Nikon vs Canon vs Olympus Confusion?

[gabby]

I am researching dSLR camera bodies to purchase to get more control of my photos. I've read many threads on best to buy within each range but how do you discriminate between brands. I was keen on Canon , maybe 50D, and many that I met at Queen Mary Falls meet last year seemed to have amazing Canon gear. I have also heard avid Nikon users rave over their brand, and today,I heard the arguments in favour of Olympus. You have all probably encountered a similar conundrum. Any Advice would be appreciated. Gail

[kiwi]

Nikon or Canon, just go with what feels best to you.

Plenty of reasons for either of these two including range, availability, and networking

[I @ M]

gabby, you are going to get a flood of answers to this one.

First off though, you tell us what it is that you want to photograph the most, sport, portraits, landscapes, wildlife etc.

In the long term it may have a large bearing on the brand that you become a slave to adopt.

[ving]

pretty much what darren said.

all DSLRs are capable of producing good shots so its just a matter of learning how to use what ever you buy. canon and nikon are most popular but other brands will work for you just as well... maybe look into what lenses you will be wanting and base your decision around that.

[davros]

I agree with Kiwi. Once you've factored in what you want to do with your camera, go to the shops and hold one in your hand. Take a memory card and snap a couple of shots in the shop. Then you can take it home and have a look.

I initially was going to buy canon or olympus because they are generally lighter thank Nikon and I wanted a camera that I could take on long trail hikes. The problem I found when I picked up the Canon was that it didn't feel right in my hand. The Nikon was a bit heavier, but it fit like a glove!

[mkooper]

Rather then saying "which brand", although this is almost a life decision, you might want to look at what level you want to step in to the DSLR market.

Entry level
Semi pro
Pro
Super Pro

Then work out the lens types you might use.

Then and finally you can go and look at your budget.

With all that in mind I think you'll probably find something that fits, the brand then comes with your choice rather then a primary driving decision.

P.S. You probably should also consider Sony DSLRs.

[pgbphotographytas]

We really need to know what you plan to take photos of to be able to answer this. Most common lens come in different mounts so the brand should not matter too much.

[kiwi]

If you stick to canon and nikon they cover everything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gregg Bell]

I think personally, it's a matter of what you plan to use the camera for, how much, and what you specifically plan to use it for.

Nikon and Canon, with sony, olympus, pentax, etc. have got lenses to meet everything possible under the sun. Remember dSLR's aren't the only camera you can buy, there are Rangefinders, large format viewfinders, and today's CMOS cameras.

However I think you may be looking for a dSLR just for convenience and ease of use. I chose Nikon because of their strong history in imagery. Nikon first started as a lens making company, which has expanded into scanners, cameras, and lenses.

However I also preferred the ergonomics of Nikon better, though I don't appreciate their extortionate lens prices, I still personally think they make better optical quality lenses then Canon do. However this seems to be subjective.

you thread will only get subjective views, and not objective, you have to make a choice and come to a decision of which you think is best, and figure out what you want that will do what you want it to do.

When I want to enjoy photography most, or have fun with it, I get the Zeiss Ikon or Bessa out. Okay Im limited with a fixed focal length, as well as other constraints, and my photos aren't as good as my digital yet. However I still get more pleasure from messing around with it.

[gabby]

The shots that really grab me are wildlife zooms, candid portraits and macro -I'm not really in to landscapes on a large scale. I can't afford professional gear at this time!

[gabby]

Thank you Fried Chicken-your information explains a lot of things that people have explained that I had only half understood. Very helpful! I gather from your Canon Obsession Moniker that you might therefore consider them preferable to Nikons?

[Babu]

Hey Fried Chicken,
You've passed on quite a bit of handy information to Gabby but check one of your earlier posts.
I think you meant that Canon crop factor cameras are 1.6x and Nikon's are 1.5x.
I am also a Canon user but some of my travelling companions use a wide range of Nikon gear.

[Kym]

Pentax... produces fantastic glass. They mainly always have 2 DSLRs out (they used to have 3), one pro/semi-pro and one amateur/beginner. The great thing is, you can easily get to their 'pro' DSLR. But the K-X, their starting range, is nothing fantastic... cheap, but not great. Fork out about twice as much, get the K7... and you have the best there is to offer for Pentax. Downside, it's not full frame, it doesn't have a built in battery grip... though it does have dust and weather sealing.

