Is canon really that bad?

[Live_free]

T2i vs D90, the D90 wins hands down. Mainly because the T2i is more against the D5000. The D90 is a prosumer camera while the T2i is a consumer camera. Basically like pitting a beginner camera versus a better camera "level". Regardless I THINK Nikon is better and classier and will ALWAYS buy Nikons. But it's your choice, either are great.

Yeah, other than the extreme entry level cameras (D3000/Rebel XS), Nikon and Canon kind of stagger their cameras. It seems to look like run 7D > D300 > 50D > D90 > T2i > D5000. It's really tough to accurately and fairly compare them without taking price or bias into consideration.

Back to the main point though; no. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Canon. In fact, next time you see a professional sporting event, try to count how many big white telephoto lenses you can see. Those are all Canons.

D300s > 7D > D90 > 50D > T2i > D5000.

Fixed


The 50D has some problems (from what I've read) and many prefer the 40D. So I'd say the D90 is better. But hey I think wether you work with nikon or canon will change that.

Other reasons: (Sensor only, most important part really)
50D vs Nikon D90
Compare cameras

7D vs D300s
Compare cameras


Just for fun D90 vs 7D
Compare cameras

yes d90 wins...

 

[Derrel]

Looking at the Cameralabs image quality comparison that Usayit referenced above, at Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i review: Real-life JPEG resolution, Canon 550D / T2i vs Nikon D90 | Cameralabs

you can look at the top image, of the distant mountain, and see the chromatic aberration or "color fringing" quite clearly at the top of the mountain range shot, as well as several color fringing around the hull of the sailboat; one difference is that the Nikon D90 can automatically remove that chromatic aberration by mapping it out, right in the camera, while there are no Canon bodies that offer that feature. Chromatic aberration is one of the lens flaws that plague lower-quality lenses, which the 18-55 and 18-105 and 18-135mm kit zoom lenses actually are. The difference is resolution between an 18 megapixel Canon sensor and a Nikon with a 12.2 megapixel Sony-made sensor is not all "that high", and as the images on the two web sites show, megapixel count is not, by any means, the sole determinant of final image resolution or final image quality: 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.

As to the comparison, currently, the D90 is the top consumer body from Nikon. If one goes to the Nikon USA web site, and the Canon USA web site, it is obvious that the Nikon is the fourth camera up from the bottom. Same with the Rebel 550D, aka Rebel T2i--both are the fourth camera up from the bottom in their respective makers' d-slr lineup. Both are priced within $50 of one another.

The Canon clearly has the superior video recording, sound recording options, and the more-convenient and newer video recording features/options, which is a big,big lure to many people who want to use a camera like this for family and social photography use. Although a lot of people profess not to want video capability in a d-slr, I think it's pretty clear that Canon is clearly the leader in d-slr video, across the board. There are many people for whom video recording features and options represent a pretty big draw/feature/value proposition,and I think the T2i aims squarely at those folks.

 

[cfusionpm]

The 50D has some problems (from what I've read) and many prefer the 40D. So I'd say the D90 is better.

That's cool. I own a 50D and enjoy the fast burst rate, fast AF, and every bit of image quality. Don't know what these "problems" are... But I'm sure they're a huge deal if you've read about them. :thumbup:

 

[FrankLamont]

D300s > 7D > D90 > 50D > T2i > D5000.

Fixed

A more accurate representation is D300s/D300=7D > 50D/40D > D90/D80 > T21 or 550D/T1i or 500D = (a little less) D5000 > 1000D/XS = (a little less) D3000.

Obviously past models have been given so the line can be more easily recognised.

Note that colour fringing can be more effectively removed - in either camera - by shooting RAW and quickly editing the fringing out in post production, rather than in-camera JPGs.

 

[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.

 

[bitteraspects]

Honestly, you should be looking at L glass

quoted for truth

 

[Parks71]

So what most of you are saying is, from a pure taking picture stand point, the D90 wins right? Sounds like everyone agrees on that. I just dont know how important this video feature is to me if you can only get 12 mins on a 8 gig card.

I went and seen them both, well they didnt have the 550 so I held the 500 and I must say that the D90 felt and looked much nicer. It had a lot more buttons and seemed very well thought out. The cannon was smaller and lighter which is a good thing but it also made it feel cheaper I guess. Still cant decide though. Which brands glass is usually less expensive?

You guys talking glass, should I not get the kit? If you could only get 1 lense now, which one would it be? I know nothing about this stuff but plan on shooting pretty much everything from portraits to landscape.

 

[Formatted]

Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!

To add this to a mix

EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!

 

[inTempus]

Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!

To add this to a mix

EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!

That's not true. EF lenses will mount to any Canon body and all functions including autofocus and metering will work. This is not true with Nikon. While it's true all Nikon lenses will mount, many older lenses will not function 100% on all Nikon bodies. You can also mount Nikon lenses to Canon but not visa versa.

EF-S lenses will only mount to 1.6 bodies.

With that being said, between the two I would get the D90.

 

[Village Idiot]

Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!

To add this to a mix

EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!

That's not true. EF lenses will mount to any Canon body and all functions including autofocus and metering will work. This is not true with Nikon. While it's true all Nikon lenses will mount, many older lenses will not function 100% on all Nikon bodies. You can also mount Nikon lenses to Canon but not visa versa.

EF-S lenses will only mount to 1.6 bodies.

With that being said, between the two I would get the D90.

And there's only about 6-7 EF-S lenses in Canon's 60 +/- lens line up.

