Canon 30d

[bigtwinky]

You can look for some online classes or classes on DVD. I’ve heard that some can be good. With the DVD, you learn basics plus you can follow along with your camera to get the hands on approach.

When I purchased my XSI last July, I was very new to photography and debating between 40d and XSI. I went with the XSI mainly due to price, but after having taken classes and lots and lots of pictures, I’m thinking the 40d would have been a better choice. Why? From what I read, it has a higher ISO capability, better low light and it allows for Kelvin white balance setting.

Although the XSI has live view, which I sometimes use for landscape shots on a tripod.

I have taken better pictures with my XSI than a friend with a 40d. So its not the camera, but the lens and the photographer that make the difference.

Well I don't like the way the photos I take with the Nikon just look bland. Just like the would had I shot them with a point and shoot camera. The photographer I went to speak with had tons and tons of pictures all over the place and the only thing he uses is Canon. When I asked him about Nikon he told me don't waste my money and just go for Canon 30d. They just take better portraits it seems of families, children, weddings, etc....... I guess I need a portrait camera more than anything. That's what I'll be shooting more of probably.

If the pictures are bland, I’d look for a better lens, some post processing, and ensuring that your camera settings are optimal. I had my XSI set to sRGB instead of Adobe RGB and was shooting in jpeg instead of RAW for the first month. Switched those up and it made a big difference.

If they are looking like stuff from a point and shoot, that could be composition and artistic issues as P&S users typically just raise the camera and snap without thinking of much (which is fine if that’s what they want).

There are no portrait camera bodies. There are portrait lenses that go on camera bodies.

The photographer you spoke to didn’t give complete advise…or even good advise.

After the oodles of responses, I think the community here is pretty unanimous…. Nikon and Canon are just as capable one than the other. Jumping from one brand to the next, while staying in the same cost level will not net any differences.

 

[TheOtherBob]

I'll break ranks here slightly. The question is whether it's a mistake to switch from a Nikon to a Canon as a means of improving what you see as bland image quality.

The answer is yes, of course it's a mistake, for all the reasons listed above. You won't (repeat won't) get better pictures -- you'd be better off buying Bryan Peterson's book than reflexively switching systems. Like the sham-wow man says, you're pouring money down the drain, here.

(That photographer was either too brand-fannish for his own good, or just didn't want to take the time to explain proper photographic technique to you (and "oh, just get a Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Sony" does get you out of his hair).)

But I'm not against it. If you don't like the Nikon, and can afford to replace it with the Canon, ok. Shoot with what makes you happy. (Particularly if your photographer friend can then lend you lenses...) It's a mistake -- a total mistake -- but hopefully it's the sort of mistake that makes you slap yourself in the head and go "oh, yeah...wow, that was a waste of money, because this camera is just like the other one!" And then, great, you learned something. And then you buy "Understanding Exposure," start working with different camera settings, and, voila, pictures that pop (regardless of system).

If the alternative is always thinking (incorrectly) that it's your camera that's holding you back...then go ahead and throw away that crutch by getting a different camera. When you see definitively that it's you -- not the camera -- then you'll be able to move forward.

 

[Beth81]

I have the book and I'm currently reading it but I'm only like half way thru it as of now. There are parts of the book I don't understand yet.

 

[Mystwalker]

Or just go for the 1Ds mark III ($8000)...then you will really be able to take great photos :roll:

I like this type of thinking - too bad my wife will not buy it

To the OP - I have the 30D and believe it is similar in most features to the D60 or even D80. There is nothing "more" or "less" in 30D.

If the only reason for you to jump to Canon is belief that Canon has superior IQ, you will be dissappointed once you jump to Canon.

What lens are you using on your D60? Better lens may help - you may want lens with VR (vibration reduction) - I'm just taking guess at reason your shots are not up to your standards

Also, are you doing any kind of "Photoshop processing"? Many shots you see on web are "processed" to look the way they do.

 

[alarionov]

How long have you had the camera at this point?

 

[ANDS!]

How long have you had the camera at this point?

Two/three days I think.

 

[alarionov]

Two/three days I think.

If thats the case then you should not even expect to see anything but the images you are getting. I have had my XSI only about 2 months and I still have those days where my picutes look bla!.. Trust me its not the camera but the operator. As we get better our photos will also.:heart:

P.S. I am giving myself a year to accomplish good photos.

 

[Katier]

The nikon may limit your ability to get good glass.

-JD-

Why do you say that? Nikon use essentially the same mount as for the last 50+ years. Good glass is definatly not a problem.

As for processing, I don't agree, I think a lot of pictures are straight off the camera. Heck if they weren't most pictures wouldn't have the EXIF in them.

 

[goodoneian]

i've had a d300 for close to 9 months and i'm still shocked to see what horrible pictures i can take with it sometimes.

just keep practicing and before too long you'll be more than satisfied with what you/ the d60 can produce

 

[anubis404]

There is going to be no significant difference in pictures produced form a D60 to a 30D, I gaurantee. If anything, the picture quality is in the lens. The camera itself is nothing more than a glorified circut board with a sensor. Heres some photos I took with the D40 and D70S, both of which ironically tote a lesser sensor than the D60.

 

[Prophet]

Why do you say that? Nikon use essentially the same mount as for the last 50+ years. Good glass is definatly not a problem.

As for processing, I don't agree, I think a lot of pictures are straight off the camera. Heck if they weren't most pictures wouldn't have the EXIF in them.

I thought a few of the Nikon cams couldn't mount certain glass. Like the D40 couldn't mount certain high end lenses the D90 could. I thought I read that somewhere.

-JD-

 

[Prophet]

There is going to be no significant difference in pictures produced form a D60 to a 30D, I gaurantee. If anything, the picture quality is in the lens. The camera itself is nothing more than a glorified circut board with a sensor. Heres some photos I took with the D40 and D70S, both of which ironically tote a lesser sensor than the D60.

Those pictures look great! Question and a statement. Pictures posted on the interweb may not necissarily print well. I'm betting those have been through PP.

-JD-

 

[goodoneian]

I thought a few of the Nikon cams couldn't mount certain glass. Like the D40 couldn't mount certain high end lenses the D90 could. I thought I read that somewhere.

-JD-

they will mount, but non af-s lenses will not auto focus. also i'm pretty sure some of the old ai nikons won't meter on a d40 or a d90 for that matter, but don't quote me on that.

 

[anubis404]

Those pictures look great! Question and a statement. Pictures posted on the interweb may not necissarily print well. I'm betting those have been through PP.

-JD-

Not any more than usual. Just a minor bump here and there. On some of them there is none.

 

[Village Idiot]

This is why I love Flickr.

Nikon D40 info & photos:
Flickr: Camera Finder: Nikon: D40

Your camera isn't taking bland pictures, you are.