Ah, the old argument strikes again!

[Kafter244]

Sorry I haven't been around for a while chaps, but in exciting news I have recently acquired Lightroom 3 an so can finally get on with organizing and PPing the photos I've been taking from all your advice! I have some pics I'm exited about so watch this space! :)

The point if this thread however is that I feel I have finally reached my limits with my 4/3 gear and Olympus camera. It's been a fun ride and a great introduction to photography, but I'm already exasperating at the poor Performance at low-light, the sluggish AF and the slim dynamic range, SO, time for a new camera...

My research and budget to date have brought me to two cameras; the Canon 7D and the Nikon D7000. I'm thinking the Nikon has the slight edge with regard AF and low light, but the Canon does seem a lot more popular and I hear better things about their lenses.

Whichever I choose I will probably stick with that brand for life (ish) and intend buying full-frame glass even though they're both APS-C bodies to future proof the heady days of being able to afford a full-frame body.

So, Canon or Nikon...any thoughts?!

[Shelley]

Either one and don't look back. Canon and Nikon are both good brands and have a good selection in lens.

[kiwi]

What sort of photography ar you aspiring to ?

[David Gee]

Go into a dealer and try them both and whichever feels "comfortable" in your hands then I would go with that one.
I chose Canon because I had used Canon for years and the 50D felt right for me.
As has been already been said, when you make your decision don't look back just go with what you choose.

David

[Darey]

Go to a shop and try them both out and then buy the one that feels most comfortable and has the controls where you like them.


I just got beaten off the mark. Good advise above.

[Tannin]

whichever feels "comfortable" in your hands


buy the one that feels most comfortable and has the controls where you like them.

With respect people, I think this is terrible advice! Unfortunately, there will doubtless be another 8 people along in this thread to repeat it.

1: Camera bodies change regularly. Controls move around from time to time, new controls get added, models replace other models - so you might like the Canikon today, but the next time you upgrade your body you might think the Ninon is better. And you will upgrade your body.

2: Camera controls are like the controls on your car. It doesn't really matter if the headlight switch is on the left or on the right, all that matters is that it is where you expect it. So if you drive Hoyotas for five years, Hoyotas will "feel right" and Toldens will "feel wrong". But buy a Tolden and inside three weeks you will feel right at home. Yes, your chosen camera brand will "feel right" a few weeks after you buy it - but that will happen regardless of what brand you buy because it has very little to do with the camera and everything to do with your own muscle memory.

3: The minor spec differences between today's Ninon and today's Canikon are just that: minor, trivial even. Either one will take great pictures.

4: Lenses matter. Not only do lenses contribute more to image quality, they go on contributing long after an individual body has been retired. You might have an individual lens for 10, 20, 30 years, and you will be operating with either the Ninon or the Canikon lens system for even longer than that. Forget the camera body, and don't even pay too much attention to the particular current range of lenses in the ranges you want to buy - look at the overall lens system you are buying into.

Make yourself a wish list, include lenses you plan to buy right away, ones you plan on buying in (say) two years time, and lenses you think that you will probably buy eventually.

Then compare. Look at availability (do they make it at all?), prices (be sure to compare on a similar baseline, such as getting all prices from the same example retailer, and quality (you will have to go on general reputation, which is usually not too far out). Score points to Canikon, points to Ninon. Work out how much it will cost you to do the sort of photography you plan to do over, say, 10 years. Try to be realistic with your lists - i.e., don't bother comparing stuff you probably won't actually buy.

Then decide.

And enjoy!

[Kafter244]

Thanks everyone...plenty to think about, and I actually have friends who use the 7D and who use the D90 (near enough to the D7000) so I'm hoping they'll let me roadtest their gear for a short while if I ask nicely :D

@Darren; Alas my muse is nature, and that (for me) encompasses everything from a grand vista, to birds in flight and wild animals, to macros of flora and funghi so I'm looking for a camera that can do it all! Isn't everyone? ;) I'm also quite partial to astro and night photography although my attempts at this have been pretty poor, but I hope to get better.

@ Tony; thanks for the advice Tony, I'm starting with the idea of a 105mm macro lens for macros and portraits, a wide (or wide zoom) for landscapes and a decent telephoto to get animals at long range. The last one being fast-ish (say f/2.8) to capture birds in flight and all of them to be versatile and rugged to stand being taken bush a lot. A tall order? I'm researching at the moment, and will see how I go.

