Steals and Deals. Canons v. Nikons

[ShutterSpeed]

I went and looked at some cameras today. Here's what I saw.

Circuit city (going out of business in my city) had a Nikon D90 with a 18mm-300mm lens for 975. I thought it was a steal. If I hadn't been just under that in the bank account, I would have ran home with it.

I also looked in another store at some Canons. I would consider a Canon as well, but not a Sony.

So, Canon seemed to be more affordable for basically the same 'package'.

So here's my question to those of you who have been through both Nikon and Canon?

Both were very comfortable to use, very nice to handle and felt very natural. I honestly felt Nikon felt more natural, but Canon was easier to make adjustments for manual settings. But the difference was minute. The image quality was apparently the same and both had the same features..

Canon XSi v. Nikon D90 v. another type of Canon that i didn't write down.

The price ranges vary - but Nikon generally seemed more expensive for what you were getting.

Thoughts?

 

[chrisburke]

well as for the canon nikon debate, its really personal preference... however comparing a d90 to an xsi i think is a little easier... biggest difference is there is no video mode in the xsi.... i let someone else talk about the rest... mind you, i really dont think the 2 cameras compare...

 

[ANDS!]

Nikons will generally always be more expensive. Canon can afford to price their items aggressively as they make more than just cameras. Nikon is a camera company. Period.

 

[Muay_Thai_Dan]

lol i thought canon was a camera company period as well... what else do they make??

 

[PatrickHMS]

lol i thought canon was a camera company period as well... what else do they make??

They make cameras, copy machines, fax machines, printers and scanners for computers, camcorders, calculators, binoculars, not sure what else

 

[tsaraleksi]

Nikon is a subsidiary of a major Japanese corporation (Wikipedia says Mitsubishi). Canon is a major Japanese corporation that makes literally every kind of imaging product you could imagine-- broadcast equipment, scanners of every kind, x-ray machines, etc etc etc. I think they even make televisions, though I could be crazy.

What does this mean? Not much, except I suppose that if Mitsubishi is taking hits in some other market segment Nikon might suffer.

 

[ANDS!]

Nikon is a subsidiary of a major Japanese corporation (Wikipedia says Mitsubishi).

Not correct. Nikon is its own company. The groups under the "Mitsubishi" umbrella are what remains of Mitsubishi post-WWII. These companies are wholly independent. If Nikon falls, Nikon falls on its own.

 

[elemental]

Honestly, neither Nikon nor Canon is where the deals are. You are paying for prestige and perception in addition to the equipment you're buying. Canon and Nikon are many things, but the "steals and deals" are often elsewhere.

 

[ShutterSpeed]

Honestly, neither Nikon nor Canon is where the deals are. You are paying for prestige and perception in addition to the equipment you're buying. Canon and Nikon are many things, but the "steals and deals" are often elsewhere.

examples?

 

[andrew99]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"They [Nikon] don't squander their resources making copy machines or printers." -- Ken Rockwell

:mrgreen:


[/FONT]

 

[ksmattfish]

I think you need to compare specific models, features, and cost. When I first bought a DSLR Canon was clearly ahead in about every category so I went with them. Nikon has really caught up, and I think they may be starting to pull ahead; we'll have to see what the future brings, but if I were buying my first DSLR today I think I'd choose the Nikon D700 over the 5D mkII. On the other hand I'd probably go with a Rebel over the D40.

In general I would agree that Canon seems to be able to come in at a slightly lower price than Nikon for similar performance. A big downside to Canon is that they refuse to admit to problems until everyone is screaming: 1Ds mkIII AF problems, "black dot" problems with the new 5D mkII, etc...

 

[jong]

I went and looked at some cameras today. Here's what I saw.

Circuit city (going out of business in my city) had a Nikon D90 with a 18mm-300mm lens for 975. I thought it was a steal. If I hadn't been just under that in the bank account, I would have ran home with it.

I also looked in another store at some Canons. I would consider a Canon as well, but not a Sony.

So, Canon seemed to be more affordable for basically the same 'package'.

So here's my question to those of you who have been through both Nikon and Canon?

Both were very comfortable to use, very nice to handle and felt very natural. I honestly felt Nikon felt more natural, but Canon was easier to make adjustments for manual settings. But the difference was minute. The image quality was apparently the same and both had the same features..

Canon XSi v. Nikon D90 v. another type of Canon that i didn't write down.

The price ranges vary - but Nikon generally seemed more expensive for what you were getting.

Thoughts?

WHY NOT A SONY ?

 

[Village Idiot]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"They [Nikon] don't squander their resources making copy machines or printers." -- Ken Rockwell[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]:mrgreen:[/FONT]

Ken Rockwell is a joke.

I feel better now.

D90 is better than an XSI.

 

[andrew99]

Ken Rockwell is a joke.

Yes. Also I think his 18-200 page is a deliberate hoax. But this quote makes me laugh out loud.

 

[ShutterSpeed]

WHY NOT A SONY ?

i briefly looked at them. the Alpha series were on display.

to me, it just felt somewhat unnatural in my hands, so i didn't spend much time looking at it. Canon and Nikon were both really close in over feel and quality. Since the only camera i've been using is a Nikon d40x, i'm shopping around for myself, and trying to make sure i've considered all options possible.