Author Topic: Canon vs Nikon (Read 2014 times)

neko · « **on:** July 13, 2008, 01:19:26 AM »

ok, so what are everyones opinions as far as D-SLRs go? what do you shoot, what do you like about it, what don't you like about it, etc...not asking cause i'm in the market (i just bought a 20D not too long ago), just curious. i don't think i've ever used a single Nikon camera ever, so i don't know anything about them.

Sleazy · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2008, 05:36:14 AM »

i've got a cannon digital rebel, the original one

there's ton's not to like about it but it was the first digital slr to bring the price down near 1k and that's why i went with it. it's great for family photos but i stopped taking skate photos with it because you can't shoot sequences with it.

dudebro · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2008, 09:36:41 AM »

I use Nikon. Its funny because it seems like Nikon comes up with all the innovation and then Canon will take their idea and slightly improve it six months to a year later. Oh well.

loophole · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2008, 09:40:16 AM »

i use a canon but kinda prefer nikon

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2008, 09:51:54 AM »

ive gone from an xt to a 30d to a 40d in the past six months. i really, really am impressed with the 40d. wicked image quality even at high ISO; the 'live view' function is a godsend for any and all tripod work, whether landscape or macro; i like the various bracketing options; feels nice in the hand; pretty clear menus and so forth. the sRAW and RAW + JPEG output options are neat. right now, i cant see any way to step up in the canon line for under $4000. (the 40d gives as good an image, if not better, than the full frame 5d).

that said, ive been hearing some incredible stuff about nikon's new full frame (the d3?) and its crop frame cousin, the d300. supposedly the d300 has almost all the improvements of the d3, but at a fraction of the price. people are scratching their heads saying, "why did they even bother to release the d3 if the d300 has all the important bells and whistles but is a fraction of the price?"

but its all a game of minor, relatively incremental improvements. today nikon is a quarter step ahead of canon. tomorrow canon will be back in the lead, by a nose. repeat ad infinitium. you cant go wrong with either brand. i understand nikon glass is more expensive, however. look at the pentax k20, i hear its pretty nice too. i woudlnt bother with any other DLSR lines though...

GhostBusters · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2008, 03:06:22 PM »

canon for high end dslr's and nikon for lower end ones. But if you buy good prime lenses for either you can't really go wrong.

artichoke · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2008, 08:03:16 PM »

I was lurking through skate perception the other day and they were all fawning over the new nikon d700. I guess it's essentially a full frame d300, but still head and shoulders cheaper than the d3.

That said, I still use my d200 (which is worth as much as a paperweight at this point) but really enjoy it.

loophole · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2008, 10:52:37 PM »

man i really know nothing about digital cameras

busey · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2008, 07:51:22 AM »

Quote from: loophole on July 13, 2008, 10:52:37 PM

man i really know nothing about digital cameras

same. my friend is selling his nikon d70s camera for $400 without a lens...anyone know if they are good or not? i don't plan on taking skate photography or anything, probably just like pics of little boys and stuff...maybe some pics of myself in the mirror..ya know?

artichoke · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2008, 07:53:37 AM »

Quote from: busey on July 14, 2008, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: loophole on July 13, 2008, 10:52:37 PM
Expand Quote
man i really know nothing about digital cameras
[close]
same. my friend is selling his nikon d70s camera for $400 without a lens...anyone know if they are good or not? i don't plan on taking skate photography or anything, probably just like pics of little boys and stuff...maybe some pics of myself in the mirror..ya know?