Thanks again for all your input so far guys; much appreciated :th3:

[kiwi]

If youre going to want lenses 400mm+ then canon is by far the cheaper route

If you want a general purpose all-purpose kit then Nikon I think have better higher end bodies and af and iso handling

Not much in it though

Go with either and you can't really go wrong. Reviews I've seen of d7000 vs canon 60 give it to the Nikon.....just

[Kafter244]

Thanks Kiwi, the long lens I was thinking about is actually a Sigma anyway, so shouldn't matter too much on the cost front. Speaking of which, has anyone heard about problems with third party lenses on either system?

Also, I had noticed most reviewers compare the D7000 to the 60D, and consider the 7D of higher grade than the 60D, however I can't see much between the 7D and D7000...anyone know of a reason why the D7000 and 7D are rarely compared? Am I missing something? Or are the 60D and 7D closer than I think? :confused013

[Tannin]

In theory, 7D competes with the D200/D300/D300s line, perhaps sits a little above it.

D7000 is directly equivalent to the old 50D, and superior to the 60D. (60D is newer and higher tech, but nevertheless a build quality downgrade from the 20D/30D/40D/50D tradition. They did this to make it cheaper and more directly competitive with the D90-class Nikons, something Canon were able to do because of the 7D - and indeed pretty much required to do because a "traditional" metal body 60D would have been too close to the 7D. But things are even more confusing because Nikon have up-speced the D7000 and it isn't really a "new D90", it's a big step up from there.

Are you feeling totally confused?

If your answer is "yes" then that is OK. So am I.

If your answer is "no", you are having comprehension difficulties. Go back and re-read my post until you do feel confused.

[Scotty72]

Canon or Nikon?

Probably not much difference in reality.

But, of course, if you go Canon, your children will be better looking, your boss will give you a pay rise and you'll increase your overall sex-appeal.

:th3:

Scotty

[terry.langham]

Canon or Nikon?

Probably not much difference in reality.

But, of course, if you go Canon, your children will be better looking, your boss will give you a pay rise and you'll increase your overall sex-appeal.

:th3:

Scotty

Straight up lies and propaganda, except for the better looking kids bit (still not sure how my two didn't end up with heads like dropped pies) :p

[Kafter244]

Ha ha...cheers Tannin, that's all so clear now! :confused013

I could probably do with the pay rise, so I may have to go Canon...mmmm... :cool:

[ricstew]

Think outside the square............Pentax!

[salnel]

I have the Nikon d90 and love it BUT I now have a huge problem because I was a telephoto lens and Nikon's are incredibly expensive...so much so that I am actually looking at buying a second camera so that I can use a canon telephoto!! Tony has given me great advice in this..so..if birding is one of the things you are wanting to get into..check your finances! (or have a look at my thread..Is this a Good Idea) for some more advice on this area. Good luck!.)

[Chris Michel]

At State of origin I in Brisvegas i counted the pro togs and the Canon users out numbered the nikon easily by a margin of 10 to 1.... something to think about when many more pros are using the canon i guess

[Kafter244]

Ah Ricstew, I thought outside the box last time which is how I ended up with Olympus...think I may stay inside in this one ;-) lol.

And Chris, I'm afraid I can't remember why (must look it up) but during my reading so far apparently it's pretty well known that sports togs are big Canon fans. For some reason (maybe it's the cheaper fast telephotos?) most of these go Canon over Nikon. I met a pro travel and nature tog (Nat geo) the other day who shoots Nikon so I'm back to being on the fence again. Lol

Thanks to everyone fr their input, will keep looking at lenses and take each out for a test run and see how I go.

Cheers :D

[kiwi]

Well, nikon sport shooters are on the rise, news Ltd changed over but there's a big historical investment, I still rate the d3 series as the best sports bodies currently. 3 years ago you'd see none, now at some events it's 50/50

[Scotty72]

What's the old maxim? (I'll probably mangle this up)

'If you want to photograph a riot, use Nikon: If you want to photograph individual rioters, use a Canon.'

I guess that gels with the comment above about sports / nature photographers and what the tend to use.

