Nikon vs. Canon

[Delphinus]

I like (and have) both.

Although I wish that were true of DSLR's. Only have a Nikon DSLR, and that's because I've got lenses going back to 1990 or so when I bought my first Nikon SLR, back then a 35mm. The lenses work fine for me and would cost a fortune to replace them all to Canon. So I'm "stuck" with Nikon but I don't mind it in the least.

Do wish I had the FX sensor though. One day .. one day.

[Ross]

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography.
... and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Ryan

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

Agree with Mark, image stabilizers will do absolutely nothing in relation to a moving subject and the MP relation makes no sense. You need a new camera guy

[MarkoD]

Originally Posted by Ross

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

Yeah the crop factor is the focal lenth.

100mm lens on a 1.6 is 160mm focal length. So 1/160

[JrdBen]

Lol, I wasn't expecting to jump into the forums so fast. Still reading tons of threads while I wait for my tank to arrive . However photography is near and dear to me.

Originally Posted by MarkoD

mega pixels and image stabilization are unrelated. image stabilization is important when the light is low and you need to use a longer shutter speed.

also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography. generally when shooting action a high shutter speed is used. and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

Very true.
When IS/VR was first becoming more mainstream (incorporated into more lenses and bodies) I used to get a chuckle at the marketing ads. They often portrayed moving subjects and the "claim" clearer/sharper images. The one I remember most was of a dog (Border Collie I think) jumping into the air and the shooter capturing the hang time
No "IS" sample showed an image of a leaping dog suffering motion blur
With "IS" sample showed a tack sharp dog.
wonderful marketing play to peoples heart strings to open their purse strings. I hope that marketing exec got a good bonus that year

Originally Posted by Ross

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Yeah the crop factor is the focal lenth.

100mm lens on a 1.6 is 160mm focal length. So 1/160

Not "technically" accurate but yes true enough. The resulting image gives you the "same" field of view as though shot with a focal length of 160mm, which isn't quite the same as if it were shot at 160mm. If your at the back of a room, 30 feet from a large window (full frame sensor) and someone then removes the larger window and installs a window half the size (a smaller sensor) all thats changed is how much you see through the window (hence "cropped")...the window itself is still 30feet away. A crop sensor really just has a smaller frame and doesn't "increase" focal length in the most common understanding ("magnification")

To the original comment by Ryan.
Depending on the body itself, it could very well be newer technology as to why it takes as good or better images. Too many people get caught up in MP counts. Canon (and I believe Nikon as well) have finally come to realize that more isn't always better. The flagship "PnS" the G series, they've reduced the MPs from 12MP (G10 I believe) back to 10MP (G11) understanding that there are limits and that you can get a cleaner/better image, especially when dealing with even smaller sensors as found in PnSs.

While not entirely accurate (there are subtle benefits to more MP) for the most part, the average person really doesn't need more than 8MP. Ive got 19x13 prints from my "old" 8MP 1Dmkii that stand up very well against my 17MP files. For the average person who would most likely most often print nothing larger than 8.5x11 and 8MP file is plenty. I have more covers shot with my MKii (8MP) than I do with my mkiv (17MP).

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Someone mentioned the D700, just a heads up, the new (D800?) will be coming out in spring 2012 and probably be in the same price range, maybe a few hundred more. I wouldn't buy a D700 right now unless its used. I think there is a big shortage anyways because of the Tsunami in Japan. I know the Tsunami delayed the D800 (if that is the new model number as expected).

For what I like to call an almost professional Nikon body, the D7000 is amazing. I don't think you can beat it with a Canon for performance AND price ($1099 body only). I haven't seen a Canon in that price range that can compete. I hate the comparisons it always gets to the D700 because its like comparing apples and oranges. The D700 is FX and D7000 is DX BUT I have seen them compared side by side and was very impressed. The D7000 starts to loose out in lower light though.

One advantage of the D7000 is the glass cost. DX lenses are much cheaper.

My wife uses the D7000 as a back up body (professionally) and I use it for fun...I accidentally had it the other day shooting my aquarium when she was suppose to have it on set for a shoot lol. Luckily she didn't need it. I'm not allowed to touch her expensive body.

LOL I just realized how that sounds...

[fishykisses]

i've had both and both have their pro's and cons.
I find my Nikon doesn't take the greatest indoor shots - everything comes out a bit yellow but the Macro kicks it!
Canon didn't take the greatest macro shots but it really never took a bad indoor shot.
I think Nikon by far takes the best photo's in natural light!

[MarkoD]

Originally Posted by fishykisses

i've had both and both have their pro's and cons.
I find my Nikon doesn't take the greatest indoor shots - everything comes out a bit yellow but the Macro kicks it!
Canon didn't take the greatest macro shots but it really never took a bad indoor shot.
I think Nikon by far takes the best photo's in natural light!

Are you comparing point and shoots or dslrs?

[Delphinus]

Originally Posted by GreenSpottedPuffer

Someone mentioned the D700, just a heads up, the new (D800?) will be coming out in spring 2012 and probably be in the same price range, maybe a few hundred more. I wouldn't buy a D700 right now unless its used. I think there is a big shortage anyways because of the Tsunami in Japan. I know the Tsunami delayed the D800 (if that is the new model number as expected).

For what I like to call an almost professional Nikon body, the D7000 is amazing. I don't think you can beat it with a Canon for performance AND price ($1099 body only). I haven't seen a Canon in that price range that can compete. I hate the comparisons it always gets to the D700 because its like comparing apples and oranges. The D700 is FX and D7000 is DX BUT I have seen them compared side by side and was very impressed. The D7000 starts to loose out in lower light though.

One advantage of the D7000 is the glass cost. DX lenses are much cheaper.

My wife uses the D7000 as a back up body (professionally) and I use it for fun...I accidentally had it the other day shooting my aquarium when she was suppose to have it on set for a shoot lol. Luckily she didn't need it. I'm not allowed to touch her expensive body.

LOL I just realized how that sounds...

That was probably me who brought up the D700. I'd like one because of the sensor and the minimal (har har har) price tag (comparitively) but at still more than twice the price of the D7000 it is basically never going to happen for me.

I agree the D7000 is pretty nice.

But you mentioned getting the D700 used ... and well, trust me, I've looked into this and it's a non-starter. Maybe on account of the shortage or whatever, the price of a used D700 is ridiculous. I am seeing $2400 for the D700 body retail (new, for the stores that have one kicking around) and around $2100 for used with several tens of thousands of shutter actuations. Umm no thanks. Given that the D700 is also behind the curve on a few bells and whistles (2008 vintage) compared to 2011 models, you're paying for the sensor, and, it would seem, paying through the nose. Crazy.

[jostafew]

Not exactly answering the original question but I'd like to pose an alternative; Pentax. Stabilization is in the body so you don't re-buy it with every lense, any Pentax lense going back to the dawn of time will work with a modern body, and for the price the feature set is very good. I looked at the T3i, D5100, and K-R and ultimatly chose the Pentax. The K-5 is an excellent camera as well but I was on a pretty tight budget.

Getting back to the original topic, it's been mentioned above but I'd have to agree that the modern cameras are pretty decent and that the photographer will play a much bigger role in the resulting photos then the hardware itself. Feature sets will differ a little so your choice will probably come down to which features you find most valuable (video features, burst speeds, etc.) and trivial as it may sound, how the camera feels in hand. I had to drop the T3i from my list for that reason! Go to the camera shop to touch and feel the candidates, and have a good think about what kind of shooting you want to do. That should help you decide.