Digital cameras: Which one shall I get !! Canon 40D or Nikon D80
Regarding lens quality
by hjfok - 11/29/07 8:58 PM In reply to: I have mixed feelings about IS. If the IS is as powerful as by KiddpeatActually lens reviews have shown this the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens has L class image quality, and this is also my personal experience. There is nothing wrong with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS copy, this is sharp and has excellent optical performance. Although the 17-55mm IS is an EF-S lens, its optical quality is definitely much better than its other siblings in the EF-S line. Here is a couple of reviews:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm
It is certainly not a waste of money, and has very good image quality. Even if this lens just lasts as long as my 30D (probably a few years), it is still well worth every penny. For the market to transform to mainly FF cameras will take years, considering the number of customers owning an APS size D-SLR outnumber FF camera owners by a huge margin, and most average customers will not change their D-SLR for at least a few years. I suspect my 30D will have broken down way before FF cameras become the main trend. I change cars every few years, and certainly changing a camera and lens every few years is not a big deal.
The quality between L and non-L lenses
by jump1127 - 1/5/08 8:26 PM In reply to: I have mixed feelings about IS. If the IS is as powerful as by Kiddpeat, in fact, lie upon the contrast and tint-color without undergoing photoshop processing. It's quite significant, provided that anyone shoot in RAW under any extreme lighting circumstance. However, when anyone process a picture shooting by non-L lenses, it will be very hard to say the difference. Any way, I'd say that lenses are just a tool, an option for shooting better and nice to have. The shooters are the one who create a good work, or else. Enjoy shooting everyone.
Good points...
by joonbeams - 11/29/07 11:27 AM In reply to: Agree with you by hjfokMy wife actually uses the EF-S 17-55mm. It's a superb lens. Despite not being "L series" - it's L series quality (and it's slightly cheaper than the other lenses discussed). I think the "full frame" issue can cut both ways. For example, the 1.3-1.6x conversion factor helps hide the invariable blemishes and vignetting of the outer periphery of every lens - kind of like "auto cropping". However, it is nice to be able to have the widest frame possible at times and this cropping issue drives traditionalists crazy (I'm a full covnert - digital all the way :))
The one small caveat for this guy who is looking to buy is that if he ever decides to buy and use a traditional canon 35mm body, he won't be able to use the EF-S series lenses(which, for the original poster, are only for the "digital" SLR bodies). Looks like the thread is leaning heavily toward Canon too...
But what about fixed focal length lenses?
by formerlyPentax - 11/29/07 12:57 PM In reply to: iT'S ALL ABOUT THE LENSES by joonbeamsGlad to see the issue of lenses got picked up and moved forward. But why is everyone advocating zooms and ignoring the benefits of fixed focal length lenses? One answer - convenience and, in theory, fewer lenses.
The case for fixed focal lengths would be better low light performance (wider aperture) at lower cost and weight (on the camera at least - you'll have to do the math for whether your particular bag of fixed length lenses will weigh more). The lenses mentioned above mostly cost you and still only will get you f2.8 at best. If you need backgound see the site I mentioned in my earlier post - its lens discussion is good even if it was written pre 40D.
Anyway my 40D is now on order! Justified it vs the Rebel XTi on the basis that 23 years film SLR experience should help me make the most of the additional features. Went with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for now, expect to add more later.
Prime vs Zoom lens
by hjfok - 11/29/07 1:40 PM In reply to: But what about fixed focal length lenses? by formerlyPentaxAgree with you. No doubt prime lenses have better optical qualities and value. The main reason to get zoom lenses are convenience and few lenses. I carry only 2 lenses with my 30D, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8IS and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. This covers a focal range of 27-320 mm, practically everything I shoot for family and travel photos. If I get prime lenses, I will need at least 4 lenses, one wide angle, one normal perspective, a shorter tele 80-135mm range for portrait and a mid range tele 200-400mm for shooting from a distance. A good prime lens is quite bulky, not a whole lot lighter than a zoom lens. The prime lenses will be heavier to lug around.
