Canon vs. Nikon

I just visited the B&H site, finally working from the long holiday. The Nikon D200 is on rebate for $1705 and that's a decent price, actually. But since this is a CANON forum, I'd have to say, invest in the $1300 30D and you'll have many more happy choices for lenses and accessories. Get the 30D and 50 1.4 for less than the D200 and there you go! Don't wait for the next best thing, you'll be disappointed in about 8 months when the next best thing comes out. Be happy with what you get when you get it.

Livinthalife wrote in post #3022019
Just figured I would add to the fight with these!

what did u do to those pop up flashes??

Billginthekeys wrote in post #3022519
what did u do to those pop up flashes??

Son of a gun, I never used the pop-up flash on my 30D and didn't notice. until you mentioned it, something is different.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #3022519
what did u do to those pop up flashes??

It's supposed to be expression like they are angry

check ou the hoods, I gave them little teeth too

My father-in-law is a amateur photog that uses nothing but Nikon/Nikkor. He takes some of the best landscapes I've ever seen; better than most I've seen on this website. He has been selling 11x14 prints, and they look great. All this with a D50 and the kit lens. He recently upgraded to a D200 with a slightly better lens, I can't wait to see the results!

One thing that I like about the Medium/high end Nikons, is that they get shutter speeds up to 1/8000, though most of them don't have ISO 1600.

I have a nikon pen given to me at a convention. So I should be able to join the Nikon Forum! whoohoo!!!

T Kubik wrote in post #3022590
One thing that I like about the Medium/high end Nikons, is that they get shutter speeds up to 1/8000, though most of them don't have ISO 1600.

only the rebels have 1/4000th limit on the shutter speed. all other canon's have 8000" or faster.

I have read reviews on the D80 that states that the ISO noise is much better than previous models and that it is "catching" up to Canon in that area.

As far as the build, I do like Nikon's build.
They feel solid as the 30D.

For me low light performance is key. And I'd like to believe that Canon still has the advantage in the ISO noise department. Plus they don't yet have a FF DSLR, however I'm sure it is just a matter of time.

D200 looks very nice as well.

The one thing I like about Canon is the current lineup of lenses. (for example the 70-200 f4 IS with 4 stops IS for around $1k)

Michael1116 wrote in post #3022221
Hmmmm, let me think on that one awhile......

Nikon, the official camera of the NY Mets.

Aren't those white lens I see there? any possibility to have an enlarged photo for a better look?

As for the question, the 30D and D200 is probably two best choice to decide from. The D80 is very similar to the D70 except uses SD cards not sure why the change of media different from their lineup.

Michael1116 wrote in post #3022221
Hmmmm, let me think on that one awhile......

Nikon, the official camera of the NY Mets.

lol. "Unofficially", all those cameras being used are canons.

dpastern wrote in post #3020848
This is most certainly not true - I have posted on their forums (admittedly not much) and I don't have a Nikon, and listed that I didn't have a Nikon when I registered the account. Please, at least be accurate in what what you're saying.

Nikon vs Canon. Tough one. My experiences have taught me several things:

1. Nikon has better metering and flash metering
2. Nikon has better flash units
3. Canon has better IQ, but more so at higher ISO levels. Up to ISO 400, it's very close.
4. Canon has better AF - on the 1 series cameras. On the consumer camers, it's pretty close in all honesty.
5. Nikon has slightly better low light autofocus, there's not that much in it as far as I'm concerned.

Ergonomics are a pint a dozen, what is one man's love, is another man's hate.

Accessories - both units offer a fair number of items.

Cost - Nikon is probably more cost competitive in the lower end of the market, with the D40/D40s/D50/D70/D70s/​D80 units (with the older D70 unit still being available from many places).

I think in the long term, Canon will win in terms of outright performance and IQ, especially given what Canon is releasing with the 1D Mark III. Whether the others can catch up, let alone beat Canon technology wise is a good question.

In the end, get into the camera store and play with all of these cameras and get a feel for them.

Dave

Lord_malone might disagree with you about that.

Benandbobbi wrote in post #3023032
lol. "Unofficially", all those cameras being used are canons.

Another one for you sports fans. I think this was taken at the Olympics

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Michael1116 wrote in post #3022221
Hmmmm, let me think on that one awhile......

Nikon, the official camera of the NY Mets.

I assume that "hmmm" was directed at my comments on lenses.

Although Nikon does make white lenses, I don't think that this is what we are seeing in the image you posted. In fact, I don't think that there is a single Nikon camera in the Nikon box. If I'm mistaken, I apologize, but I don't think so. You do see an occaisional Nikon add at a major sporting event, by far and away its Canon that dominates the major sports. In fact, I just watched a Yankees game this weekend and there was a huge Canon billboard in the picture a good deal of the time.

All of that said... I don't shoot MLB. If I did, then I may not care about things like high ISO performance and such.... since the sport is either played in broad daylight, or under powerful lights...either way the lighting is sufficient for f/2.8 shooting. I shoot youth and high school. I've yet to find a youth or high school team that has lights comparible to an MLB stadium.

And, what I was saying was that most of the Nikon Telezooms don't have VR. On the Canon side, the 300, 400, 500, and 600 are all IS. I think the only one that is from Nikon is the 300. Then of course, you can nail me on the fact that Nikon has a 200 f/2 VR, while Canon doesn't currenly have a comparible lens. True, but there is an ample supply of used 200 f/1.8 lenses out there which do the job... although no IS.

We could go on and on with this, and I doubt it will help the original poster. I was simply trying to say that BOTH Nikon and Canon have lenses that the other side doesn't have.... which is why I asked the original poster what his requirements were in another post. If he will never own a 400 f/2.8 lens then its kind of irrelevant.

convergent wrote in post #3023084
I assume that "hmmm" was directed at my comments on lenses.

Although Nikon does make white lenses, I don't think that this is what we are seeing in the image you posted. In fact, I don't think that there is a single Nikon camera in the Nikon box. If I'm mistaken, I apologize, but I don't think so. You do see an occaisional Nikon add at a major sporting event, by far and away its Canon that dominates the major sports. In fact, I just watched a Yankees game this weekend and there was a huge Canon billboard in the picture a good deal of the time.

All of that said... I don't shoot MLB. If I did, then I may not care about things like high ISO performance and such.... since the sport is either played in broad daylight, or under powerful lights...either way the lighting is sufficient for f/2.8 shooting. I shoot youth and high school. I've yet to find a youth or high school team that has lights comparible to an MLB stadium.

And, what I was saying was that most of the Nikon Telezooms don't have VR. On the Canon side, the 300, 400, 500, and 600 are all IS. I think the only one that is from Nikon is the 300. Then of course, you can nail me on the fact that Nikon has a 200 f/2 VR, while Canon doesn't currenly have a comparible lens. True, but there is an ample supply of used 200 f/1.8 lenses out there which do the job... although no IS.

We could go on and on with this, and I doubt it will help the original poster. I was simply trying to say that BOTH Nikon and Canon have lenses that the other side doesn't have.... which is why I asked the original poster what his requirements were in another post. If he will never own a 400 f/2.8 lens then its kind of irrelevant.

No apology needed. My posting the Nikon box in Shea Stadium with all the Canon cameras was a bit of sarcasm!

Michael1116 wrote in post #3023105
No apology needed. My posting the Nikon box in Shea Stadium with all the Canon cameras was a bit of sarcasm!

is that a Nikon in the lower right hand corner?