Canon vs. Nikon

[inTempus]

That's a weird kit lens for a crop frame body.

Why? They've been shipping that lens with the 40D for over a year, and now they're offering it on the 50D. It takes great pics.

 

[ANDS!]

I made it pretty clear where I got my prices from, and yes - they all included a kit lens. It would be kind of pointless for me to buy a camera without a lens. I don't have a stash of Canon or Nikon lenses in my office. I need a complete system, as would any first time buyer.

The reason most people list the price of bodies only, is because no one can possibly know what type of photography an individual is interested in. I would certainly HOPE, that anyone buying a camera, has the common sense to buy a lens (that suits their tastes) to go with it.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm still trying to figure out what an upper hobbyist amateur pro camera is!

I consider these the folks who don't have to be told how to control light, that have a complete understanding (and NEED) of the utility options that an advanced body provides, and may or may not be inching towards potentially getting paid for their work, or is interested in getting results as if they were getting paid for their work. Nikon and Canon have their idea on where their cameras are aimed, and for Nikon, anything D90 and below is mid-range and aimed at the Serious Hobbyist to the beginner. D300 and up is for that serious hobbyist making the transition to big deal Holyfield photography.

 

[epp_b]

Why? They've been shipping that lens with the 40D for over a year, and now they're offering it on the 50D. It takes great pics.

Kit lenses are usually wide to short telephoto (eg.: 18-55, 18-70, etc). 28mm is not anywhere near wide on a crop frame.

 

[Village Idiot]

Why? They've been shipping that lens with the 40D for over a year, and now they're offering it on the 50D. It takes great pics.

28mm - 44.8mm FOV on 1.6x APS-C sensor.
Standard kit - 18-55 which is 28.8mm FOV.
L "kit" - 24-105 = 38.4mm FOV which is still not very wide.

24mm on a full frame sensor is still wider than 18mm on an APS-C. 38mm - 44mm is usually not wide enough for a standard lens. When I used the 24-70 f/2.8L on a 30D, I was having problems in tight spaces where I shouldn't have been if I was using 17-50 or 18-55 or a full frame camera.

 

[Lyncca]

I shoot Nikon simply because that was the camera my husband bought me for Christmas. Now, I stay Nikon cause I am used to their system and all of my equipment is also Nikon. I also played with my boss's Canon 40D and it was a great camera. It was a refurb and died after 400 shots though

I think both systems are perfectly fine. If you know how to take a photo, you could pick up either one and shoot fine after stumbling through the navigation.

 

[inTempus]

Kit lenses are usually wide to short telephoto (eg.: 18-55, 18-70, etc). 28mm is not anywhere near wide on a crop frame.

Canon also offers an 18-200mm lens, but the additional cost is substantial. It adds another $300 to the price of the kit.

 

[Vudoo4u2]

I made it pretty clear where I got my prices from, and yes - they all included a kit lens. It would be kind of pointless for me to buy a camera without a lens. I don't have a stash of Canon or Nikon lenses in my office. I need a complete system, as would any first time buyer.

I know that, I wasnt saying youre crazy

the kit lens offered on the D300 is a far more expensive lens than the kit lens on the 50D that you picked on adorama...that was my only point,

If you got an equivalent lens for the 50D, the price would be relatively similar, I wasnt trying to say your prices were wrong and I realize you want a lens with the body. (the kit lens on the D300 is ~700, the kit lens on the 50D is ~140!) haha

*insert clinking beer mug smileys here*

 

[inTempus]

I know that, I wasnt saying youre crazy

the kit lens offered on the D300 is a far more expensive lens than the kit lens on the 50D that you picked on adorama...that was my only point,

If you got an equivalent lens for the 50D, the price would be relatively similar, I wasnt trying to say your prices were wrong and I realize you want a lens with the body. (the kit lens on the D300 is ~700, the kit lens on the 50D is ~140!) haha

*insert clinking beer mug smileys here*

I wasn't technically responding to you.

But yes, I understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't buy a D300 then get some $200 lens... that would kind of defeat the purpose of buying a D300.

I seriously considered the D300, but for whatever reason I was drawn more to the 50D Canon. Perhaps next year when the next generation cameras come out things will appear differently to me. But by then I'll likely be pretty heavily invested in Canon as I'm already looking at $4k of glass for my 50D.

I'm thinking my next big move will be for the 60D (guessing here) or the 5DMkX (III perhaps).

We'll see.

But given my research I'm pretty firmly planted in the Canon camp at this point.

 

[Kegger]

Sissy... lol Just playin dude.

 

[Vudoo4u2]

I wasn't technically responding to you.

But yes, I understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't buy a D300 then get some $200 lens... that would kind of defeat the purpose of buying a D300.

I seriously considered the D300, but for whatever reason I was drawn more to the 50D Canon. Perhaps next year when the next generation cameras come out things will appear differently to me. But by then I'll likely be pretty heavily invested in Canon as I'm already looking at $4k of glass for my 50D.

I'm thinking my next big move will be for the 60D (guessing here) or the 5DMkX (III perhaps).

We'll see.

But given my research I'm pretty firmly planted in the Canon camp at this point.

I came to the canon conclusion for myself after a lot of research into it.

Currently, the 5dmkii provides the highest possible image quality/details/resolution etc between nikon and canon models. Even the Canon 1Ds MkIII has slightly less detail than the 5DMKii just because the n5dmkii is newer and runs off a slightly upgraded version of their digic processor. Nikon, while a wonderful manufacturer I am sure will have a camera in the same range soon enough, lacks a full frame sensor camera with this much detail/quality of image, unless you are getting the D3X, which I would say as far as image quality is concerned, is comparable to the 5dmkii and the 1dsmkiii. Yes, the 1dsmkiii and the d3x are faster cameras than the 5dmkii, but as far as quality is concerned, the three are very very close with the edge probabyl going to the 5dmkii purely because of its more recent release date/new tech. (but that difference in quality is minimal at best)

On this basis, at this moment, on this day, I went with the 5dmkii for the image quality/resolution and enlarging benefits with the good canon L glass. While nikon has great lenses as well and wonderful bodies, unless youre spending 8k on the d3x, you arent going to get the same resolution and quality as the 5dmkii and the 1dsmkiii (which is also 8k). And I wasnt willing to spend 8k on a camera anyways, and the 5dmkii being so new with the specs it had, was on par/slightly better than the 8k models in quality. Thus, my choice was made. I dont do sports much, and even if I choose to do some, I'm positive the 5dmkii will be fine assuming I have the propeer glass (my 70-200 F 2.8 IS L should suffice for most)

I like red stripes as well

 

[Samanax]

I'm thinking my next big move will be for the 60D (guessing here) or the 5DMkX (III perhaps).

My guess is you'll want to get a full frame DSLR after you see how nice the DOF is on one. I'm a Canon shooter and 7 of my shooting buddies have gotten a Canon 5D or a 5D Mk II in the past 6 months. I would love to get one too, but I can't justify the cost since my shooting skills stink. I want to outgrow my XTi first.

 

[epp_b]

Don't try a full frame DSLR. You will become addicted. And, yes, the DOF control on full-frame compared to crop-frame is very nice.