Besides the new zoom lenses like the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS are pretty close in quality to prime lenses. They also decrease the frequency of lens switching, and is more convenient for grab shots to seize the moment. Well, of course you can crop the photo later if you happen to grab the shot with a wide angle prime lens, but this will add some extra work during photo editing.
Yes, lenses are key.
by NM_Bill - 11/30/07 6:59 PM In reply to: iT'S ALL ABOUT THE LENSES by joonbeamsThough not quite up to date, I've had to use various brands for business photography. I would never fault Nikon for quality, but I am not a fan of their products for neither user friendliness nor lens cost.
Canon makes their own lenses - greater variety available. I'm not suggesting anyone has any lock in the camera arena, just that the Canon lenses made me a personal Canon user 30 years ago & still.
Go with Nikon
by Flatworm - 12/1/07 4:58 AM In reply to: Which one shall I get !! Canon 40D or Nikon D80 by mac&chingNikon lenses are just plain better. They employ superior optics, and they're smaller and more compact than corresponding Canon lenses, which makes them much easier to lug around. Most Nikon accessories are more elegant than Canon's.
Nikon has always been the leader in SLRs, and this hasn't changed with the advent of digital photography.
Nikon hasn't been the leader for many years.
by Kiddpeat - 12/1/07 7:21 AM In reply to: Go with Nikon by FlatwormThey were apparently slow to move to digital, and have been struggling to catch up. Every knowledgeable photographer I've ever talked to consider Canon and Nikon lenses to be roughly equal in quality. Canon does have a wider range of lenses.
Help with a dSLR
by forkboy - 12/1/07 2:50 PM In reply to: Which one shall I get !! Canon 40D or Nikon D80 by mac&chingmac&ching,
I have been looking over dSLRs for the past 12-months trying to make up my own mind (while putting money aside for the purchase)and I'm partial to both manufacturers as I own two Canon compact digitals and one film-based Nikon.
It has been mentioned many times already that there are marked differences between the D80 and 40D. It isn't a fair comparison as they really are more like apples and oranges, with the Canon being a more upscale (and therefore more expensive) camera. It would be more fair to compare the 40D to either the no-longer-manufactured (but still available here and there) Nikon D200 or the new D300.
As you state that you are a novice to dSLR (and I'm assuming you aren't a pro with a film-based SLR) and that this is for your wife I would strongly urge you consider other models such as the Rebel XT or XTi or the Nikon D40 and D40x. I believe the Rebels to be a bit more expensive and a bit more upscale than the Nikons, but either set of cameras would serve a novice very, very well without coming anywhere near the cost of a 40D or D80. The Nikons have been listed as recommneded buys from Consumer Reports and there are some very good package deals right now for both the XTi and 40x where you could find yourself with a complete outfit (maybe less the flash unit) for about $1,000., which you would agree is less expensive than the D80 and markedly less than the 40D even without a lens.
A more expensive dSLR would allow you and your wife to grow into the camera and take on the use of more and more of it's options and functionality, if that's what you want. However, if you're looking to take pictures and aren't interested in doing a lot of post-picture-processing, then the more expensive (and subsequently more versatile) 40D and D80 are probably overkill for your needs.
However, if you really are set on a more expensive camera either the 40D or the D80 will offer you plenty of functionality. While the D80 costs less, the 40D will give you more. If the idea of more appeals to you, then you should consider both the D200 and D300 (which offers live view like the 40D) as well.
Actually, it's all about the photographer
by uniwolf - 12/2/07 9:19 AM In reply to: Help with a dSLR by forkboy"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."- Ansel Adams
Get whatever you feel will meet your needs. If you are starting out, start small. Dream big. 
