Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, you've got it! He's been a professional since the dawn of time and said he started out with Nikon and just stuck with it.
Actually that's why he was so hyped up on the Nikon D90 system...because it comes with the lenses (it's the kit that's available through costco) that I would need for what I want to do. I still prefer the way the Canon 40D feels, but if I can't afford the lenses to get the job done, well.....
Thanks everyone for your responses. ~
Well, unfortunately this is like comparing apples to oranges. If you are serious about photography then I would skip the kit lenses from both companies. This is one one the first things people do once they get familiar with their new DSLR. They ditch the kit in favor of 'other' better quality lenses. Even third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron or Tokina are typically much better than the kit lens which is usually the cheapest, lowest end lens either company makes. And sure people can still take good pictures through coke bottles. But it takes more work under certain conditions and a trained hand and a lot more post processing. Even then it is never really as good.
Lenses typically suffer from many types of problems such as chromatic aberation, lack of sharpness, soft edges/corners, poor focusing mechanisms, barrel distortion, vignetting, dull color, poor aperture range (not good for lower light), poor build quality, etc... Even moderate consumer lenses from Tamron, Sigma or Tokina can be a big improvement over entry level kit lenses.
For the type of thing you are describing I think Canon will offer you more lenses at a better price when you consider the entire system. You will see more Canons used at sporting events because they are known for their focusing system for action. That is not to say Nikon doesn't have good lenses for this as well. But what Nikon is really known for are the wider angle lenses. The new Nikon 14-24 superwide for example is the sharpest WA zoom currently made. It is so good in fact that I know people who have Canon bodies who purchased a Nikon-to-Canon adapter just to be able to use that Nikon lens in manual mode on their Canon - its that good. But once you get to 35mm and above Canon really comes into its own as a leader.
So if you like the 40D I'd suggest getting it and then slowly building a quality lens set which will last for many years even beyond the 40D. For example I started with the 10D. I then bought a 70-200L f4. And now I use my 5DII with the same lens which works just as good today as it did 8 years ago when I first bought it.
I know this sounds harder initially. But the kit lens will be one of your first to go anyway. So just buy a body then research lenses separately. They are more important anyway.
The most important thing on the camera is not the lenses or the body but the artist or journalist behind the camera. I know a lot of people that have Canon 1D and lenses that cost more than 5.000$ only for shooting their children. System like that should bring you money.
The same result as they have I can achieve with the chipset DSLR system on the market. Check my new Photo Blog: AB OVO.
In general Nikon has better lenses but for a higher price. For my professional use I prefer Nikon.
This Cannon DSLR system I have bought in 2003 for approx 2.000$:
Camera: Canon 300D/Digital rebel
Lenses Canon kit lenses 18-55 - plastic fantastic
Lenses: Sigma 28-300 tele - very good around 200mm but criminal at 300mm
P.S.: In the Photo Blog AB OVO I will post pictures made only with this "ancient" system and with "plastic fantastic" lenses. For post processing I am using Gimp.
actually at the olympics this year i read nikon was the most widly used by professionals... the number of nikons outnumbered the canon shooters..
beats me how they could count such a thing but non the less both systems are as good as you can get.
im sure if i didnt start off with nikon and have all the lenses and stuff i would be just as happy with canon.
no matter which system i would pick the equipment would still be better then i am.
i use a nikon d300 with their pro 17-55mm f2.8 ,marilyn uses a d80 with the 18-200mm.. there is a cost difference between our gear of about 2x....
we cant tell who took what most of the time except for dim light shooting. in normal light if it wasnt for the numbering sequence the photos are every bit alike... even for action her vr on her cheaper lens is almost as good as my f2.8..
I hope you're enjoying your new camera, Felina! I'm going to go ahead and post my two cents, for the next person who comes along with this question.
Personally, I bought a Canon AE1 Program 35mm when they first came out in 1982. I used that poor Canon almost to death. It still works beautifully though.
