Cannon Vs Nikon DSLR - which to pick?

[Maxf]

Hi guys,

I know this tends to be an emotive topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I used to own a Nikon D70, but sold it a couple of years ago and am only now getting round to buying another.

I'm not sure which way to go though...

Nikon lenses (VR lenses in particular vs IS) used to be more expensive than the Canon equivalent, but the Nikon bodies seemed a bit more 'solid' (in 05 when I bought my D70). So, what is current thinking on nikon vs canon?

I notice some D80 kits now come with VR lenses, which I'm sure a couple of years ago would have cost much more - is that the case or am I remembering things incorrectly?

What kind of deal could I get for either Canon or Nikon with a lens/memory card/bag for say £7-800?

Thanks
Max

[GetCarter]

Speaking as a Nikon bod (and IMO) I have to say that Canon have been ahead of Nikon in that price band for quite a few years. Entry level Nikon seem to still hold the best kit and at the top level Nikon are at last as good as Canon.... but due to NOISE above 400 ISO, between £300 and £800 I'd still go for Canon (unless you have Nikkor lenses)

[Established 1984]

I did quite a bit of reading before spending about that much cash in October, and in the end for me it came down to preferring how the Canon (450d) felt in my hand.

I've been happy with my choice ever since, except the build quality of the kit lens which feels weak and a little cheap. If I could buy again I'd be tempted to budget for better glass straight away.

[VxDuncan]

GetCarter said:

Speaking as a Nikon bod (and IMO) I have to say that Canon have been ahead of Nikon in that price band for quite a few years. Entry level Nikon seem to still hold the best kit and at the top level Nikon are at last as good as Canon.... but due to NOISE above 400 ISO, between £300 and £800 I'd still go for Canon (unless you have Nikkor lenses)

Mr Get talks a lot of sense. I'm also a Nikon user and am of the opinion that at the lower end of the market Canon have the edge due to the D40/X/D60's lack of focus motor and the 40D being priced very low - the D80/90 have a lot to compete with. I feel above that it's Nikons game - with the D300 and D700 being cheaper than the 50D/5D mk2, and just as well regarded, then there's the D3...

At that budget I'd be pushing for a 40D (don't like the small viewfinder of the 400/450D and it's too small in your hands), and something like the sigma 18-50 F2.8. That would be a lovely setup.

[scott.s]

I've just got a used Nikon D80 and i love it, but i know nothing about cameras and use it on auto.

What i do know is that it feels great the this bunch in Pistonheads helped me make the right choice.

[Simpo Two]

If budget is limited I wouldn't be beguiled by VR/IS lenses. They can be beneficial in some instances but consider your likely need before splashing out the extra. For example, they're of little use to me because I mostly photograph people, and VR/IS won't stop them moving!

[Maxf]

Simpo Two said:

If budget is limited I wouldn't be beguiled by VR/IS lenses. They can be beneficial in some instances but consider your likely need before splashing out the extra. For example, they're of little use to me because I mostly photograph people, and VR/IS won't stop them moving!

The VR/IS really stems from my Nikon days when I was struggling to take decent panning shots, especially at LeMans. The cost at the time of the lenses made them prohibitive, but they seem to be much more reasonable now.

In terms of what I photograph - landscapes, cityscapes, buildings, cars (of course), people are probably a distant 5th and I will probably never take a posed shot.

I wish I could say that budget was unlimited, but of course it is. It is 'flexible' though, for the right kit.

I've been looking at the 50D or 40D, although from what I have read the 40D is only marginally less of a camera, despite the considerable price difference. I'm on holiday tomorrow so will go and stake out Jessops - does anyone know if they are doing deals at the moment?

[Andy M]

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

[VxDuncan]

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod576.html
Agree the comments above - I'm not a big fan of the new breed of cheap IS / VR lenses. It seems it is marketing driven more than anything. It seems the manufacturers have found a way to get people to pay extra for cheap, slow, plasticy glass by adding the magic letters. You would be far better off with the additional creative scope, optical and build quality of a fast F2.8 lens than a cheap consumer zoom with IS/VR. Yes it will give you a few extra stops, but the longer shutter speeds is a major issue. I can however understand the advantages on the longer glass, but as before I say it should be optics first, electronics second.

[GravelBen]

GetCarter said:

Speaking as a Nikon bod (and IMO) I have to say that Canon have been ahead of Nikon in that price band for quite a few years. Entry level Nikon seem to still hold the best kit and at the top level Nikon are at last as good as Canon.... but due to NOISE above 400 ISO, between £300 and £800 I'd still go for Canon (unless you have Nikkor lenses)

Unless you're going for a D90 (not sure if its in that price range over there), as it gets the same sensor as the D300. ISO1600 on my mates D90 was better than ISO400 on my D80.