Lets get the facts...

3 current DSLRs from Pentax (K-x, K-7, 645D (medium format, high end pro, which is why they don't bother with the FF)).
They are extremely price competitive for their features.

The K-x has the best low light performance in its class (Google it).
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010...sensor-do.html

The results are EYE OPENING in terms of low-light noise and dynamic range.

K-7 (and K-x) have in body shake reduction - that means all lenses are stabilised - not just the expensive IS/VR ones.
Even old manual lenses!
Both have live view, movie and the latest gizmos.

Prices... http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...ax%20K-X&pos=5
K-x body only Aussie stock < $700
K-7 body only Aussie stock < $1,200 (not double)

The Pentax K mount means all the last 50 years of lenses still work!
via an adapter for the very old M42 screw mount.
Obviously Sigma and Tamron produce Pentax mount lenses.

[davesmith]

Its lowest range camera, the a230, is cheap but not fantastic. It doesn't even offer IS, and because IS is in-body for Sony... yes, you have to upgrade bodies to get IS.

Not true. All Sony DSLR bodies are stabilised, including the A230. Effectively all AF alpha mount (Minolta, KM and Sony) lenses from the last 30 years or so are stabilised and there is no need to upgrade bodies to get that stabilisation.

[gabby]

So that means if I got a pentax my old Pentax ME Super lenses would still be usable??
Gail

Lets get the facts...

3 current DSLRs from Pentax (K-x, K-7, 645D (medium format, high end pro, which is why they don't bother with the FF)).
They are extremely price competitive for their features.

The K-x has the best low light performance in its class (Google it).
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010...sensor-do.html


K-7 (and K-x) have in body shake reduction - that means all lenses are stabilised - not just the expensive IS/VR ones.
Even old manual lenses!
Both have live view, movie and the latest gizmos.

Prices... http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...ax%20K-X&pos=5
K-x body only Aussie stock < $700
K-7 body only Aussie stock < $1,200 (not double)

The Pentax K mount means all the last 50 years of lenses still work!
via an adapter for the very old M42 screw mount.
Obviously Sigma and Tamron produce Pentax mount lenses.

[gabby]

This debate and information that you've kindly offered seems to be the backbone of this forum. Thank you all for your contributions- it's more difficult than I would have thought just understanding the new ( to me anyway) digital terminology such as AF-S and IS and noise but your replies have certainly answered some of these questions. Gail

[arthurking83]

.....
They are extremely price competitive for their features.

The K-x has the best low light performance in its class (Google it)......

Competitive it is for sure!

For low light performance tho, and as far as I'm aware, nothing can still beat the D90 in APS-C sized bodies.(if you use DXO's compare feature)
Even though the D90 and D300 share the exact same sensor, the D90 has better low light capabilities than the D300. That anomaly is, and has yet to be explained by anyone, and the most likely reason may be due to a cooler (temperature) running sensor

Purely on a feature basis, the Kx seems to be the lowest priced camera body compared to any of it's competitors.

I think the OP needs to figure out two basic conditions for wanting to upgrade to a DSLR.

First of all price. One of the single most important aspects of consideration. How much is your initial budget, and how much you're willing to spend in the future.

Secondly and almost as importantly is; what is it that you really want the camera to do for you that you're not able to do ATM from your current camera, whether that may be a P&S or a film SLR or whatever.

.....

Sony is honestly the best 3rd option (behind Canon/Nikon or Nikon/Canon)... Sony is good if you're not a pro. To be honest, their bodies are not built for professional work. They're targeted to amateurs (not in a bad way; 'amateur' comes from Latin and French, meaning 'lover of') and general consumers.

Its lowest range camera, the a230, is cheap but not fantastic. It doesn't even offer IS, and because IS is in-body for Sony... yes, you have to upgrade bodies to get IS.

Sony should be commended for the a850, as it brings a cheap full frame to the market. The down side is that it's not even at prosumer-level full frame level when compared to others. 3fps, 25 MP (full frame is good because of low noise; yet introducing so many pixels is effectively creating the same amount... just at a higher resolution and a much larger file size: do note that you really don't need such high MP unless you want to print in mammoth sizes... anything 10+ is fine), etc...

Sony is not really geared for sports, nature photography... the highest fps is with the a450, APS-C, which has a standard of 5fps and can be pushed to 7fps.

....

