Photography 101.

[blwnbyu]

I have a few L kenses and a bunch of non L. I have one sigma and it was very poor. I had to have it repaired and now it is good. I find the focus is much better on the genuine Canon lenses, as long as they are ultrasonic. The tests usually agree with me. I find lenstip very useful. The 15-85mmIS is L lens quality without the price. My point is the autofocus in the camera is better. Canon won the pro market for the fast focusing of their lenses. This is based on the system in the camera as well as the lens. The eye controlled focus was amazing, just look where you wanted to focus and bang! It was right on. I have no idea why they no longer use that system. But the best canon cameras have had more focusing points for years, 45 points and now 61!

I have to agree if you are shooting action.. I have fewer keepers with the Sigmas. Otherwise, for still shots, I prefer my Sigmas.. Build quality is light years better, but with both Canon and Sigma, there seem to be some duds every once in awhile.

I do own a few of the cheaper Canon EF-S lenses, but they just sit in the Drawer with my old Rebel XS.

Every once in awhile I dig out the 50 F1.8. It's usually fairly sharp around 2.8 and still has nice Bokeh

 

[SteveSC]

So he should buy a Cannon because of thousand dollar white lens's? We've just established that they both use motors in the lens's, and the reason they are on the sidelines of this one particular photography environment is because of the auto focus speed, which would be critical on a sideline type event.

The point still remains that there are no, not 1, major deal breaker difference between the two. I can show you professionally taken amazing pictures all day long and you can not tell me which ones are Nikon and which are Cannon. They are both, excellent camera manufactures. It is really personal preference and which one will provide the features he is looking for and which is the cheaper that day.

Really, the biggest difference is ergonomics.

Go read ken rockwell's site, he was a Nikon user and now has switched to Canon due to ergonomics. Yes, Canon and Nikon are both good, the pros choose either of those, (more choose Canon though) but if I were to recomend one it would be the Canon, due to my knowledge of the reviews out there. If a Nikon guy has switched to Canon because of better ergonomics I would recommend Canon. Ken Rockwell is not sponsored by a manufacturer so his opinion is not influenced. He shot Nikon for years and has now gone to Canon. He could buy anything he wanted and has switched to Canon.

 

[Upstairs Chris]

I understand everything you are saying. But the facts still are, you can not tell the difference between Nikon and Cannon images. They both make excellent cameras. They both make excellent lenses. And a person should not buy one over the other because some photographer switched brands because he happened to like the economics better. If anything, that example suggests that the only major difference between the two is ergonomics.

So in reality, the original poster should buy what he wants due to his personal preference.

Humm, where have I seen that reasoning before?




This thread does no one any good arguing and unanswerable question. Which is better Nikon or Cannon.

 

[pektel]

I would not say either is "better." It really comes down to preference. In the hands of an able photographer, both will take an excellent photo. What I have read, is that beginners can get a better photo from Nikon's DSLR using auto settings, but I've never shot a Nikon to confirm/deny that statement.

Whichever you choose, make damn sure you like the ergonomics of the body. Lenses get expensive fast, and you don't want to be stuck with a lot of glass if you decide to switch later.

 

[BlackLS06]

The lack of a manual mode is kinda a killer really. It is going to absolutely keep you from learning what aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc etc because you can't control them.

I don't know who got you the camera, is it someone who would be rather upset if you returned it, IE: Wife? If it's like a third uncle twice removed you see once a year, yeah, I'd return it and put that toward something that would get you what you want.

Another thing to consider is the fact that you are in essence buying a foundation. You will most likely keep that body for years and years and years, but accumulate more lens's over time. Lens's are expensive, and sometimes cost more than a camera. The newer Nikon's have the auto focus motors in the actual lens's and not in the body, where as Cannon's are in the body and not the lens. How does that affect you? Well say you see a great deal on an old lens. If its old it wont have the auto focus motor in the lens. If you get that lens and put it on a newer Nikon, you will only be able to manual focus. Not really a huge issue. Unless you get super into this photography business you most likely wont be after some crazy rare old lens anyway. Just food for thought.

Also DLSR's are like guns. When people don't use them anymore or want something new and expensive they usually sell them. You can get great deals on used/refurbished ones. I think I mentioned it before in this thread but my D3100 was a factory refurbished one and it is awesome. If no one told me I would have never known it wasn't new. I would recommend always either handling the actual used camera you plan to buy and looking it over, or getting something certified by the manufacturer like I did, comes with bulletproof workmanship warranties that way. I saved a ton of money that way, I got my D3100 for $379.00. New ones on amazon were going for in the $500.00's

The camera was a gift from my significant other. I wont be returning it. Ill learn with it as it does have a few things. No manual setting, but lots of preset settings that apparently do change the aperture and shutter speed. ISO speed is fully adjustable from 80 to 1600. Not sure if i can use any filters with it.

Reading from reviews people call this a "bridge" camera. As in a point and shoot that's advanced enough to be used when a DSLR isn't necessary, or too bulky to carry around.

I do own a few of the cheaper Canon EF-S lenses, but they just sit in the Drawer with my old Rebel XS.

What would you be willing to let the body and one or two of the lenses go for?

I see a lot of low end DSLR's on ebay for cheap, like the D40 going for $200 all day long. But seems like going way down to 6.1mp is a step backwards, even though its more adjustable. I know megapixels aren't everything. The D3000 looks like a much better choice.

 

[SteveSC]

Doon't be concerned with megapixels. Buy a decent camera and spend a little more on the lens. Digital cameras now become obsolete so fast it isn't worth worrying about pixels. The lens is the key to getting better pictures and you keep the lenses forever. Save a few hundred on whatever body you're looking at and spend the extra on better lenses or just one good lens. All camera componaies are in a megapixel race now. Go to dpreview, ken rockwell, lenstip or another good site and read about the cameras before you buy. Go to a store and pick one up, see how it feels in your hand. Try out the system for operating the camera if you can. If you prefer the layout and ease of use of one system go for that brand. Most photography stores have used departments and won't have a problem of letting you try it out in the store. Better yet some places will rent you the camera and lens for a day or weekend. It would be better to spend $100 on a rental than find out you don't like using the camera you bought!

 

[LS4me]

What do you professionals think of the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS. I'm not a professional but do take long distance sots. This is at the top of my price range.

 

[Alax7]

Not a pro but ill chime in anyways. Its not a dslr like the big boys around here are using so don't expect dslr quality but it should take great pictures. Once you use that for a while you can always jump into the dslr game and start buying different lenses if you feel you need more picture quality. I've been using a Nikon beefy point and shoot, also has "super zoom" which is cool to have sometimes if you have a tripod. Its similar to the cannon you posted, on the near future I'll get a dslr, nothing serious just entry level.

 

[LS4me]

Not a pro but ill chime in anyways. Its not a dslr like the big boys around here are using so don't expect dslr quality but it should take great pictures. Once you use that for a while you can always jump into the dslr game and start buying different lenses if you feel you need more picture quality. I've been using a Nikon beefy point and shoot, also has "super zoom" which is cool to have sometimes if you have a tripod. Its similar to the cannon you posted, on the near future I'll get a dslr, nothing serious just entry level.

If I really want to get serious I will probably just use my Canon T50. I can't ever see paying the price DSLRs cost!! I am now leaning heavily towards the Panasonic Lumix FZ70.