Now thanks to some explanation in another thread, I think I finally understand the crop camera vice full sensor lens differences in DSLRs. That brings me to the entry level DSLR decision.

Seems to me the xti and d80 are about the two best entry DSRLs. But, I really know I'm not buying a body but a Lens Suite. The money is in the Lens, bodies come and go. So ... I've research an endless amount on both Canon and Nikon lenses as well as gone to a store and felt both cameras and lens and concluded the following ... please comment on where I am wrong. BTW, I'm looking from the perspective of making 11 x 14 or 16 x 20 prints (of which I have made hundreds with film).

The D80 kit lens are nice for snapshots but if you read the reviews, I mean really read at places like http://www.fredmiranda.com/ or http://www.slrgear.com/ or http://www.photozone.de/ many reviewer do not take kindly to the DX lenses. Words like cheaper quality, poor optics, etc. (not just the kit lens either). Nikon big lens are WAY out of my range, 5K lens

The Xti Kit lens is reviewed as total crap. Canon seems have three lines available, their consumer with fair prices, Digital lense for the crop cameras (EF-S), and their L line (big bucks). Clearly going L line, you have the lens for a lifetime. Going consumer line ... slower lens, lighter, cheaper quality, going EF-S a potential disaster when Canon moves to full sensor in the next generation (which is rumoured ... technology is alway getting better). I think Nikon digitals are all mostly 1.5 crop cameras except the top end so they seem heavily invested in it.

So I dont know which way to go. I think probably the D80 is a better body (slightly better) than the Xti but in terms of lens selection ... not so good. Nikon lens reviews dont seem like they used to be on the newer lens. On the other hand, the Xti, forget the EF-S lens, seem to be able to get outstanding optics usuable in the future.

Help ... what am I missing here?

 

What did you have for a film camera?

 

First it was a Minolta XD (I think thats the model), Then two Minolta Maxxum 7000i bodies.

Oh, and a Nikon point and shoot rangefinder ... wait a sec there was a small olympus in there somewhere too ... the nikon replaced the Olympus to put in your shirt pocket to carry around

 

Well if you haven't had experiance witht he lens options for Canon or Nikon then I for see a Canon vs. Nikon battle allong the same lines a the MC vs. MCS, the auto vs. manual and the PC vs. Mac debates.

Perosnally I love the Canon lenses, I've had the oppurtunity to use several L lenses (though I don't have $$$ to put up for one of my own as I'm a college student driving a MINI) and I was thrilled with the quality enhancement, IS and speed of autofocus.

I also prefer the slightly out of consumer range Canon bodies for ease of use, their current pick of consumer level bodies felt like the Nikon D1H? body I used, lots of buttons not very intuitive. Of course I will admit I have developed a strong bias of layout to the Caon Dial system on the 10D. For your range of what you want to print, I'd say 8-10 Mega pixels is where you should be looking at; I think the slightly smaller Image sensor is a bit over hyped unless you are looking to do heavy amounts of wide angles and low light; I actually think its worked to my advantage at some sporing events allowing my 200mm to shoot at 300+mm of course there was a little light lost so at the night events it was a high ISO to keep the same shutter speeds.

 

I think for the most part it comes down to opinion and what you're comfortable with. EF lenses can be a little more costly in general and there are some companies that will make more specialty lenses and adaptors for Nikon than they will for Canon. I think its just because Nikon has been a little more popular over the years.

 

Chows,

I don't spend much time in the consumer range digital camera arena, but I'd highly recommend that you look up your possible cameras/lenses on www.dpreview.com and go from there.

I've used Nikon products for 30 years now and unfortunately, there's lots of crap on the market. During the past six years, most pro photojournalists and sports photographers have switched to Canon for the better autofocus systems. Just recently, though, Nikon is on the come back with some bodies like the D2x and D200. I'm not sure if anything good has trickled down to the D80.

 

Motor ... Thanks, I think your right about being comfortable with it!

Dmini ... Nikon has always had the reputation. I've read all the lens reviews in multiple sites. Same conclusion about everywhere. The DX line is not as good optically or in build as the older Nikon lens (or it seems) especially the ones sold for $300 - 700 range. Most kit lens. Canon, on the other hand has their L line which all review site rave about the optical quality and dust/weatherproof.

I have also read about the AF system being better in the Canons ... new D40 coming out as the low end with very few focus points, for example.