So what most of you are saying is, from a pure taking picture stand point, the D90 wins right? Sounds like everyone agrees on that. I just dont know how important this video feature is to me if you can only get 12 mins on a 8 gig card.

I went and seen them both, well they didnt have the 550 so I held the 500 and I must say that the D90 felt and looked much nicer. It had a lot more buttons and seemed very well thought out. The cannon was smaller and lighter which is a good thing but it also made it feel cheaper I guess. Still cant decide though. Which brands glass is usually less expensive?

You guys talking glass, should I not get the kit? If you could only get 1 lense now, which one would it be? I know nothing about this stuff but plan on shooting pretty much everything from portraits to landscape.

What do you see yourself doing with photography? There was a recent poll on one forum about how much of you spent on photography and you'd be surprised at the fact that about half the answers were $10,000+

It's not cheap and quality is not cheap. If you're asking about quality lenses, people are 99% of the time not going to recommend a lens under $500. 75% of the time, probably under $1000. There's a very real difference in spending $150 on a Quantaray 70-300 vs. $1600 on a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

When people say look at lenses, that's one of the major aspects. All of the entry level DSLRs will do a fantastic job. Knowledge is the biggest thing to have in this hobby/passtime/career of photography. I could hand you my $2700 camera with a $1500 lens and $1000 of lighting equipment and right now you'd probably be clueless as to what to do with it where as if you know what you're doing, you can get away with using a 5 year old $250 used DSLR, 18-55 kit lens, and $300 in lights.

Equipment matters to a point, but regardless of whether you go Canon or Nikon, it's not going to matter at all. Except for the video function that is.

 

[Village Idiot]

I THINK Nikon is better and classier and will ALWAYS buy Nikons.

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.

 

[Derrel]

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 is a significant issue with most of the EF-S lens lineup, especially on the newer high-density sensors like those sensors found in the T2i and the EOS 7D; it's kind of sad really, to see how even the 17-55 EF-S, a very costly lens, is not well-corrected enough to alleviate chromatic aberration at the short end when it is used on the EOS 7D and its almost 18-megapixel sensor. The low-end Canon kit lenses are significantly worse in terms of their chromatic aberration problems; Canon has hit a "wall" in terms of small pixel size and pixel density on 1.6x sized sensors; the lenses they have in their lineup were not designed with this type of pixel density in mind, and Canon will need to re-compute and re-engineer a number of their lower- to mid-priced lenses as pixel density moves to 18+ MP on 1.6x...otherwise, there will be absolutely no increase in net resolution and total optical performance for the vast majority of users using "traditional" lenses. Look at Sony's 70-200 f/2.8 lens review at dPreview: it is a 2003 Minolta designed lens, re-badged, and it get dinged for it inability to deliver high enough Modulation Transfer Function figures on APS-C; in other words, it's a film-era lens designed for full-frame,and it's NOT optically good enough on new, high-MP count APS-C sensor sized digital bodies.

There's a very real reason Canon has had to re-design its 24 and 45mm shift lenses, the 100mm macro, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS,and the 16-35-Mark II /2.8 L, as well as a few other lenses: the newest sensors, with the tiny pixels packed ultra-densely, absolutely require high-resolution lenses that are almost totally free of optical problems. Stuffing 18 megapixels into consumer bodies does not automatically lead to higher resolution or better picture quality, especially when the lenses most buyers will use are older designs that were engineered either for film use, like the now ancient 28-135 IS (1992 design, sold as a kit lens with the 7D in the USA, but NOT Japan or Europe), or the cheap kit zooms designed originally for 8 or 8.2MP sensors.
All the camera makers are either at, or approaching this "wall" of lens ability vs sensor resolution demands.

In the "consumer" category, where the EOS 550D and the Nikon D90 both reside, the typical user is a JPEG shooter and a user of flash for many indoor/social photography situations, so that's one reason the in-camera CA correction is a feature Nikon has gone with in the D90, and it's also why the Canon T2i has so many Scene Modes on the top dial--both those cameras are aimed at casual "consumer" users who just want good pictures with affordable bodies, as well as video clips. Canon's video sizes are hugely bloated, but higher quality than the Nikon offers. But then, quality usually has costs or penalties associated with it. I think the Original Poster's premise is typical of the degree of confusion and surprise many consumers and beginners are confronted with when they find out that a 12.2 megapixel camera produces pictures that are as good as, or better than, a competing company's 18 megapixel camera--they can hardly get past the megapixel hype,and are surprised that more is not always hugely "better".

 

[TiaS]

I got my first DSLR and it was a Nikon. It was malfunctioning in the first few weeks. I looked online and saw that one of the issues I got with it were common. I returned it for a Canon after only 2 weeks of use. I have used my Canon ever since.

You will find arguments for both sides of the debate. What it boils down to is that they are both great cameras (obviously not my experience) and that they both have a good name. Pick what works for you. I am happy with my Canon and don't plan on turning back on that.

 

[gsgary]

Its so tempting to post just "Yes" but I won't rise to it. I however will say In before KmH!

To add this to a mix

EF Lens (Full Frame) will not work with a EF-S Camera. And vice versa. Where as Nikon every lens ever made since 1987 will work!

You need to get your facts right before you go spouting off about Nikon, I have 3 friends that went from Canon 1Dmk3 to Nikon D3 and even the D3 has problems they are now back with with Canon 1Dmk4

 

[Parks71]

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.