I looked at the Canon, I was convinced by another pro I occasionally work with to go with the Nikon instead for the type of work I do; $15,000 later I haven't looked back. That being said...I have some fabulous pictures I have taken with my little Canon PowerShot S70 P&S, as well as the toss cams from Walmart. It really has nothing to do with the camera. It is a _tool_ that assists you in making your job/hobby easier. Just as I'd rather not use a screwdriver to put together something if I can manage to use a cordless with a gazillion bit sizes sitting right next to me. It doesn't mean I won't be able to put it together with just a screwdriver, it merely means that cordless will make it easier or faster or more dependable. It also depends on whether that cordless is a no-name from Harbor Freight or a top of the line DeWalt or Hitachi as to _how much_ it will assist me. The bottom line is how much do I know, how well do I know it and can I repeat it consistently? It's the knowledge of the tool that matters, and to a certain degree the quality of the tool. Thus the importance of what Ansel Adams said.
That's pretty much conventional wisdom, but a bit overrated.
by Kiddpeat - 12/2/07 1:48 PM In reply to: Actually, it's all about the photographer by uniwolfCertainly, you are not likely to produce a good image if you don't know how to produce a good image. An expensive camera cannot do that for you. Also, it is certainly true to good images can be produced by cheap cameras.
However, no photographer can overcome the limitations of a cheap camera to any significant degree. Annie Leibovitz does not, and IMO cannot, produce her images with a P&S. For starters, she frequently needs a sophisticated flash lighting system, and very high quality lenses. P&S cameras simply cannot deliver what is needed. Ansel Adams used, for his day, a very sophisticated camera, lense, and darkroom. He didn't produce his photographs with a Kodak Brownie camera.
In other words, two ingredients are needed. First, you need to know how to produce a good photo. Second, you need the camera and other equipment that is capable of producing the photo that you want. Of those two elements, the first is the most important. That's what Adams meant.
I concur...
by forkboy - 12/4/07 11:26 AM In reply to: Actually, it's all about the photographer by uniwolfI concur whole-heartedly. However, the original question concerned itself with help purchasing a dSLR. I'm in no position to offer them anything but advice on that subject as I cannot speak for their technical ability, or lack thereof.
cannon 40d vs D80
by watsupbro - 12/2/07 6:59 PM In reply to: Which one shall I get !! Canon 40D or Nikon D80 by mac&chingIf you can afford the Cannon 40D go for it, as it’s probably a better camera in that it has a better burst rate and lower noise at higher ISO.
If money isnt a problem then you should seriously consider the Nikon D300. Based on specification and the reviews so far it would appear to be a far seperiour camera than the Cannon 40D.
In the end it all comes down to how much money you want to spend.
I couldn’t afford the Cannon 40D so have purchased the Nikon D80. It is the best camera that I have owned. Its focus system is fast and very accurate, and it produces natural photos. However, it does slightly overexpose on occasions and produces noisy pictures when using ISO 1600 and greater, but nothing that a good software program cant fix.
I own both...
by michauxsinglespeeder - 1/5/08 6:33 PM In reply to: cannon 40d vs D80 by watsupbroOne thing to remember is that you buy into a "system" when you buy a digital SLR because lenses and flashes, etc. are not interchangable between manufacturers. Nikon and Canon have comparable lenses at comparable prices for the most part, but there are some very good third party lenses out there that compete well and cost less. Nikon and Canon don't have IS in the bodies, instead they rely on integrating into their lenses. I had a 28-135 Canon with IS that I felt was only marginally effective, but my Nikon 55-200vr, which can be had for around 2 bills, is very effective. Your mileage may vary.
Pentax, Sony, and Olympus all make very competive cameras with varous feature sets with IS built into the camera. The good part is that all lenses benefit, but many claim that the in-camera IS is inferior to that built into the lens. In addition, if you buy a 4/3s camera, any manufacturer's leses that subscribe to the 4/3 format will work. In the case of Pentax, all Pentax lenses going waaay back will work. As much as I like the D80, and I think Nikon is storming Canon's beaches lately, I don't think I'd reccomend the D80 to a newbe, and here's why: the D80 out of the box uses default settings that have way too much contrast and pumped up colors, and required a lot of experimentation on my part to come up with settings I liked. It also tends to overexpose in many situations, and requires practice and skill to master. On the other hand, my Rebel XT is practically point and shoot with regards to settings and exposure, as is my 40D. The 40D has some nice new features, including live preview, but its live perview is not that easy to use, autofocus is awkward, and the 3 inch LCD has poor resolution and murky colors which makes it difficult to use for judging fine focus and exposure.
