Canon vs. Nikon

jreeceaspen

Thirsty
Hey all,

I'm very new to DSLR, had a old Nikon F body with a few lens but that was back in highschool. I think I was more worried about the babes in the class than photography itself. I know about Nikon's and don't know squat about Canon, never owned one. I have some Canon digital color equipment where I work and it rocks, but camera's are a whole different thing. So, here is the question. I'm looking a buying a Canon Rebel XT and want to do mostly underwater close up shots, but also use it for the family too. I'm wondering first of all if a 75-300 telephoto lens is going to go macro enough for underwater reef tank photos. 2nd question, would you spend the extra coin and buy a Nikon (I have read a lot of posts lately and I think I'm going to get the "I like Nikon" and "I like Canon" but they should be about the same quality right / I'm not looking for perfection)? I just see Canon being a good product and Nikon seems to be much more pricey. Don't pound on me, I'm just looking for a helping hand for a newbie to photography.

Thx
 
Just read the post on what lens. I can figure that out from here, just hook me up with some thoughts on brands please.
Thx
 
I don't think there is much difference between Nikons and Canons. Lots of opinions, but not many meaningful differences.
 
the debate between nikon and canons will never stop just because some people are die hard fans (i know a few). Im a canon shooter and i love the way the canon camera feels in my hand, when using a nikon i have to constantly look out of the view finder to find the shutter button. both systems are very capable at doing what they are built to do and if you still by any chance have those old nikon gear from in the old days left over they will most likely still fit on the current nikon mounts, given you will not get the AF nor will you get the metering. go to a store and handle some of the camera bodys and see which one you feel more comfortable holding.
 
Cool, thanks. How do you feel about the lens, 70-300? I see the ratio is 1:4 and I think for what I'm trying to do this will work
 
The 70-300 is a consumer grade lens and it's mediocre. The 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) is a great bargain and is razor sharp. Need a little more reach? add a 1.4TC and you're still better off than the 70-300.
 
I am a Nikon fan. I would not change, I have too many lens for by F & F4 that will fit any Nikon DSLR, that's something Canon cannot say. Canon has had 3 different lens mount in my lifetime, Nikon 1.

If I was starting over with no lens, Leica would be my choice in 35mm, otherwise there is a nice Hasselblad that I would not mind having.
 
I like Canon. From what I have read they have a better (quality, range, and speed wise) lens line up and for less $$$ too. I also feel Canon's ergonomics are better, but I have been shooting Canon a long time so it may just be that I am used to it. i ahve read that some Nikon features are sweet like auto adjusting ISO on the fly instead of F-stop or shutter speed.

That being said I am Canon all the way. To the best of my Knowledge the good quality "L" lenses have the mount I need for the better bodies so it doesn't matter to me that they have an older mount with no automation or a special mount for cropped sensor bodies that I won't use anyway.

just my 2 cents and thoughts.
 
So it goes. Nikon here. I've "never" held a Canon, so I can't comment on them. I use a D200 and probably won't change for awhile. I went Nikon because of owning older lenses that fit the body. That being said, those older lenses are gone now. They were of the newer AF-S variety, and when I had a D40, they were ok. When I stepped up to the D200, the lenses didn't seem to balance well on the body, at least to me. I went backwards and picked up some older AF lenses which "feel" better to me. That being said those AF-S lenses were of the consumer variety and now I'm looking at the more pro type lenses, and some will be of the AF-S, such as the 70-200 f/2.8. You need to look at whether you will be willing to spend close to 2.5 grand for something like this.

I think the first thing you need to think about is where you plan on going with your photography. You can do well with the consumer lenses and a consumer type body. You can do better with a consumer body with pro lenses. The feel may not be that good though. With a good body and the faster lenses you can be great if you put the time into it.

IMO, if I was starting fresh, I'd go Canon.

Shut up!!!!! :lol:
 
In my experience:

Nikon makes great cameras - its their only business and they've been doing it along time. Before digital Nikon was the king, but Canon took the early lead and held it until recently in the digital realm. Now both make perfect cameras for getting great images. Its much more the photographer than the camera.