[SamHH]

VxDuncan said:

Agree the comments above - I'm not a big fan of the new breed of cheap IS / VR lenses. It seems it is marketing driven more than anything. It seems the manufacturers have found a way to get people to pay extra for cheap, slow, plasticy glass by adding the magic letters. You would be far better off with the additional creative scope, optical and build quality of a fast F2.8 lens than a cheap consumer zoom with IS/VR. Yes it will give you a few extra stops, but the longer shutter speeds is a major issue. I can however understand the advantages on the longer glass, but as before I say it should be optics first, electronics second.

I think that although optical stabilisation systems don't do the same thing as bigger apertures, they do have their benefits and shouldn't be written off. The best ones apparently allow handheld shooting at shutter speeds 4 stops slower, and while they won't necessarily help for moving subjects, they also won't leave you with the very small DOF that a f/1.4 lens would, nor do they cost anything like as much as most f1.4 lenses, nor require you to stick to one focal length. "Optics first, electronics second" might have merit, but actually being able to get the photo in the first place is surely more important.

Edited by SamHH on Sunday 15th February 23:18

[Ravell]

SamHH said:

...and while they won't necessarily help for moving subjects.

Actualy, the latest version of Nikon's VR lenses can tell when you're doing a panning shot and will disble the axis on the VR system not needed. Don't know if the cheaper kit lenses have the save Vr system like that, and no doubt Canon will have something similar on some or all of their IS lenses.

At the end of the day, IMO, it comes down to what camera feels right in your hands. It's fairly pointless going for either brand simply for the features as both are so closely matched, unless you want to do something really specific with the camera. The ergonomics and menu structure will largely remain the same from one generation to the next, so it you're buying into one brand and find out the operation or feel of the camera feels akward to you, you'll have to sell all the gear to start over with the other. Not an easy choice when you've got quite a few lenses you'd have to get rid of too.

[mikee boy]

Read the professional reviews and take their advice.

Want to hear how great I think my Canon system is although I've never touched Nikon? No, didn't think so.

[Maxf]

mikee boy said:

Read the professional reviews and take their advice.

Want to hear how great I think my Canon system is although I've never touched Nikon? No, didn't think so.

I'm a real cynic when it comes to 'professional reviews' as they virtually all rely on advertising to an extent and are reluctant to bite the hand which feeds! I posted to get a grip on the tangible differences, which I knew all about a few years ago when I chose Nikon, but wondered if several years on the differences had changed - which it seems they have.

[Kermit power]

VxDuncan said:

At that budget I'd be pushing for a 40D (don't like the small viewfinder of the 400/450D and it's too small in your hands).

I think this proves just how subjective any advice you're likely to get on here will be. I looked at the 40D and the 450D, and one of the biggest reasons I went for the latter was the very fact that it is smaller. To me, the 40D felt like a house brick, and considering the fact that it has exactly the same size sensor, I just couldn't see any need for it to be as big as it is.

Duncan on the other hand clearly prefers that size, so just make sure you try both first!

[Don]

As far as I can tell Canon and Nikon are constantly improving and leapfrogging one another with this or that aspect of quality and technology. It would appear to me that you can spend a similar amount with either company and get a truly great camera. Hard to go wrong, really.

[PPPPPP]

Don said:

As far as I can tell Canon and Nikon are constantly improving and leapfrogging one another with this or that aspect of quality and technology. It would appear to me that you can spend a similar amount with either company and get a truly great camera. Hard to go wrong, really.

Absolutely - Sony, Olympus, Panasonic also make great gear, but may not have the cachet & flexibility of the Nikon/Canon range. If I did not have my investment in Nikon lenses, I would consider the alternatives.

Edited by PPPPPP on Tuesday 17th February 09:34

[GlenMH]

It also depends on how big your hands are...

I prefer the controls etc of Nikon but the hand grip is too small. Canon have a bigger hand grip but the ergonomics are not so good for me.

Choices, choices!

[Simpo Two]

mikee boy said:

Read the professional reviews and take their advice.

That's a good start but the thing about reviews is that you get the reviewer's opinion, which may not be the same as yours.

It's hard before you buy a complex thing like a DSLR to know which parts of it your're going to use, or what you'll end up doing most with it, or which features are vital to you and which ones are inconsequential. For example, I never use the AF-ON button - in my book it's a waste of perfectly good button and prime space - yet others swear by it. Yet the D300 will not (easily) give me a decent-size histogram!

[GravelBen]

GlenMH said:

It also depends on how big your hands are...

I prefer the controls etc of Nikon but the hand grip is too small. Canon have a bigger hand grip but the ergonomics are not so good for me.

Choices, choices!

Funny - I found that the other way, Canon handgrip (on 350d/400d) felt too small and square but Nikon D50/D80 were about right. Just goes to show you should try them both before buying!

Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 18th February 03:45