Sony's camera bodies are as professional as the other manufacturers bodies with the same specs.
Using this reasoning and rationale, Canon's 5DmkII would also be considered to be a below pro-sumer class level camera body.
The danger that follows when using generic definitions such as in this case, is that misleading info may be used to make a decision.

ie. a professional photographer that specialises in say macro photography may purely want as many pixels as they can get for a limited outlay. This professional macro photographer may not be interested in 7fps and 13 million AF points to work with, but purely the best viewfinder that is currently available in a DSLR(which is apparently the Sony A900).
Along with the D3x(which costs 3-4 times as much) it has the highest resolution of any current DSLR and for macro work high ISO may be a frivolous feature.

Once a standardised definition of what constitutes a professional level camera and user is set by the ISO mob, then propose anything you like that falls within that definition.

To the OP(Gabby).
Quite simply, makes no difference on what you end up getting, as long as you get the lenses to suit what it is you want to do with photography.
ie. no point is getting uber cheap super telephotos to do macro or portrait work, and conversely there's no point in getting fast prime lenses of f/1.4 or f/1.2 aperture values to shoot birds with on a consistent basis...etc, etc.

In 90% of instances the camera body you initially end up, with will suffice for as long as it takes you to achieve a level of competency that you're happy with. There will be no set timeframe by which you'll arrive to that point, some folks are faster learners than others, but once you've achieved that level of competency and you have the bulk of the types of lenses that work for your purposes, you may then look at upgrading to a better body in that manufacturers lineup. Using that reasoning, I generally tell folks unsure of what it is that they actually want, to start off with a secondhand camera and lens combo(to a degree), and that's generally dependent on availability of each.

the exact brand therefore doesn't really matter as your only concern is to minimise the risk of spending too much on gear that you didn't really want in the first place.

Once you have a better understanding of what it is you want to take photos of, then you will be in a better position to make an informed decision(based on your needs, and not someone else's definitions!!)

[Gregg Bell]

Well, I'm a very rational person when it comes to these things.

I use Canon. However, Nikon is also great. There's no 'if you shoot portraiture/landscape/etc go here'. They're both the two leading brands.

Incorrect. There arfe certain types of cameras you use for certain specialities. Nikon and Canon generally aren't the answer to everything. If you want a landscape camera you get a Large Format Viewfinder. If you want a portrait camera you get a Hasselblad, if...

The thing is most people here won't want to delve into these format that are few aqnd far between, and stick to their dSLR. Which is fine, and as the OP mentioned she wants versatility.[/QUOTE]

[Kym]

So that means if I got a pentax my old Pentax ME Super lenses would still be usable??
Gail

For sure! My 50/1.7 was the one that came with my MX Sweet fast piece of glass!

[Kym]

Those were the facts: medium format is not full frame. The fact remains that, while a DSLR, it's considerably larger.
I did mention Pentax's low prices and the image stabilisation.
Still, the fact remains that in-body stabilisation: a) does not offer WYSIWYG - ie, you can't see the stabilised function and b) is not as effective as lens stabilisation.
Pentax's SR is good, but still needs some work.

The latest SR K-7 is rated up to 4 stops, in practice at least 3. No different to VR/IS.

To save we re-writing the same argument I'll quote...
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...d-anymore.html

Nikon and Canon claim that in-lens image stabilisation is superior.
There seems to be something to these claims, but it also seems like a very minor advantage. And the disadvantage of having to buy IS over and over again in each lens, is a very clear disadvantage.
Both Nikon and Canon have in-body VR/IS in their compact cameras.
Obviously, with a fixed-lens camera, the distinction between in-lens and in-body IS disappears.
But the fact that their compact cameras have IS, shows that they too acknowledge that image stabilisation is valuable.

But Nikon and Canon (and their customers) have so much invested in separate VR/IS lenses, I really can't see them releasing a camera that has image stabilization in the body.
Maybe they'll surprise me.

I think Canon and Nikon are basically stuck. At least some of their management might LIKE to release a DSLR with in-body stabilization.
But if they did so, it would basically admit defeat on the issue.
So I think they're going to keep doing what they've been doing until the challengers take a big enough bite out of the market pie to start hurting them.
Then they'll release something "revolutionary"—a new line of cameras with in-body stabilization. I'm not a prophet, but I think this HAS to happen eventually. The current economic downturn around the world makes those cameras with in-body IS more attractive

.