Is canon really that bad?

[Dao]

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]

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]

Methinks we're being trolled.

 

[pbelarge]

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]

Methinks we're being trolled.

:thumbup:

That or they just *REAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLY* have *no* clue...

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]

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.

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'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]

haha, just out of curiosity... how are Nikons *classier*??

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.

haha

I was just confused as to what made a camera "classy", but I think you've cleared it up. :lmao:

Simply a preference.

 

[Live_free]

Methinks we're being trolled.

:thumbup:

That or they just *REAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLY* have *no* clue...

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.

What are trolls? :er:

 

[usayit]

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]

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.

What is TPF? :er:

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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