I shot sports professionally for about 7-8 years, and we used Nikons (D1's and D1X and a couple of smaller ones) exclusively. We had some fabulous lenses, which make a huge difference in what you're able to capture in low light. At the time, I think the card was a massive 6mp, now cell phones have cameras with that kind of ability. The lenses make all the difference, however the largest 300mm we used for low light football and baseball was over $7K at the time. It was a monster, but it grabbed some beautiful images.
I also did a lot of studio portrait work for a guy who only had Canons, but he had about 6-7 different types. When we did on-site school portraits, it was super fast-paced, and we'd be grabbing cameras out of gang boxes and from each other on the fly.
I now have a Canon 1000D and I love it. I got the whole lens kit schmear from Abe's (and read extensively on DP Review before doing so, that is an EXCELLENT site for all kinds of info) which suits my (at this point) non-pro needs just fine. The point about lens kits was a good one, but writing off decent quality lenses that far exceed the average user's needs makes the initial hurdle too large - they aren't bad at all, for either company and the packages are sometimes a great deal.
The main difference I noticed between those two (both outstanding camera companies) was that the Nikon screen menus were much easier to navigate on the fly without manuals on hand (because those always disappeared with the boxes they came in). I could nudge and tweak the Nikon to its limits without ever having used it before. My experience with the Canons and my own personal Canon is much stickier, I can't ever seem to move around the screen, much less change or tweak or push things unless I pull out the manual. I didn't notice any other differences in quality of the photos or the cameras at either job. I love them both, and went with the Canon for my own use mainly based on the capability to price available at the time.
I have also used many, many other brands of cameras over the years, and IMO the optics of a dedicated camera company are always going to trump those of a company that is mainly focused on other electronics (ie Sony). I also liked the advice that if you have a knowledgeable friend who uses exclusively one or the other and is willing to give you tips and tricks and lend equipment, it might be worth it to go with the brand they use.
And I really, really like this:
"you gotta know when to be in the right place at the right time."
The most important thing on the camera is not the lenses or the body but the artist or journalist behind the camera. I know a lot of people that have Canon 1D and lenses that cost more than 5.000$ only for shooting their children. System like that should bring you money.
The same result as they have I can achieve with the chipset DSLR system on the market. Check my new Photo Blog: AB OVO.
In general Nikon has better lenses but for a higher price. For my professional use I prefer Nikon.
This Cannon DSLR system I have bought in 2003 for approx 2.000$:
Camera: Canon 300D/Digital rebel
Lenses Canon kit lenses 18-55 - plastic fantastic
Lenses: Sigma 28-300 tele - very good around 200mm but criminal at 300mm
P.S.: In the Photo Blog AB OVO I will post pictures made only with this "ancient" system and with "plastic fantastic" lenses. For post processing I am using Gimp.
I disagree with you in relation to which one has better lenses, since both produce lenses that are about the same. All depends on how much you want to spend, and which lens you want to buy. Nikon has some lenses that are highly regarded, and so does Canon. Professional photographers have been arguing about these lenses for years and years. One year Canon outdoes Nikon in one lens, and the in same year Nikon outdoes Canon on another lens, or body, etc.
actually at the olympics this year i read nikon was the most widly used by professionals... the number of nikons outnumbered the canon shooters..
beats me how they could count such a thing but non the less both systems are as good as you can get.
im sure if i didnt start off with nikon and have all the lenses and stuff i would be just as happy with canon.
no matter which system i would pick the equipment would still be better then i am.
i use a nikon d300 with their pro 17-55mm f2.8 ,marilyn uses a d80 with the 18-200mm.. there is a cost difference between our gear of about 2x....
we cant tell who took what most of the time except for dim light shooting. in normal light if it wasnt for the numbering sequence the photos are every bit alike... even for action her vr on her cheaper lens is almost as good as my f2.8..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
