Question about digital cameras

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Question for those who know about such things:

I'm going to pick up a digital SLR in the coming weeks, probably at a post-Xmas sale but in time for the inauguration. I'm on the fence about Nikon vs. Canon, but I already use a Canon point-and-shoot that I quite like. All other things being equal (and they pretty much are), should I think about picking up a Canon SLR so I can have one software suite for both cameras? Or does that not really matter? In the reams of stuff I've been reading about cameras, this is not a question I've seen addressed.

Thanks in advance.

[The Mad Monk]

I own the original Canon Digital Rebel. It's a great camera. Nikon was slightly superior the last time I had an opportunity test both at length, but that was when I was working at a camera shop two years ago.

Go to a camera shop where they will let you play with both for a bit, and see which feels better; use as many features of each that you can. If you have a film SLR, you may be able to share lenses if both are built by the same company (I'm sure about that with Canon; Nikon, not so much). The cost of the glass may be the deciding factor.

Software is not something I would strongly consider when choosing a camera; both companies have decent software, but it's not critical. I move files with Windows Explorer, and fiddle with them using Paint Shop Pro; I stopped using the software years ago.

[Timexwatch]

Don't worry about the software; buy on hardware. Canon makes great cameras. In the past I've only owned PowerShots and a standard film Rebel and they've worked great. You can't go wrong with a digital rebel.

[Joseph]

Re: Question about digital cameras

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Question for those who know about such things:

I'm going to pick up a digital SLR in the coming weeks, probably at a post-Xmas sale but in time for the inauguration. I'm on the fence about Nikon vs. Canon, but I already use a Canon point-and-shoot that I quite like. All other things being equal (and they pretty much are), should I think about picking up a Canon SLR so I can have one software suite for both cameras? Or does that not really matter? In the reams of stuff I've been reading about cameras, this is not a question I've seen addressed.

Thanks in advance.

I have a Cannon AE-1, EOS 700, EOS Elan II, and EOS Digital Rebel XTI. I can use all of my lens (700 and Elan II) on my Rebel. I got it at Costco about 2 years ago and love it. It did cost $1,000.00 There 2 lens, 1:3.5 5.8 EFS 18 to 55 MM and 1:4 to 5.6 EF 75 to 300 MM.

[DaShi]

I think the big question is, what are you going to use it for? If you're just wanting to take Christmas photos and such, then you don't need a $1,000 camera (although those are nice to have).

[OneFootInTheGrave]

yes the question is: what will you use it for... but in general right now Canon make the "worst" low level models, where the "worst" ends up being pretty good anyway... but it includes worst viewfinder, poor user control, worst kit lens together with Sony, etc...

most importantly you should see what you value the most, whether it's size and weight of the camera, speed, accuracy of Autofocus, where you will shoot - daylight or lowlight with no flash, do you like a nice bright viewfinder, if you will have any use from "live view", if you like in-body "anti shake" feature etc...

but in general for small = Olympus but worst for low light, for speed and accuracy of Autofocus = Nikon but more expensive for "the same" other features comparing to the rest, low light without flash = Canon, but see the above (the negatives do not apply to 40D and up however); live view = Sony but more expensive typically; Pentax = good price, most fully featured, can use old Pentax autofocus or manual focus lenses easily, but they are usually the worst with autofocus in low light specifically ...

Naturally more you spend, more you get most of the time... but this is where it's at the moment (didn't mention the cameras which are deliberately crippled one way or another)...

Sub $500
Canon = skip (Xsi is very good but not sure if it's below $500)
Nikon = D80 (older but best model taking everything into account if you can find it in this price range)/ old but still their best entry level - D50
Oly = E510/420 (small, great zooms, excellent cameras)
Sony = A300 (good for live view, otherwise pretty average)
Pentax = KM/K200D (KM is one of the smallest out there, and K200D is most fully featured in this price level)

500 - 1000$
Canon = 40D (one of the best buys in any system for the $ you can make if you don't mind the weight)/Xsi, good, but is a bit lacking in features comparing to the above $500 cameras from the others
Nikon = D90 (but is it below 1000$ ??? )
Oly = (nothing? )
Pentax = K20D (I'd say another best buy for the $, Canon is faster, while this one is more fully featured and better all round camera)
Sony = A350 - best "Live view" camera in this segment, or A700 - excellent all around, a bit more expensive than 40D or K20D, but combines the best of both I'd say, no live view though...

above $1000 = Nikon D300, Canon 50D, Oly E3 (of the three - get Nikon, except if not for some specific feature the others have)

Last you go into more expensive range with bigger sensor which is generally = even heavier again, but better IQ wise... and there you can from from $2k upwards old Canon 5D (or new Canon 5DII), NikonD700, Sony A900 ... where Old 5D and Nikon D700 are excellent for low light, while the new 5D, and A900 are some of the highest resolution cameras available... in general with them everything is better, and they are a bit heavier, so if you don't mind the expense and weight this is the stuff to get... (and than there are pro models from Canon and Nikon, but they are heavier than a brick and cost like a small car, so no point in getting them for "normal" people, ie if you are not a photographer for living)

and than it's the lenses... but if you want "all in one" cheaper solution Tamron 18-270 is probably the best, as it's a decent lens (actually excellent for such "superzoom", as good as or better than usual "kit lenses" you get with your camera)... and if you get it you will benefit greatly from a body which has "inbody anti-shake" such as Oly E510, any Sony or any Pentax body... Canon and Nikon do not have this feature in body, but in their propriatory lenses which are both heavier, more expensive and worse optically (for entry level lenses) with shorter zoom too boot... and with such a long zoom you will often need stabilization in order to get good photos at long end of it for example...

