Deciding on camera/lens...

[minicoop1985]

Hey guys. Once Uncle Sam bestows his yearly gift that I gave him in the first place, I need to upgrade my DSLR. BADLY. Now here's the thing-I'm debating between the Canon 70D and Nikon D7100 (or a used digital back for my medium format stuff, but we'll see about that), but I'm not looking to start a Canon vs. Nikon war. I'm looking to use this mainly for product photography, and have one main question. Both of these cameras are available with 18-1x5 lenses with f3.5-5.6 max apertures as a kit. Are these lenses worth it? Or would I be throwing money away on one of those? At the moment, I'm leaning towards the Canon, but need to play with the two side by side to make a decision on brand. Thanks!

 

[weepete]

Well the Nikon has bettter dynamic range and high ISO performance. I think you'd be wasting your money getting a kit lens with the canon though it's not really sharp enough and you will find yourself quickly wanting something better.

 

[minicoop1985]

Even the 18-135 f3.5-5.6? I wouldn't even touch the standard 18-55 stuff, but this one seemed more like a mid grade than an entry level "kit" lens. The Nikon equivalent was the 18-105, same apertures.

 

[jaomul]

The Canon lens is supposedly good. The Nikon is a very good kit lens. I have a Nikon d7100 having once had all canon stuff. For product photography I think the touch rotating screen would be handy especially for small macro size items. Either or is a good recommendation here if video for you isn't a big concern

 

[goodguy]

First for the question 70D or D7100

Both cameras are very good so you cant go wrong with either.
Saying that as mentioned above the Nikon D7100 has better dynamic range and better low light performance.
Also due to the lack of AA filter on the D7100 you are getting a better picture quality.
The 70D advantage is more in taking video.
So if you see yourself more of a picture photographer and not in video the D7100 has the advantage.
I own the D7100 and I cant say enough how amazing this camera really is, with proper lens it can produce amazing results!!!

As for lenses, if you are limited in funds then Nikon kit lenses especiall the 18-105mm VR and 18-140mm VR are very good lenses, they can produce sharp pictures but as you understand are less effective in low light due to their variable aperture.
If money is not the issue then there are more then few lenses that will offer better low light performance but of course they will cost much more.
I know nothing about Nikon kit lens so I will not comment on them.

Good luck.

 

[Solarflare]

The AF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 VR kit lens of Nikon is OK for product photography at f8, with 3.2:1 max magnification.

If you really only want product photography, I would recomment the AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro for that, though. It not only has up to 1:1 magnification, much more importantly you can stay at 60mm and dont have to choose wide angle for macro. And its also one of the sharpest lenses.

Or a used AF 55mm f2.8 micro, if you can find one. They are rare, but optically just as good, and cheaper. They are like a large format lens - i.e. the whole lens is a moved around to focus, resulting in extreme sharpness and quite a lot of focus breathing (which is bad for video, but doesnt matter for stills) and you cant open the aperture fully when going up close anymore (but you want to stop a macro lens down anyway).

Warning: such a short macro lens is useless for insects, though, unless you have luck and the insects come to you. And at 1:1 you're likely to stand in your own light, too. Both shouldnt matter too much for product shots that usually stay away from the 1:1 setting anyway.

 

[pixmedic]

Canon 70D vs Nikon D7100 - Our Analysis

Canon EOS 70D versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

 

[lambertpix]

Depending on the sort of product you're shooting, you might want to give some thought to lens choice. I find myself using my Canon 100mm macro lens an awful lot for this sort of thing (ex: reviews) -- even for distances I could probably focus on w/ one of my other lenses, the 100 macro is great at isolating the subject, and I can work pretty much as close as I want. Obviously, as much as I love this lens, it can't touch the versatility of an 18-1x5 lens, though.

Re: Canon vs. Nikon, both have great product lines, but once you buy in, there's a cost to switch. As a DSLR owner already, you're familiar with this. Be sure to consider ergonomics as well as technical measures -- features will only help you if you're comfortable using them. Scott Kelby published a video this week about why he switched to Canon, and ergonomics was a huge part of it. Since ergonomic preferences vary from person to person, though, there are probably plenty of people that prefer how Nikons work. As near as you can, you need to figure out if one of them fits *you*, because that's what's going to make you more comfortable and more productive.

 

[goodguy]

If you really only want product photography, I would recomment the AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro for that, though. It not only has up to 1:1 magnification, much more importantly you can stay at 60mm and dont have to choose wide angle for macro. And its also one of the sharpest lenses.