Without having looked on ebay or anything that still seems a bit high for just a body. Check on ebay.

busey · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2008, 07:55:53 AM »

Quote from: artichoke on July 14, 2008, 07:53:37 AM

Quote from: busey on July 14, 2008, 07:51:22 AM
Expand Quote
Quote from: loophole on July 13, 2008, 10:52:37 PM
Expand Quote
man i really know nothing about digital cameras
[close]
same. my friend is selling his nikon d70s camera for $400 without a lens...anyone know if they are good or not? i don't plan on taking skate photography or anything, probably just like pics of little boys and stuff...maybe some pics of myself in the mirror..ya know?
[close]

Without having looked on ebay or anything that still seems a bit high for just a body. Check on ebay.

i thought the same, i offered $300 and he declined. i took off my shirt and asked again. he still declined

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2008, 11:23:07 AM »

ebay determines the true value of these things... on craigslist, knock 25 to 30% of the asking price to get something that roughly fair.

dudebro · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2008, 03:24:47 PM »

the shittiest part about all the digital SLRs is that, except for the D70, they only have 1/200-1/250th flash sync. when you're shooting daylight fill flash skate photography, a 1/500th flash sync is so nice to have. i get bummed everytime Nikon makes a fancy, rad new camera and they don't have it. for my usage, that 1/500th flash sync is basically the most important funtion a camera can have.

neko · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2008, 06:23:58 PM »

interesting comparisons here...i really should find someone with a Nikon that i can play around with sometime. i'm stoked on my 20D, though...so anyone have any strong opinions on Canon/Canon-compatible lenses? specifically i'm looking to buy a fisheye at some point in the somewhat-near future, and would like to spend $500-600 or less, if possible.

professional · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2008, 08:50:36 PM »

tokina 10-17 for a canon fish, fits all the sensor sizes too.

frisco · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2008, 09:26:54 AM »

I have the Canon 400d or rebel xti, got it luckily on the boxing day sale

I was looking for entry level and honestly knew shit all about dslr's, lucikly i saved about 300 bucks. i got a bag, extra battery pack for free which was suprisingly 120 bucks.

im pissed though because the xSi just came out with IS on the lens (the kit lens on the xti doesnt have that) and "live view" which wasnt the biggest deal for me but still would have been nice.

ive been looking in to a new lens all summer but have been so conflicted because i keep changing my mind whether i want to have more zoom or get a prime lens

i also need help in this field so any suggestions for a canon lens would be great

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2008, 12:57:53 PM »

EF-S 17-85 is
EF 17-40 L

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #17 on:** July 17, 2008, 06:22:50 PM »

getting this...

http://www.dpnotes.com/phottix-cleon-n8/

neko · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2008, 08:00:29 PM »

Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 15, 2008, 12:57:53 PM

EF-S 17-85 is

that's the one i've been looking at...good lens? solid construction?

TheFrontSeatLife · « **Reply #19 on:** July 24, 2008, 06:06:24 AM »

I have a Canon 20D and it's great.

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #20 on:** July 24, 2008, 08:10:54 AM »

Quote from: neko on July 23, 2008, 08:00:29 PM

Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 15, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
Expand Quote
EF-S 17-85 is
[close]

that's the one i've been looking at...good lens? solid construction?

you realize its not a fisheye, right? with the 1.6 aspect ratio, its the equivalent of a 28-70 on a 35mm camera.

its a very good lens for the price, with great coverage. some light distortion at 17-18mm, but only noticeable if your subject has straight lines in it (buildings, walls, etc). its fairly solid, but not sealed, with the result that a little dust can get on the inner glass if you are shooting in dry, dusty locations. i was shooting in desert areas ealier this summer, and this is what happened, though the dust hasnt affected pictures.

sometimes im tempted to upgrade to a pro "L" lens like the 17-40, but then realize i havent really been disappointed by the results so far, so why pay maybe double the price for a lens with far less coverage at both wide and zoom? if youre in a big city, you should be able to get a good, lightly used copy of the 17-85 on craigslist for $350, $325.

frisco · « **Reply #21 on:** July 24, 2008, 01:51:16 PM »

whats the closest thing you can get to fish eye for canon? i went to henrys and he said because of the digital crop or something they're not really compatable

wide angle would be fine, i just want to be able to camture as much as i can in a frame, i just got the 50mm f 1.8 and so far its working great

gnartastic · « **Reply #22 on:** July 24, 2008, 01:52:34 PM »

Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 24, 2008, 08:10:54 AM

Quote from: neko on July 23, 2008, 08:00:29 PM
Expand Quote
Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 15, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
Expand Quote
EF-S 17-85 is
[close]

that's the one i've been looking at...good lens? solid construction?
[close]

you realize its not a fisheye, right? with the 1.6 aspect ratio, its the equivalent of a 28-70 on a 35mm camera.

its a very good lens for the price, with great coverage. some light distortion at 17-18mm, but only noticeable if your subject has straight lines in it (buildings, walls, etc). its fairly solid, but not sealed, with the result that a little dust can get on the inner glass if you are shooting in dry, dusty locations. i was shooting in desert areas ealier this summer, and this is what happened, though the dust hasnt affected pictures.

sometimes im tempted to upgrade to a pro "L" lens like the 17-40, but then realize i havent really been disappointed by the results so far, so why pay maybe double the price for a lens with far less coverage at both wide and zoom? if youre in a big city, you should be able to get a good, lightly used copy of the 17-85 on craigslist for $350, $325.

wrong straigt up dude

neko · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2008, 07:52:46 PM »

Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 24, 2008, 08:10:54 AM

Quote from: neko on July 23, 2008, 08:00:29 PM
Expand Quote
Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 15, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
Expand Quote
EF-S 17-85 is
[close]

that's the one i've been looking at...good lens? solid construction?
[close]

you realize its not a fisheye, right? with the 1.6 aspect ratio, its the equivalent of a 28-70 on a 35mm camera.

its a very good lens for the price, with great coverage. some light distortion at 17-18mm, but only noticeable if your subject has straight lines in it (buildings, walls, etc). its fairly solid, but not sealed, with the result that a little dust can get on the inner glass if you are shooting in dry, dusty locations. i was shooting in desert areas ealier this summer, and this is what happened, though the dust hasnt affected pictures.

sometimes im tempted to upgrade to a pro "L" lens like the 17-40, but then realize i havent really been disappointed by the results so far, so why pay maybe double the price for a lens with far less coverage at both wide and zoom? if youre in a big city, you should be able to get a good, lightly used copy of the 17-85 on craigslist for $350, $325.

heh, yeah, i know it's not a fisheye.

apparently they're getting packaged in 40D kits these days? so dudes that are just upgrading and already have lenses are selling them for (relatively) cheap. stoked!

any super-wide (probably fixed) lenses you (or anyone) know much about?

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2008, 08:09:02 PM »

sorry, no. try reading the fred miranda forum... and let us know what you decide on

neko · « **Reply #25 on:** July 29, 2008, 09:25:07 PM »

so i bought the Canon 28-135 EF lens, the same as the one i've been borrowing from a friend. dude got it as part of a 40D kit, so it was brand new, straight out of the box with warranty and everything (uh...meaning the end caps and a plastic bag, i guess...and some styrofoam). pretty stoked on it! it seems to retail around $400-500 (Amazon claims "list" is supposed to be $690), but i got it for $280. hell yeah!

GhostBusters · « **Reply #26 on:** July 29, 2008, 09:49:51 PM »

I hate to barge on your general range zoom lenses. But they can never be as good as primes, or as cheap. Get a 28mm and 50mm and something in the 100 to 200 range.

sebastian toombs · « **Reply #27 on:** August 16, 2008, 12:46:54 PM »

Quote from: sebastian toombs on July 17, 2008, 06:22:50 PM

getting this...

http://www.dpnotes.com/phottix-cleon-n8/

just got in the mail on friday and am testing it out a bit. so far its great, and the price is really good. if any of you need a cable release for your DSLR, you might as well get this one... it comes in various versions for mounting on different cameras

Author Topic: Canon vs Nikon (Read 2014 times)

loophole

sebastian toombs

loophole

sebastian toombs

frisco

sebastian toombs

sebastian toombs

TheFrontSeatLife

sebastian toombs

frisco

gnartastic

sebastian toombs

sebastian toombs