Just bought a D80 with kit lens (18-135). I think the D70S kit lens (18-70) was a little nicer, but my daughter took that to school... I really wanted the 18-200 VR lens, but the extra $ and extra wait for that lens pushed me back to the 18-135. While you're comparing Nikon and Canon, if you do any flash work, look at each brands flash systems. I think Nikon has the edge there...

 

I've done some extensive research on the lens system and virtually everyplace says the same thing. A big mistake newbies make if worrying about the body when the real money is in the lens suite ... bodies come and go.

This site http://philip.greenspun.com/photogra...tal-slr-system has some amazing information.

It says that the Canons are a step ahead in bodies than Nikon (amazing how things change over 20 years) but pics from both bodies will be a wash and it says this

The market leader in the professional/advanced amateur photography world is Canon. If you don't have a major investment in lenses you will probably want to buy a Canon digital SLR. The number two spot is occupied by Nikon, which is also a reasonable choice. ... Once you get beyond Nikon and Canon it becomes very difficult to rent lenses and the companies that make the more obscure systems don't have a large enough market share to invest enough money to build competitive bodies. Leica, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, and Sigma are the small vendors in the digital SLR market. Unless you have an enormous investment in lenses for one of these brands the only one of these worth considering for purchase is Olympus, due to its innovative Four-Thirds system, discussed below.

I also check the resolution of lens and build qualities. It just seems that more and more of the Nikon marketing is heading towards getting amatuers to buy and hence $300 - $600 lenses of lesser quality (for example, the new 70 - 300 NIkon just released is about $560 which is remarkably cheap ... considering).

Back to research, so much info to learn

 

The Nikon-Canon debate is really long-standing and gets bitter at times. In the end, I've seen amazing images made with both camera and lens systems. (Of course, I've actually seen amazing images from cameras that were rubbish by these standards!)
As the owner of a MINI, you've shown yourself to be willing to make compromises in some areas to get what you want in other areas. The same is true for the dSLR choice. In the end, not having any investment in AF lenses for SLRs, I chose Canon because of a history with their film cameras, and familiarity with the UI. The 400D menus look very similar to those on the G-series point and shoots.
Anyway, I think there's about as much difference between Nikon camera bodies, sensors and lenses are there are between all our MINIs! Basically the same, but a little different.
cheers,

 

Agreed. I don't think Greenspun offers any sort of compelling reason to go with Canon (market leader?). Both are fine. Try both, look at the entire system, and buy what you like better.

Mark

 

The feeling I get from reading everything I can get my hands on is that Canon is the leader. Their technology is a step ahead in bodies.

More compelling is to read the resolution charts at photozone.de. To interpret them read http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpnes...interpretation
and http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness_comparisons.html

You can see how different bodies stack up. The bodies are a wash.

The only real difference I see in lens is the quality of the lens build in the L line versus the DX lens in Nikon.

I think your all correct. Its a wash.

It becomes which lens system do you want to buy into

Decisions ... Decisions

 

Chows - I personally think that you need to flip a coin and choose a system.

I have been using Canon since the late 70's and today use a 20D with a selection of lenses ranging from cheap Tamrom to expensive 'L' Series glass.

A friend of mine has been using Nikon for a similar period, and currently has comparable hardware.

The quality and pricing is near enough identical.

He lusts after my 10-22, I lust after his 200mm F2 (?)

In use the two camera feel different, the menu systems are different, the facilities are pretty much the same and they produce pretty much the same results.

Go play with both cameras and buy the body that you are most comfortable with !

 

Yup. Agreed!

 

yeah baby, flip a coin before you flip your wig :impatient

 

Anyone reading with knowledge of DSLRs, please comment.