Scotty

[ving]

nikon rules...


thats what we want to hear isnt it? :rolleyes:

[Mary Anne]

If you ever get interested in Macro there is only one.. Guess which one :D

[Kafter244]

Oh Mary Anne! I was just getting comfortable with the idea of Nikon and but for a road test I was really happy but I've ALWAYS loved Macro and would love to do some myself; why is Canon so much better or is it just that that's what you shoot? :)

[JM Tran]

Im just sitting here patiently waiting for the Olympus 4/3 crowd to come defend the sensor and their cameras:D

[Tricky]

Oh Mary Anne! I was just getting comfortable with the idea of Nikon and but for a road test I was really happy but I've ALWAYS loved Macro and would love to do some myself; why is Canon so much better or is it just that that's what you shoot? :)

I'm sure Mary Anne will post her own reply, but in my view.... only Canon make the MPE-65mm, a truly unique high magnification macro lens... and the 100mm L macro lens is a pretty awesome general macro lens and is image stabilised... and the best macro flash is the Canon MT-24 twin lite...

Lots of other excellent macro lenses out there (few macro lenses these days are less than 'good'), but IMHO Canon's macro stable is the best...

[Kafter244]

Lol@JM! They have been quiet haven't they? ;-)

Thanks for the Macro tips tricky, I hadn't thought if that...back to the drawing board! :p

[KeeFy]

Actually something to think quickly about.

Canon does better telezooms generally, Nikon does better UWAs.

This is not true all the time, but generally it is for the non crop bodies. :)

[JM Tran]

Actually something to think quickly about.

Canon does better telezooms generally, Nikon does better UWAs.

This is not true all the time, but generally it is for the non crop bodies. :)

and prime lenses too from Canon, just to add.

[Kafter244]

So...Canon have the best Macro lenses, telezooms and primes...and Nikon does the best wide angles, is that the go? Are we talking about the hi-end lenses here because I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the top of the range ones straight off anyway...or are Canon just better at glass in general?

[JM Tran]

or are Canon just better at glass in general?

uh oh......

you just opened the flood-gate:)

rabid Nikon users are pushing the Olympus crowd out of the way as they storm towards this thread!

[Tannin]

Krafter244, it is very, very dangerous to generalise too much, but I think most people would agree with the following statements:
Both companies produce superb big iron. (E.g., 600/4.) No other company is even in the same time zone as Nikon and Canon when it comes to the very big, very expensive telephoto lenses.
Canon big iron is much less expensive than Nikon big iron. The two 400/2.8s are, for example, about $10,000 and about $13,000.
Canon still have the biggest range of lenses, but the gap is much smaller than it used to be.
Both companies produce cheap plastic kit lenses which provide remarkably sharp images but are nevertheless very low rent. There isn't a lot in it, but the Nikon ones are not as flimsy, cheap, and plasticy as the Canon ones.
Canon has a nasty habit of throwing in peculiar under-spec features in some mid-range lenses - examples include the clunkly non-ring USM focus motor in the 50/1.4; the huge barrel distortion in the (now discontinued) EF-S 17-85; and the very low-spec focus system in the Canon 18-200.
Nikon has the nasty habit of pricing even quite ordinary middle-of-the-road lenses as if they were gold plated pro models. They also sometimes leave important stuff out of cameras rather than lenses, notably the ability to use many Nikkor lenses and still auto-focus.

[Mary Anne]

Oh Mary Anne! I was just getting comfortable with the idea of Nikon and but for a road test I was really happy but I've ALWAYS loved Macro and would love to do some myself; why is Canon so much better or is it just that that's what you shoot? :)

Hello again.. No Macro is not the only thing I shoot but it is something I enjoy as I am getting on in years and find I can sit down a lot when shooting insects..

Both Canon and Nikon make great Cameras and Lenses its just that as tricky/Richard wrote about Canon its makes the MPE-65mm lens.. I used the Tamron 90mm Macro for many years before I got the Canon L macro lens last Christmas, I have never heard of a bad Macro lens either.

Only you and you alone can work out which is the better camera for you, do read all the reviews, and if there is something you want to specialise in then you will soon work out which is the better camera/lens for you.. Best of luck there :th3:

[I @ M]

They also sometimes leave important stuff out of cameras rather than lenses, notably the ability to use many Nikkor lenses and still auto-focus.
[/list]

Tony, Nikon currently offer in their current model range 3 FX bodies and 6 DX bodies. Of the DX bodies, 1 model, the D5000 must be nearly due to be no longer sold. That leaves the D5100 and the D3100 as the only bodies that don't allow auto focus with AF lenses and require AF-S lenses.
All FX bodies will autofocus AF lenses.

