canon or nikon entry level dslr

[Camarena]

canon.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/camarena_india/

 

[2WheelPhoto]

In the Ford vs. Chevy debate the Pentax is a Dodge !

 

[o hey tyler]

(I am going to get spanked for this!)

If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.

If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!

(running, ducking, hiding!)

Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.

It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.

The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

(I am going to get spanked for this!)

If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.

If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!

(running, ducking, hiding!)

Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.

It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.

The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?

From my observation, comparing 2 (24-70 and 70-200) out 3 of the trinity released at around the same time (Canon doesn't have a 14-24mm, so I couldn't say anything bout' it), Canon have inferior image quality compared to Nikon and similar image quality compared to Sigma (let's avoid the talk about build quality) at slightly cheaper prices. Both Canon and Nikon have price differences, Canon may be more expensive at some and Nikon may be more expensive at others, so it's not fair to say Canon is 'cheaper'.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Actually it is best to leave it to the OP to decide which one have better ergonomics. The technological difference between Canon and Nikon isn't too big for the OP to realise, and less so if you don't compare them side by side.

 

[o hey tyler]

(I am going to get spanked for this!)

If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.

If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!

(running, ducking, hiding!)

Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.

It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.

The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?

From my observation, comparing 2 (24-70 and 70-200) out 3 of the trinity released at around the same time (Canon doesn't have a 14-24mm, so I couldn't say anything bout' it), Canon have inferior image quality compared to Nikon and similar image quality compared to Sigma (let's avoid the talk about build quality) at slightly cheaper prices. Both Canon and Nikon have price differences, Canon may be more expensive at some and Nikon may be more expensive at others, so it's not fair to say Canon is 'cheaper'.

I didn't say Canon was cheaper, I said it was less expensive.

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,300
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,900
Difference = ~600

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,300
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,400
Difference = ~100

Canon 35mm f/1.4 = ~1,400
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 = ~1,600
Difference = ~200

Total Price Difference = $900 (just for glass)

Canon 5D Mark III (body only) = $3,500
Nikon D800 (Body only) = $3,000

If you go with Canon, you're still spending $400 less. Which would be great to put towards a speedlight.

 

[hukim0531]

If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100. I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced. I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with. I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly. To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I didn't say Canon was cheaper, I said it was less expensive.

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,300
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 = ~1,900
Difference = ~600

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,300
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 = ~2,400
Difference = ~100

Canon 35mm f/1.4 = ~1,400
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 = ~1,600
Difference = ~200

Total Price Difference = $900 (just for glass)

Canon 5D Mark III (body only) = $3,500
Nikon D800 (Body only) = $3,000

If you go with Canon, you're still spending $400 less. Which would be great to put towards a speedlight.

Search for both 24-70 and 70-200 that are released at around the same time at dxomark and compare them with d3x and 1d3 (d3x and 1d3 has very similar points for the same sigma and tamron lenses.) See the quality difference and you'll understand why the Nikon is priced higher.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100. I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced. I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with. I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly. To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.

Did you notice that some Sigma lenses are sharper than Canon's?

 

[pgriz]

Actually, neither. At least not until you know "what you don't know". So get either camera brand entry level with kit lens, learn the basics of exposure, etc. and with that knowledge think about what is really important to you photographically. THEN make the system purchase decision - because you ARE buying into a system. Actually, you may want to think about buying used (either make) to keep the initial costs down.

Once you have enough experience and understanding, then go with the best system you can afford. Oh, and while you're in the learning process, join a photo club, and pay attention to what the really good photographers are doing and how they are doing it. Chances are, the equipment is less of an issue for them compared to the skills and knowledge.

(ducks into bunker as I'm gonna get it from all sides...)

 

[cgipson1]

(I am going to get spanked for this!)

If you want the best autofocus, High ISO / low noise, and the best CLS TTL flash system.. buy Nikon.

If you want really good advertising, and toys that cost even more than Nikon.. buy Canon!

(running, ducking, hiding!)

Well Charlie, this isn't the first time you've posted clearly inaccurate info.

It's less expensive to get a nice setup with Canon and pro glass than it is with Nikon pro glass.

The least you could do is look it up, like you tell others to do. But I guess that's too much to ask?

Dude.. lighten up! Surely you got the "(running, ducking, hiding!)" reference.. as being a JOKE! I know you understand humor.. you use it occasionally also....

 

[cgipson1]

Actually, neither. At least not until you know "what you don't know". So get either camera brand entry level with kit lens, learn the basics of exposure, etc. and with that knowledge think about what is really important to you photographically. THEN make the system purchase decision - because you ARE buying into a system. Actually, you may want to think about buying used (either make) to keep the initial costs down.

Once you have enough experience and understanding, then go with the best system you can afford. Oh, and while you're in the learning process, join a photo club, and pay attention to what the really good photographers are doing and how they are doing it. Chances are, the equipment is less of an issue for them compared to the skills and knowledge.

(ducks into bunker as I'm gonna get it from all sides...)

Not from me.. I agree with you totally! At least you have a sense of humor!

 

[hukim0531]

If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100. I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced. I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with. I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly. To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.

Did you notice that some Sigma lenses are sharper than Canon's?

That is either (1) you're lucky with the Sigma lottery or (2) you send in lens+camera to their service center for calibration. I've had two duds so I finally sent in my T2i with Sigma 30mm. POTN members say it could take up to a month TAT. I hope that's not true, but I'm sick of the lottery. I never win!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

If I was to go back and decide on DSLR, I'd pick Nikon, say D5100. I know its limitations in lens selections, but Nikon seem to have plenty of entry level AF-S prime lenses that are decently priced. I don't like their menu system either, but I'm sure it's something I can live with. I agree with Tyler above that Nikon's pro level lenses are a lot more costly. To me, an amateur hobbyist, Sigma/Tamron lenses are plenty sharp enough for my daily needs.

Did you notice that some Sigma lenses are sharper than Canon's?

That is either (1) you're lucky with the Sigma lottery or (2) you send in lens+camera to their service center for calibration. I've had two duds so I finally sent in my T2i with Sigma 30mm. POTN members say it could take up to a month TAT. I hope that's not true, but I'm sick of the lottery. I never win!

I don't know about their quality control, but some of their score seems higher than Canon in DxOMark for some lenses and many of their lenses have similar sharpness with Canon. But about the build quality, Canon wins all the time.

 

[hukim0531]

Many of the Canon lenses are older design. If they don't want their customer base to switch over to the dark side, they need to refresh their lens line ups more quickly and more affordable. Unfortunately their newer newer lens releases seem to be very expansive and at marginal to no improvements in optic quality.