The wife and I discussed this and here is our decision with the reasoning:

Criteria

1. Its got to be light and fit her hand easily.
2. She takes easily 100 pics/day. It will get a LOT of use (or abuse).
3. Not interested in 4 x 6s or pics for the web. Our old Nikon still works fine for that.
4. Future expansion

and here is the reasoning:

1. Size weight
   • Xti fits her hand perfectly
   • Canon lens a bit smaller in equal focal lengths
2. Amount of usage
   • L series for professionals abuse ... meant to be used everyday, sealed and weatherproof. Nikon does not tout that. Plastics used
3. Enlargements. If only for the snapshots or the web, both systems are a wash, equally good. DX lens very sharp, poor on distortion and artifacts. Reviews say its like Nikon went all out for resolution at the expense of the other factors. Canon, just as good resolution, better on the other attributes
4. Furture expansion. DX lense locked into crop cameras. EF lense can be used on full frame cameras.

Decision ... Canon

BTW, bodies dont really matter. Bodies come and go. What is state of the art today, is obsolete 3 years from now ... its the lens systems that matters.

Comments?

 

Take a look at a D200 in a store just to compare to the Canons. It meets your first few requirements nicely. User interface is very different than Canon and is a personal preference. The better (read $$$) DX series lenses are properly sealed and not plastic.

I know nothing about Canons other than the EOS-1Ds Mark II which I drool over.
Happy hunting!

 

From reading much of what has been written here I figure you will probably be very happy with your eventual purchase.

I agonized for a very long time ove the whole 'going digital' affair.

I eventually took the plunge a few years ago and bought a Canon D30, I instantly took a dislike to the crop, where I wanted to use an 85mm for a portrait, I would try a 50mm, and decide it was horrible, so I would try an 85mm and stand WAY further back, and hate that too. I hated the workflow too and managed to lose a number of photographs because of my own inabilty to keep things sufficiently organized.

The D30 was also really, really slow to start up and battery life was poor.

I sold the body after only a few months.

Then a couple of years ago I bought a 20D, the workflow was still an issue until I bought 'apeture', the crop is still a constant source of annoyance, but the 10-22 has helped me get over the group-shot issues. Generally the system feels a lot more stable and thought out. A second 20D was added after a few months and my film cameras retired.

I just recently added a 5D to my kit bag - the full-frame is such a delight after all of my annoyances with the crop, but I admit that I find myself using the 20D's with the 10-22 and the 200mm over the 5D which tends to wear a walk-about lens (28-135 IS USM) more than anything else.

My wife has a rebel XTi and tends to borrow lenses usually hers is touting a 24-85mm or if we are at a motorsport event a 70-300.

 

Are you sure. Canon makes a point that their L series are meant for professional abusing them day in, day out. Sealed for dust and weatherproof.

From one review of DX lense http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm

Nikon used higher quality plastics compared to e.g. the AF-S 18-55mm DX

12 - 24 mm DX

However, the outer parts are still just made of (good quality) plastic - slightly disappointing for a lens in this price class

18 - 55

The build quality is quite bad due to rather cheap plastics everywhere but that's a fate shared by all entry-level kit zooms

I expect the d80 kit lens to be the same

The only one different is the 17 -55 at $1600

The lens body is made of metal and there're rubber sealings to protect it against dust and humidity

And that is where its at. It appears Nikon has targeted the digital (crop camera lens) at the amateurs expecting just limited use ... snapshots on Sunday, etc. Just what i it appears to be because it jives with the resolution issue. High resolutions, great photos for the web, 4 x 6" snapshots but poor distortion, vignitting, etc more important if you want 11 x 14s. Then again, how many amateurs make 11 x 14 or 16 x 20 prints?

 

One comment, my camera is not obsolete after 3 years 5 months.

 

Chows,

I commend you for your product research and the logic behind your choice. Makes good sense to me!

I recommend Canon daily, in spite of my using Nikon.

 

The 18-55 is only the kit lens for the D50, and most agree it's not Nikon's best work. The 18-135 that gets bundled with the D80 is a much better lens, and the price reflects that.

The only complaint I have about the 18-135 that came with my D80 is the speed. But as they increase the effective ISO in these cameras, I guess they feel a fast lens isn't as important. Nikon and Canon both play games to get the price point down, so they do it in the kit lens - a piece that's easily upgraded later on. The more serious photogs wont be buying kit lenses anyhow. I can't really fault their marketing...