Of the DX lens series, 15 lenses in all, only one model, the 10.5 fish does not have AF-S so it is the only lens in that range that won't allow autofocus.
Of the FX lens series, 45 lenses in all, there are 19 lenses in total that are not AF-S models and won't work on 2 models of Nikon bodies. Of those 19 that are still current in the lens range, 6 models have been duplicated with AF-S models. The remainder are by and largely lenses that are not all that commonly found on entry level DX bodies or have an equivalent lens in DX fiormat.
The cry of Nikon don't have lenses and bodies with auto focus ability was true to a limited degree a few years ago but things are a little different now. :)

[Tannin]

They also sometimes leave important stuff out of cameras rather than lenses, notably the ability to use many Nikkor lenses and still auto-focus.



Tony, Nikon currently offer in their current model range 3 FX bodies and 6 DX bodies. Of the DX bodies, 1 model, the D5000 must be nearly due to be no longer sold. That leaves the D5100 and the D3100.

9 models divided by 2 that don't AF = 22%. OK, let's think this through:

* I say "sometimes they leave important stuff out"

* You say "only 22% of the time".

* I say "the prosecution rests its case, Your Worship, guilty as charged!"

[Tannin]

I should also add that, of my three Canon examples of similar dodgy product specs, one has been discontinued, and another will probably be discontinued soon. At least one would hope so! :)

[I @ M]

9 models divided by 2 that don't AF = 22%. OK, let's think this through:

"

Tony, you know I am hopeless at mathematics ( I had trouble just counting the actual number of bodies and lenses :D ) so with your reasoning of "thinking it through" and your desire to express things as percentages would you care to come up with a percentage figure of lenses that don't work on those two bodies.
From "kit" lenses to "pro" lenses there are focal lengths and configurations that work perfectly well on those two 22% of bodies. I really can't see any glaringly obvious omissions in the range. :confused013

[Tannin]

Let's be fair and ignore the six lenses that have exact AFS equivalents. That leaves 39 lenses and 13 that can't AF. 13 / 39 = 33%.

[KeeFy]

Each company has it's own quirks and flaws. But seriously, at the end of the day both companies are winners. Why? Cause they have their own fanbase and people are arguing about which company is better. I bet Canon-san and Nikon-san are having coffee (or green tea) this minute and enjoying every single one of the useless fanboy arguments around the world with people buying up lenses and not taking photos.

:P

[I @ M]

I really think that you should add the DX to FX lenses together which gives 60 and then do the maths.

None the less, look at the lenses that don't have AF-S and see where they have been replaced with either a superior ( read probably more expensive ) or overlapping range example.

DX, the 10.5 fish -- probably better manually focussed anyway.

FX
24-85 probably won't be missed by many and the range is well covered in either DX or FX zooms.
18-35 same as above
80-400 we all know the lack of AF-S hinders that one all round:Doh:
80-200 range covered by other lenses
35 F/2 well and truly covered
20 F/2.8 covered by zooms
24 F/2.8 as above
85 F/1.8 missing but expected as an AF-S version soon
DC 105 and 135 probably will be phased out and not very popular with entry level DX users.
180 F/2.8 nice lens but once again covered by other zooms.

Of course these are simply the current line and don't include superceded DX and FX lenses that offer AF-S as well.

[Kafter244]

Thanks everyone for making it so clear! :p lol.

Seriously though, thanks for all your input; I think it's going to come down to trying them out, my budget and the quality of the lenses within my range. I hear the Tamron 50-500 is a worthy beast although very big...I'm hoping to keep my gear down to a 105mm macro, UWA and a decent telephoto to start. I know that's a fair bit but I have specific uses for all and I'm the kind of person who reads and consults to excess in the hope that I'll only have to outlay a large chunk of money once (for a few years anyway) and not buy a bunch of lenses I'm trying to hock next month because I bought the wrong type.

I hope if I spend enough time getting the right gear in the first place then when I'm out and about I can focus more on taking pictures and not trying to work within the confines of poor equipment or a plethora of lenses.

That's the dream anyway! Lol will see how I go hey?! :confused013

[Chris Michel]

My wifes best friend works as a journo for the gold coast bulletin ( news ltd ) and she told us that they have a new batch if the d1 mk 4 canon cameras for both the Bulletin and courier mail ( which i think is the brisbane paper ) and that seems to be across the news ltd board. I did see 2 nikon guys at the AFl at both the gabba and new metricon stadium for opening night when we ventured up the to the GC but the majority of pro togs there all had the white lens cameras on a scale of 6 to 1
ps. do i buy the wife a mazda over the usual Holden / ford ??