Is canon really that bad?

[Parks71]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[cfusionpm]

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]

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

 

[Live_free]

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]

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.

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

 

[Live_free]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.