Whether you buy Nikon or Canon, it sounds like you wont be happy with a kit lens - so buy a body and get a better quality lens. You'll spend more $, but you'll be happier in the long run.

 

In case you haven't made you mind up yet, Nikon just announced the D40, for $699. It's as small as the XTi, although behind on some advanced features. I really like that you can do some in-camera touchups. It's a great beginner SLR. But I still think it is well worth the $50 extra to go fro the XTi. But there's nothing wrong with another option in your decision!

 

I'm pretty sure the D40 will be $599 - it's intended to be a step down from the D50.

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/te...gy&oref=slogin

 

There's really little difference between Canon and Nikon in this respect. Both make inexpensive lenses and both make expensive, very well-made lenses. Normally, I don't get into the Canon/Nikon discussions but it's pretty clear that both companies make a wide variety of lenses at a wide variety of price points. It's simply untrue that Nikon targets the budget market (for better or worse) and Canon doesn't. I mean, I don't find myself looking at a Galen Rowell or Steve McCurry book and thinking "dang, those would be some decent pictures if they were shot with a Canon rather than a Nikon".

And it's also true that some inexpensive lenses can be very good. The Nikon 50 mm f/1.8, for example, is a fantastic lens.

Mark

 

FYI ... that lens is about $300 street. Here is the review
From playing around with it, we knew that the 18-135 was a sharp lens, but we were nonetheless astonished when we looked at the first blur plots, after having run it through its paces in the test lab. Shooting wide open, it was just uncommonly sharp for a mid-priced zoom lens ...

Probing deeper though, it became evident that the 18-135's sharpness came at some cost in other areas, particularly geometric distortion and light falloff in the corners, commonly (if somewhat incorrectly) referred to as vignetting. Geometric distortion swings very rapidly from significant (1.17%) barrel distortion at 18mm to pretty pronounced (0.67%) pincushion distortion at 24mm. Pincushion increases to a high of 0.97% at 35mm, and then decreases gradually, reaching 0.66% at 135mm.
Bottom line, Excellent resolution at the price of all the other attributes ... for whatever that means

I never meant to imply that. Of course Canon does. I think I said (forget which thread now) that Canon doesnt want the professional buying the crop lens but of course Canon targets amatuers

 

Gee.......
I thought I heard Pandora's Box opening.
Jim

 

This is TOO FUNNY!

Canon Lens System Vs Nikon Lens System

 

I always liked the smell of a new Nikon.

 

Great link. You are a true camera nerd if you can really understand and get a laugh out of it. It does a great job reflecting the two. Isn't it great to have have two great competing systems that are both so good that you have to bicker about such minute details?
(and yes, it was the wider lens selection that made me sway to canon when I first had to pick...but I am jealous of the nikon flash system!)

 

That was so funny. His other clips are not so funny ... that was the best!

 

I completely disagree. Not everyone has (or wants to commit) thousands and thousands of dollars to camera lenses. For some people, it's a big deal to spend over a grand on a camera, and they plan to have it for a while. Of course the camera body matters; I'm going to be shooting with it for a long time.

I spent the extra $200-300 on the Nikon D80 instead of the Canon Xti because it feels much more solid and well-built, kind of like an Audi dashboard vs a GM one. I can imagine it lasting 5-10 years if I want it to. The viewfinder is much better, and I prefer Nikon's menus and customizations. I just like the camera more, and I'm honest enough with myself to admit that I'm probably not going to be able to tell the difference between the image quality I get through a Nikon lens versus a comparable Canon one.

I bought the D80 with the new 18-135 lens, and I don't have any delusions about it lasting me for the rest of my life, but for $300 it's a great multi-purpose lens that I'll get a few years of great photos out of, and when it falters I'll move on to something nicer.

99% of photographers aren't going to paint themselves into a corner by committing to the Nikon or Canon lens suite. I just think the "body doesn't matter" argument sounds a bit arrogant and out of place when discussing cameras in this price range, which corresponds to serious amateurs, not professionals.