Nikon has in my opinion the better flash system compared to Canon, and if you plan to upgrade later to full frame D3, DX lenses will work on the D3(it automatically senses DX lenses and they will work, albeit at a lower mp). I love the fit and feel of my D80, and it makes me want to go out and take photos. Yet, it frustrates me with its odd metering and tendency to make blues look off and grass look "lime". But it is fast, responsive, and the autofocus system is a joy to work with, and the D80 can display a grid in the wonderful veiwfinder that makes orienting to the horizon a snap. I must purchase an accessory screen that must be installed into the camera for my 40D to display a grid. C'mon Canon! Nikon uses a seperate lamp to assist focus in low lighting, Canon requires you to raise the flash for auto focus assist. Both have great battery life, but the D80 edges either the XT or the 40D. My D50 has great batter life as well, though it won't accept a battery grip; the D80, XT, and 40D will.
My Canons on the other hand yeild more natural and accurate colors, and are less finicky with regards to exposure, but I don't get along with the Canon menus or controls as much. She should handle both cameras, as one she might love to use, and the other she might hate. If you don't like the feel of your camera, it could distract from, and ruin your creativity. If I was in the market for a new camera today for a newbe, I might steer them toward the Pentax K100D Super, or a Nikon D50 if you could find one. The D50 has the lowest noise of any of my cameras at higher ISOs, is very easy to use, and would be a great camera to learn the basics on. Word on the Pentax is that it too is very easy to use.
One last thing to mention is that there is a discernable difference in the look of the D80's photos as compared to those from my Canons. the Canons have more natural colors and a smooth look that at times can almost appear plasticy, while the Nikon tends to produce punchier colors, more contrast, a bit more shadow detail all things considered, and a more film like grain to the noise where it exists. Post processing can nullify almost all those differences, and depends on how much post processing you want to do to get the look you want. Shooting RAW is another option.
So, as much as I offer my own opinions, I am in need of advice myself: my personal dilema is which system to keep, and which to sell off, as having both is proving awkward and cost prohibitive for me. I have more quality Canon lenses, but more and more I'm leaning toward Nikon for the better autofocus performance, better flash performance, and the overall fit and feel. With that spectacular D300 looming off in my future, I'm tempted by its stellar autofocus system (51 points, color sensitive, etc.), and superior exposure system since I shoot in fast paced settings with ever changing lighting. But that's my problem! Good luck.
Canon vs Nikon
by hjfok - 1/7/08 10:54 AM In reply to: I own both... by michauxsinglespeederNo cameras or machine is going to be perfect the way you want it. Both cameras have their strenght and weakness. If you have a tough time deciding between the two after using them, then there is no obvious winner of the two. In fact, there are many masterpiece and great shots from both Canon and Nikon cameras, past and present. They are pretty much equivalent. Often there are cycles of dominance, when companies are trying to beat each other. This is a good thing, as it helps to advance technology to new heights. But rapid development of technology and vast choice in the market can sometimes confuse consumers who end up wasting a lot of money trying to keep up with the Jones. But the bottom line is that either system will serve you well.
I'm not a pro photographer, but I am an expert in some other type of imaging that use high tech machines produced by multiple mega manufacturers. I know how to use all the different brands of machines but usually favor one particular brand, not because it is superior to others. But it is because I am most familiar with it, and know how to easily compensate or correct its weakness or problem, and optimize the result. Sometimes it is not the latest or "best" device that produce the best results. Often the best result comes from the device that you are most familiar with, because you know how to change the settings to get the best result. Hope this may help you decide which one to keep.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