Me - I have Pentax K20D + a quite a few lenses, and perfectly happy with it...

[Elok]

E-mailed my GF, who aside from being a photography nut used to have a job inspecting electronics for a web-based resale company. She says:

"Hey. I don't have much of a professional opinion. The camera I have is a Nikon. Nikon and Canon dSLR cameras are both very nice, and which one you get usually comes down to which one you already have lenses to fit (lenses can be more expensive than the camera)-- and he sounds like he doesn't have any yet, so that's moot. I would make sure to find out ahead of time (whether he goes Nikon or Canon) if there is a mirror lockup feature on the camera. Given the likelihood of eventually getting dust on the sensor, you really WANT this feature. I believe (but have not actually researched it) that models newer than mine do tend to have this. But it's worth double-checking. The software suite is largely irrelevant, imo. Most people never take it out of the plastic."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. Good advice; I was leaning toward Canon anyway, but know a couple of big Nikon fans, so it's interesting to read teh Canon arguments here. There's a nice local camera shop with knowledgeable employees on my way home from work; I'll go fool around with stuff there sometime soon.

Originally posted by DaShi
I think the big question is, what are you going to use it for? If you're just wanting to take Christmas photos and such, then you don't need a $1,000 camera (although those are nice to have).

No, my point-and-shoot is for Xmas. I'd use my SLR for all the traveling I do. It would replace my film SLR (a Minolta, so unfortunately lenses won't transfer), with which I've taken great shots of Turkey, Cambodia, Vietnam, the jungles of Borneo, etc.; one has even ended up on a calendar. I'm a rank amateur, but it's a hobby I really like.

[SlowwHand]

How about this one? Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Black 10 MP 2.5" 230K LCD 20X Optical Zoom 28mm Wide Angle Digital Camera

$399.99 -$60.00 Instant $339.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120282

[Nostromo]

http://www.dpreview.com/

[David Floyd]

My recommendation is the Canon Rebel XSI. It retails for around $729.99, although you can occasionally find better deals.

One thing you're going to find is that down the road, Canon has better lenses. They developed something called an Ultrasonic Motor (USM) - and it is FAST. If you plunk down the change for a USM lens, you will be able to tell the difference.

Honestly, though, there are people out there who prefer Nikon and people who prefer Canon. They are both outstanding DSLRs (although Nikon point and shoots are basically ****ty) and if you are looking to spend less than $1000, either the Canon XSI or the Nikon D80 are great buys.

If you are willing to spend a bit more, the Nikon D90 shoots 720p high def video and shoots 4.5 frames/second, while the Canon 50D is weather-sealed and shoots at 6.3 frames/second.

By the way, for the high end of what you are likely to find in a retail store, the Canon 5D Mark II just came out, retailing (body only) at $2699.99. That baby is full frame, like the Mark 1, shoots at (IIRC but I could be wrong) 5 frames/sec, and shoots 1080p quality video.

[David Floyd]

And by the way, if you go with a Sony DSLR, which I do NOT recommend by the way, your Minolta lenses will actually work.

[Japher]

and you don't need film!

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Thanks for the responses, everyone. Good advice; I was leaning toward Canon anyway, but know a couple of big Nikon fans, so it's interesting to read teh Canon arguments here. There's a nice local camera shop with knowledgeable employees on my way home from work; I'll go fool around with stuff there sometime soon.



No, my point-and-shoot is for Xmas. I'd use my SLR for all the traveling I do. It would replace my film SLR (a Minolta, so unfortunately lenses won't transfer), with which I've taken great shots of Turkey, Cambodia, Vietnam, the jungles of Borneo, etc.; one has even ended up on a calendar. I'm a rank amateur, but it's a hobby I really like.

If your old Minolta has an Alpha-mount, and even if it doesn't, I'd seriously consider Sony. They offer a wide lineup of bodies, from sub-500$ to ~2500$, to generally excellent reviews. I have a A200, the lowest end model, 10.2 mpix yadayadatechnical stuf.... Takes excellent pictures, even with the cheap kit lens, that came with it. (Well, it's cheap... It's also good.) One thing you should consider, is go to a store, and get a feel of cameras, how they fit into your hands. A200 is a perfect fit and well balanced, to my grip. Also, in-body image stabilization is a great feature. Any old Konica-Minolta alpha lens will be stabilized. Old alpha lenses are widely available, and Sony is expanding it's own brand at steady pace, as are third party manufacturers, Sigma etc.

When Sony gear gets scoffed by Canonikons, their real argument usually is "there can only be one!"...

Did I mention it takes excellent pictures? Head to Flicker, and look for pics taken with camera X. It has a nice camera finder thing. See what you like. But do remember the age old saying, it's not about the camera, it's about the photographer. I could have top of the line Canon, ie, expensive, and still take dull and drab pics...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Again, great tips, all. Thanks.

Re my old Minolta: the lenses I had were no great shakes, and certainly don't justify getting the Sony just to use them. Interesting to know that they'd work, though.