choices, choices

91yota

New member
so at my son's 1st birthday party yesterday i got to play around with 2 different cameras... i'm somewhat in the market for a new camera right now so it was nice to have both of them there... cameras in question were a Canon XTI/400D and a Nikon D300... i dont know enough about either to make a choice at this point but what little time i got with them, i was impressed... any thoughts on these 2 models and their overall user-friendliness and capabilities?
 
Well that is a pretty mis-matched assessment. The Canon 400D (entry level) and the Nikon D300 (mid-level) are not in direct competition. The Canon 50D vs. Nikon D300 and Canon 450D vs. Nikon (D90?) would be comparing apples to apples. The Canon 50D and Nikon D90 win respectively IMO.

That said I'm a Canon freak...so I'm going with Canon. All of your answers are going to be judged in this manner. Nikon guys will say Nikon, Canon guys will say Canon.

Now keep in mind that DSLR's are very expensive. I think they could easily be expensive as a reef tank. Much like a reef, a Canon 50D is just an empty tank without the really importiant stuff. A skimmer, pumps, live rock, and lights all need to be purchased after the fact. Truly only 10% of the cost of your camera bag may be the camera itself. Must of my lenses by themselves are worth more than my camera. Then there are tripods (yes its necessary) and speed lights and all sorts of other accessories.

You may want to look at the Canon G10 as a well rounded and very capable point and shoot. Unlike the DSLR's, there won't be thousands of dollars worth of lenses left to buy.
 
The self professed bum on a surfboard is right, even though he called my 50D an empty tank. :eek1: Actually his analogy is pretty good. Much like early in my reef tank evolution, I have a large and expensive wish list for my camera gear.

Here's a short list of expenses you can look forward to. You can apply different price ranges (low, medium, high), but the structure of the list will be pretty similar regardless of budget. For example, let's say you get the totally awesome camera back you've been drooling over. Great. You're not taking pictures yet.

You need a lens. Not want. Need. There are a number of choices and price ranges depending on what you want to accomplish. I prioritized a macro lens because I have this insane desire to take close ups of my corals. Lucky for me, the lens I chose wasn't as much as my dSLR, but now I've spent 50% more than the already massive dSLR purchase before I've even taken my first picture.

And you'll probably want a filter on the end of the lens for protection if nothing else. And a lens hood to keep the light out.

You'll want an extra battery or two because batteries always die right before the perfect shot gets captured.

You need a tripod to put the camera on. You don't want to put your high dollar dSLR on a bent coat hanger, so add a couple hundred for a stout tripod.

And you don't want to be blurring your pics when you press the shutter release so you'll need a remote shutter release.

And you'll need some sort of bag or case to lug your gear around.

In my case I've now spent about the same on a lens and various minimal accessories as I did on my expensive dSLR back.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a happy coral close up taking guy. But I'd like to take pictures at a party. My macro lens is not well suited for that. The "walking around" lens I want costs as much as my expensive dSLR back. Now at 300% of original purchase price.

And it's dark at the party, so I'll need a flash. And the flash needs a battery pack.

Oh, and I'd like to take pictures of that beautiful bird on that tree over there. Add another dSLR purchase price for some type of telephoto lens. I am now approaching roughly 500% of my original purchase price. Basically equipped but poor. And I don't even have any of the more advanced accessories, like light meters, wireless remote flash sync setups, light diffusers, etc.

And then there's image manipulation software for post processing after image capture.

Get the picture? ;)
 
Last edited:
thanks for the info guys... i unfortunately fully realize the costs associated (well as much as someone who hasnt yet taken the leap can anyway)... nevetheless, i cant shake the desire to have a better camera :)

P&S cameras always have, and i believe always will, come up short for me... they are great for their intended purposes of taking snap shots of the family and being compact and ultra portable but you pay the price in image quality... i have quickly outgrown our newest P&S and we just got it for x-mas... i hate the limitations of the glass and not even having the option to switch it out pi**es me off... i know now more than ever that lenses are specialty items tailored to specific purposes... P&S doesnt address this and that is one of my major gripes

fwiw, ive always *thought* that i liked canons better, until playing with the nikon the other day... now im completely torn between the 2... i'm more familiar with canon software and menus but the nikon felt better in my hands...

ive read a lot of good reviews on the G10... in the end, i just dont think i'd be happy long term with it though... i may be wrong though...

btw... my current P&S is a Samsumg BL103... i can get decent tank shots with it so long as the subject is close... in the end, i'm still not happy with it though... here are some samples fwiw

a4c985fc.jpg


7f585ea4.jpg


e23146c6.jpg
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14354581#post14354581 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 91yota
fwiw, ive always *thought* that i liked canons better, until playing with the nikon the other day... now im completely torn between the 2... i'm more familiar with canon software and menus but the nikon felt better in my hands...