The reason I'm looking at the L line is because I want to buy the lens once ... for the rest of my life (hehe) no matter what Canon does. Trying to avoid the EF-S because they may go away (equivalent to the Nikon Dx lens) and their consumer lens are reasonably price but rather the professional lens.

I know its going to take me a fair amount of time .... accumulate them over a period of time. ITs not like Im going to drop $5K in lens tomorrow That would severely cut into my "car toy" money for a LONG time

 

Take a look at these two pics. Credits to http://photography-on-the.net

both are crops. Look at the gravel. Top is kit lens, bottom is L lens. The difference to me is amazing.

 

Both are red Xs

 

Arghh, try now.

 

bWas hoping for little more differane,let me seeif I can upload acomparison shot for you....

 

A little more difference? Remember the top shot is a crop of the original photo. Gravel looks hazy to me

 

Canon EF 80-200 f/4-5.6


Canon L 70-300 (shot is at f/4 can't remember lens specs)


Same camera, same afternoon, different but similar lenses. CLick the links for the full size to see just how much more sharp the L lens is.

 

Wait a sec. Canon doesn't sell a 70 - 300mm L Lens.

They have 70 - 200L (in three variations) and 100 - 400mm

I assume you mean the 70 - 200L which is superb

80 - 200 ES ... I cant find any review of it on those three website although it does show up at canonusa weird

 

EXIF said 70-300

 

quote by ChowsPrecisely why I stayed with Nikon when I switched to full-time digital. I did not want to spend near $25K on the current Canon pro equipment--especially when digital photography technology is advancing so quickly. I stayed in the Nikon camp, shelved my Hassleblad and used the money saved by not switching to Canon.

What did I do with all the savings? I bought the JCW package for my '06 MCS! And 6,000 miles later, I am still smiling!

Canon makes awesome digital equipment right now. If you're starting fresh and feel comfortable with the Canon ergonomics and menu systems--go for it!

 

The 70-200L f4 is <$600 at many places right now—that's more than half off the $1350 list price!

My aging pair of Olympus E-10s are still fantastic cameras, but I'm going to make the move to Canon at some point.

 

I've seen that. But after reading the Canon forums, they all say do not buy a 200mm lens without a Tripod Ring (the F4 doesn't come with one) and others say get the 2.8 (much more money)

So confusing

 

I don't know about the D80 kit lens but the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, which is a DX lens, is very good, as well it should be for about $1400. Thom Hogan thinks the 18-70 DX, which was the D70 kit lens, is quite good for the money. http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm And here's Thom's article on the D80: http://www.bythom.com/d80comment.htm

And of course Nikon has a huge line of lenses, as does Canon. In general, both make fine lenses but, as always, the more expensive lenses tend to be better.

Mark

 

I couldnt find any Gold Lens in the DX line until you pointed that out. Yup, its a tad better even (marginally) than the 17 - 40mm L for less money.

I like the photozone.de site because you can see the actual test numbers, very cool!

 

Oh, and if I didn't make it clear, you certainly don't have to use DX lenses on Nikon bodies. As for big glass, both Nikon and Canon are expensive but they're very specialized. If you're not very heavily into sports or wildlife photography, you won't need them.

Mark

 

I don't have one but the 12-24 mm DX is supposed to be nice, too, if not quite as well-constructed as the 17-55. I've got the 10.5 mm DX fisheye and like it a lot.

Yeah, that is a nice site.

Mark

 

Yes, I looked closely between 10 - 22 canon and 12- 24 Nikon. Nikon more money, numbers alike more or less.

Fisheye ... I used to have one but found limited use

 

Although not the best "walk around" lens with a crop camera, the Canon 24-105L with IS is a really superb lens--I am just blown away with the speed, quietness, and sharpness of this lens, and of course the color. Gee, sorry to be so enthusiastic about a lens that costs $1100...but I think it's a bargain.

 

I also came from a Minolta kit, so picked up the Maxxum 5D as Minolta left the camera business. It now has a 10MP sensor and is sold as the Sony A100.

I would prefer a full-frame sensor, so I am waiting until I can afford a Canon, in the mean time, I am having some fun.

For a base lens for a crop sensor, you can also look at the Tamron SP18-55 f2.8. It is about $500, a little cheaper than the lenses that reach all the way to 70mm.

I would agree with Dr. Phil on the walkaround lens. I have an old Tamron SP 35-105 f2.8 lens that I use as a primary. It has been replaced by the 28-105, but it is no cheaper than the Canon L.