Nikons bodies feel better, they're more ergonimic, and feel natural. They are now legendary (and i've heard the shape is patented), the bodies also feel more substantial and sturdier - no contest IMO in this area.

Lenses: Canon wins in this department. They have better lens in the mid-grade department than Nikon. Both low end lens are comparable, Nikon makes better pro glass IMO.

Price: It seems Canon normally wins this race. If price is most important go with canon. You wont regret it. That being said there are some Nikkor lens I love so much that I'd always have to have a Nikon body around to use.

Either way you are going to get great piece of hardware plenty capable enough of taking incredible pictures with proper technique and eye.
 
I'm kind of looking at a good deal right now, but it's a Canon with those two lenses. If you don't think the 70-300 is the way to go than I might look for another body. The Nikon's might be out of my range right now, unfortunately. I think I could tinker with the Rebel XT and get what I need. Now, the million dollar question:

How are you all so successful at underwater photos? Are you building your own boxes that fit your lenses or are you actually buying underwater cases. I have acrylic bow front, so getting those crisp non-scratch AGA pics from outside aren't really going to work for me. This tank is over 9 years old and some scratches along the way. I guess I care more about the health of the animals than the scratches (yet, I have a empty cube 36x36x30 about to start pumping water in the next few weeks). Here are my pics of that and the bow. I could use my scratch remover kits, but time is tight these days.
 
Opps, pics:

1 yr ago when I completed ripped it apart and started over for SPS and high end animals. The mushrooms had taken over and ric's too:
http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp22/aspeng101/PICT0052.jpg[/IMG

New cube:
[IMG]http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp22/aspeng101/Cubism/PICT0146.jpg

PICT0025-1.jpg


PICT0022.jpg


PICT0024.jpg
 
2 yrs ago, jammed and out of control:

PICT0027.jpg


1 yr ago, ripped it down and started from scratch:

PICT0040.jpg


Started to dial it in:
PICT0062.jpg


To give you size idea:
PICT0039.jpg
 
Nikons bodies feel better, they're more ergonimic, and feel natural. They are now legendary (and i've heard the shape is patented), the bodies also feel more substantial and sturdier - no contest IMO in this area.

I'd argue that point. During winter workshops we almost always have a camera or two go down due to moisture; it's always the Nikons. Ergonomics is a personal thing but Nikon has a tough time in weather unless you're talking about a pro body.

Canon, on the other hand does just fine. Here's a fun little testimonial. Pay special attention to the last picture. :lol:

http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-1-weather-sealing/
 
Now, tonight (see, it's either blue or washed out white. I have some sweet acans and things and can't take a pic to save my life LOL and I'm sure you will all agree. I hate these P&S cameras, the suck / It's a Konica DIMAGE and it need some help it's old):

That Vlamingi in the front sits in my hand:
PICT0031.jpg


That bright red blasto is incredible, but yet I can't get a pic to show you:
PICT0032-1.jpg

PICT0034.jpg

PICT0033.jpg


I hope I haven't bored anyone. I could really use some tips and help, but I'm assuming this piece of junk is half the problem. I'm pretty quick and pretty smart, yet these P&S's don't do me any good.

How do you remove the blue and the washed out white, what's the trick. I'm sure you can't achieve it with this brick.

Thanks! Don't laugh to hard at my pics, does it count if I'm drinking beers?
 
That acan on the right is my Avatar and looks that good in my tank, but not with this Konica (we had a Konica Bushub at my shop and the thing was the biggest hunk of junk, wish I knew that a few years back:-)
 
Pay special attention to the last picture. :lol:

That last pic is a hoot!!!! :lmao: I also agree. I'd worry about the lower end Nikon bodies. Having owned both types, at least the D40 is very cheap. You can tell the difference when you pick up a D200. I've had my 200 in the rain many times with no problems. My D40 had trouble with the display the one time I had it in a light rain, though it did clear up after.
 
Back
Top