Nikon and Canon hold most of the dslr market share, and for the most part you can't go wrong with either brand. However if Nikon "felt better" in your hands, then that's what you buy. There's no point in buying a certain brand if you DON'T enjoy taking pictures with it!

If your budget allows, get a D300 body, or a D90 if you're on a budget. Unlike corals and fishes that can bleach and die, Nikkor glass always hold their value, so in a way it's an investment. I can't say the same thing about my SPS..lol

The D300 is solid. Fires 6fps and up to 8fps with En-EL4a and MB-D10 grip. Magnesium alloy body, AF fine tune, 51pt autofocus, etc etc.. It's a solid body and I'm sure you'll be very happy with it. I like the 9-frame EV bracketing for HDR.. here's a sample shot:

hdr1.jpg


Here's my rig:

d300.jpg


good luck choosing!
 
Last edited:
91yota, good pics with the point and shoot. I'm not trying to disuade you from your purchase. In fact, buy both the Canon and Nikon. The economy needs stimulating. :lol:

My intent was merely to point out that, unlike a point and shoot where one can take pictures immediately after buying the camera, dSLRs don't do much with just the purchase of the camera itself. Specialized, often expensive, accessories are usually necessary. And that each specialized accessory is terrific at what it's designed to do, but being specialized is less likely to be a good "all purpose" item.

A typical homeowner has a hammer (point and shoot camera). A contractor might have a compressor (camera back) and a couple of nail guns (lenses). The nail gun which drives 4 penny nails for finish work won't do a good job driving 16 penny nails for framing. Both the homeowner and contractor feel reasonably equipped. If one were to ask the contractor why he doesn't just use a hammer, he'd probably respond about the quality and consistency of his work and the control he has with his fine tools. If one were to ask the homeowner why the hammer, he'd probably respond about being able to pound nails without having to purchase a compressor and nail guns. Both are right and both are happy.

Yes, if the models you are comparing are relatively similar and the Nikon felt better in your hands, then get the Nikon (I can't believe I just wrote that).

xtm, good looking rig and interesting HDR shot. How does post processing on that differ from a "regular" shot?
 
I think I have the following statement correct.. but maybe reversed... someone will correct me.


Canon put's more R&D dollars into their pro-sumer level cameras and "field tests" them there before modifying their true pro-level cameras.

Nikon put's more R&D dollars into their true pro-level cameras then modernizes the technology and makes it available to the pro-sumer level cameras later.

In effect, you buy Nikon, you're getting their field-tested, but older technology that was built around their Pro-Line with Pro-Needs... If you buy Canon, you're getting newer "bleeding edge" technology that is in the process of being field-tested.

I tried to say both of those statements unbiased... or equally biased... I probably didn't succeed.

I bought Canon, even though the photographer who taught me was a Nikon user. This was mainly because I had a canon G5 camera and was familiar with their software and user-interfaces.

Bottom-line, you cannot go wrong with either. Period. I believe Nikon bodies (all of them?) now support ISO100, something that wasn't available when I purchased my canon kit.

I can mess you up.... Sony cameras/lens's are getting great reviews as well. I was very skeptical when they first arrived, but they seem to be on-par with Canon and Nikon.... No idea what their costs are though...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14354581#post14354581 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 91yota

fwiw, ive always *thought* that i liked canons better, until playing with the nikon the other day... now im completely torn between the 2... i'm more familiar with canon software and menus but the nikon felt better in my hands...

Don't forget my first point in this thread. Those two camera CANNOT be compared, especially by how they feel in your hands. The Canon 50D (which should be compared to the 300D) is much larger and sturdier than the Canon 450D. As such, the Nikon D300 is larger and sturdier than the Nikon D90 (which should be compared to the 450D). The D90/450D are each like a Ford Focus and a Chevrolet Malibu. The D300/50D are both like a Ford Mustang and a Chevrolet Camaro. If you are looking for your first car and deciding between Ford and Chevrolet, you don't sit in a Mustang, leave the dealership, and sit in a Malibu, then make your final decision based off of those two cars. Comparing a Malibu and a Mustang is as silly as comparing a 450D and D300. They just aren't in the same league.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14361939#post14361939 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Those two camera CANNOT be compared, .... They just aren't in the same league.

Whooooha, I missed that... Man, one is plastic and small, the other is metal and huge...

At my local shop, the XTI is $599 (body only) the Nikon D300 is around $1799.00 (body only) if that gives you any indication.
 
thanks for the input everyone... sounds like my next step is to go down to the camera store and play around for a few hours with different bodies that compare to each other better... i dont want to end up in a malibu/focus, can't afford a ferrari/lambo, but could be very happy with a camaro/mustang... i think :)

that being said, there is a local guy selling an xsi with a kit lens for $450... but i think i'll hold off for something better once i decide what i truly want
 
Back
Top