and 550D. Here's a comment. 550D feels better (comfortable) in the hand. D5100's button and dials placement are better and less confusing. I find it easier to shoot manually on D5100. D5100 has slightly better metering and better noise performance. D5100 has one important feature - auto ISO with minimum shutter speed - I use it all the time. And one thing, I find Canon white balance is always too warm and greenish, and Nikon is slightly cool and purplish, with Canon being very much worse in this aspect. I also prefer the menu of Canon, but prefer the Live View and display when shooting of Nikon. Next thing is, I prefer Canon's lenses' zoom grip. Next is, I find that the 18-135mm balances the 550D really well. For the D5100, all of my current lenses doesn't balance well with the camera.
> 
> Don't take my views too seriously though, because I'm a D5100 user.
> 
> I didn't use the 550D long enough to give you any specific stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Echoingwhisper,
> 
> Would you happen to have any sample pics of your D5100? I had to return a D7000 due to a defective AF and noticed the D5100 reduced price. This noobie would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Click to expand...


You probably already know, but D5100 sensor is same as D7000.  D7000 has more AF points, faster FPS, etc. so unless you're mainly into shooting birds and/or  sports, D5100 should suffice your need.  IQ should be the same.

Edit:  You probably already know, but D5100 is limited to AF-S lens while D7000 will take on any Nikon lens for auto focus.


----------



## banderson

cgipson1 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> kinda kidding.. but you could buy a refurb. sony a200 for like $200 with kit lens on ebay.  And this was like a year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea.. and you could spend more and actually have a real camera!   Sony doesn't have me convinced yet.. I really think this is going to be a "Sony Betamax" scenario... or at least I hope so! Sony is too frigging proprietary and greedy to do it right. They always try to do it "THEIR" way, and set new standards that they can profit from. HD DVD was far superior to Sony Blu-Ray.. but they forced it through with their deep pockets, so we as consumers got screwed yet again!
Click to expand...


I think they won because you can fit more info on a blue-ray disc from what I understand.


----------



## o hey tyler

banderson said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> kinda kidding.. but you could buy a refurb. sony a200 for like $200 with kit lens on ebay.  And this was like a year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea.. and you could spend more and actually have a real camera!   Sony doesn't have me convinced yet.. I really think this is going to be a "Sony Betamax" scenario... or at least I hope so! Sony is too frigging proprietary and greedy to do it right. They always try to do it "THEIR" way, and set new standards that they can profit from. HD DVD was far superior to Sony Blu-Ray.. but they forced it through with their deep pockets, so we as consumers got screwed yet again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they won because you can fit more info on a blue-ray disc from what I understand.
Click to expand...


However, HD-DVD's were cheaper to make and could be manufactured in the same facility as regular DVD's. The difference in space that they could hold is mostly irrelevant I'd say.


----------



## banderson

o hey tyler said:


> banderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea.. and you could spend more and actually have a real camera!   Sony doesn't have me convinced yet.. I really think this is going to be a "Sony Betamax" scenario... or at least I hope so! Sony is too frigging proprietary and greedy to do it right. They always try to do it "THEIR" way, and set new standards that they can profit from. HD DVD was far superior to Sony Blu-Ray.. but they forced it through with their deep pockets, so we as consumers got screwed yet again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they won because you can fit more info on a blue-ray disc from what I understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, HD-DVD's were cheaper to make and could be manufactured in the same facility as regular DVD's. The difference in space that they could hold is mostly irrelevant I'd say.
Click to expand...


I knew that part. I do think that space is relevant though. We are constantly expanding on how much space we require. Blu-ray has more room than what we need now-- but in the future we will likely need more space.


----------