LOVE my 60mm 2.8G, sharpness on it is amazing and I find 60mm to be a good focal range to do a lot very well even when shooting insects.
Here are few examples

 

[Dao]

What kind of products are you talking about? Kit lens from Canon and Nikon are not bad at all if you know what the lens limitations are. Based on the reviews and MTF charts, they are quite sharp when shooting at f/5.6 to f/8. And for certain product photography, that is what I will use anyway. But of course, there are other standard zoom lenses out there that are better than the kit lens.

 

[Derrel]

I'm not really a fan of the 18-55mm f/3.5~f/5.6 kit zooms...just not enough range in focal length. The longer zooms like Nikon's new 18-140mm VR would be better as a "utility" zoom.

You might find this video of some interest. It dispels some myths about which camera is actually better at shooting video, and also shows what clipped highlights mean in terms of Canon's dynamic range.

 

[minicoop1985]

Yeah, the 18-105 (Nikon) and 18-135 are more my speed than the standard 18-55-I've found that at that range (18-55) I'd rather have a couple primes, but the 18-105 or 135 seems so much more versatile. Where I get worried is in trading something for versatility. Weight, size, not a problem As for low light, I have a 4/3 camera. I can't shoot in less than broad daylight, as the manual focus is useless and the autofocus is... also useless. So my biggest thing is the autofocus system. I don't use/like live view, so contrast detection doesn't matter too much to me.

I KNEW I'd see that video in here. It makes good points. That being said, I just feel a bit more comfortable operating the Canon for some reason. I can figure it out easier than I can with the Nikon. I also like the in camera RAW conversion. Anyway, I'm mostly concerned with the lens. I know that for what I want it for, either camera will do just fine, really, but the lens makes the biggest difference. Yeah, maybe I'll have 30 lenses in the future, maybe I'll stick with just one-we'll see. I have no idea where that's going to go.

I shoot a lot of... cameras, actually. I buy, restore, then resell old cameras. I specialize in Rolleiflex/Roleicords, but am more than willing to work on just about anything that isn't digital. So I take photos of cameras, primarily, to list them online.

 

[Tailgunner]

Call it shameless but I've got a D7100 w/17-55mm 2.8 for sale.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/350289-fs-d7100-w-17-55mm-2-8-a.html

 

[raventepes]

As a owner of the D7100, here's some honest insight. First of all, approximately none of the "kit" type lenses will do for critical work as they're just not sharp enough (IMHO) for product photography. It's not to say it can't be done, or even done well. I've coaxed a few shots with passable results on the 18-105. Realistically, I'd stay clear of 18-XXX lenses for product photography though. Instead, I'd opt for perhaps dedicated macro lenses in the 60-105mm range or maybe a couple regular primes with extension tubes. I wouldn't discount a 16-85 though, as it could be potentially useful for some situations.

Maybe you need a combination of a lot of it!

Truth is, it really depends on what you're photographing and what your individual requirements are. Perhaps some insight on what you intend to photograph can help us here steer you in the right direction

 

[minicoop1985]

Tailgunner, depending on the circumstances, that might just work out. I'll keep it in mind and if I'm still in need of a camera I'll contact you about it when Uncle Sam drops my money off again. Definitely within budget.

Raventrepes, I kinda figured that would be the case. I was talking about trade offs, and with that kind of versatile zoom, I figured I'd be losing something. The problem is I'll be acquiring primes galore for Hasselblad stuff (I have an Ektar 80mm f2.8, plan on snagging Zeiss Planar 80 2.8, Sonnar T* 150 4, Distagon 50 f/something), so I'd totally be covered there. And that stuff is cheaper to acquire (more of a pain in the ass to service though) than new Nikon lenses.


I got to Best Buy to play with the D7100 vs the 70D. The Nikon has some features that would really be great if I brought it with on vacation or something (the twin memory card slots). The dynamic range gives it a bit of an edge, but it all comes down to what I can get a better deal on when the time comes, I think.



So the 18-105 isn't that great. Is the 18-140 VR any good? I saw the results on the camera's screen... which totally helped. I'm guessing this is going to be a bit soft due to the longer range when blown up on a computer screen. Is that the case? It seemed to focus VERY fast in low light (keep in mind, this is a relative measurement compared to a 4/3 DSLR that won't focus at all) and on flat surfaces.

Thanks for all the help so far, everyone. Switching systems is a pain in the ever living a55. My advice: pick a system that's gonna be around for a while.... :meh: