Reading mode: Light Dark

Do you ever want to jump ship and switch brands?

Go to last post
jaydubbs15 said:
I like the Canon A40 most of all for underwater photography because
Canon makes a very inexpensive underwater housing that goes with it.
I LOVE underwater photography and it wouldn't be feasible for me
financially otherwise as underwater housing and strobe rigs are VERY
expensive. Which leads me to believe that with Canon you just get
more for your money.

It's interesting to note that DP compares the D80 to the 350/400D,
while DP compares the 30D to the D200, which is an entirely different
class of camera (although granted the D200 received more favorable
reviews than the 30D.) I strongly feel that DP should compare
camera's based on similar price, not the manu.'s opinion of a
camera's competitors. Sometimes DP does this, sometimes not.

Having been researching camera's for some time now, I've come to
learn that it comes down to value (getting the biggest bang for your
buck.) If I can spend an extra $35 to get a 30D rather than a D80
then why not?
Click to expand...
jaydubbs15, did you ever think about getting a housing for the D80? I have a D40x and am seriously considering a housing for it. I currently have an Ike (pentax film) with an Ike strobe, so I have the ports already and my strobe will possibly work. I would love to switch to digital but want a DSLR not a P&S.



 
karinatwork said:
Do you ever feel like "the other brand" has more to offer? Do you
ever think, if I would switch, I'd get better results?
Click to expand...
I did and it cost me a lot of lost sleep and a ton of money.

I started with a Canon XT last February and was happy until I held a Nikon D70s. The Canon felt cheap compared to the Nikon. I was happy with the D70s until I saw the D80. So I bought it. It was big step up from the D70s. Plus the D70s was pretty noisy at ISO 1600

Then I found myself wanting the 5 FPS of the D200, but couldn't justify the price of the D200. Plus the D200 has some issues with noise and banding, so I fell for the Canon hype and bought a 30D. On paper it looked like the thing to do, it was considerably cheaper then the D200 and the 30D was faster than the D80 at 5 FPS. After getting it I found I gave up a lot of features that I liked on the Nikon.

Since I was now in the Canon camp I bought the 40D. It was better but it still didn't have some of the cool Nikon features such as a wonderful auto ISO or wireless flash commander. And it was little things like having to press the illumination button on the 40D to light up the top display. Nikon can be set to automatically do this with press of any button.

After all this I am back to Nikon with a D300 and I am very happy except for all the money lost changing brands.
 
Nice pics! The Ikelite housing and strobes are prohibitively priced for me. I can only afford a p&s stock housing or perhaps a dedicated underwater photography system like the sea & sea.
 
What an ordeal! Thanks for sharing your experience!
--
Karin At Work

 
I didn't say I would!!!! LOL

There is just this nagging feeling... that I'm missing out by not really knowing what "the competition" has. I love gadgets, and gadgets make me all nervous and needy. (Aquarius) But a body alone doesn't do it.

It's the lenses. IT IS. I have been going through the whole Canon line up, more than once, reading boards and reviews, and I couldn't find a lense that I could "identify" with. On the Nikon lineup, however, I would seriously know at least three right now that would interest me a lot. Starting with the 60mm AF-S, going up the 18-200VR and the 16-85, or even the 12-24, right after I win the lottery.

--
Karin At Work

 
--
phipop

... anyway, it is better to have nikon and canon together, as the canon little p&s are better as the nikon now (at least i think so).

i have bought a canon a720is, very cheap and very good, it has so many parameters as my d40x, and most important to me, the iq is superb (for a p&s), and the d40x is my favorite dslr by now, and nikon should be for a long time, as the ergonomics are better to me. the cheapest canon dslr feel plastic.
most important could be the photos.
have fun,
philippe

http://www.phipop.com
 
karinatwork said:
Do you ever feel like "the other brand" has more to offer? Do you
ever think, if I would switch, I'd get better results?

Let me be frank, I am thinking a lot about the Xsi, and I am
wondering how I would be doing with that camera, if the Live View
would make any difference, or the apparently larger lense line-up, or
their better ISO performance, or their brighter colours (btw, is this
all true or not?).
Click to expand...
Just wait for the D90. The lens line up is generally fine in Nikon. Canon does have some specialty lenses that Nikon doesn't, but you need to figure out if you really need them. If you are looking at the bottom of the price bracket then the two are basically equal with the advantage going to Nikon as more of their base lenses are better sealed and have ED glass.

With the new CMOS chips coming in the new cameras (look at the D300) you can bet that Nikon is going to be toe to toe with Canon on this mark as well. They will most likely be a little more money than the Rebel as the D90 will follow the same rule of being more advanced than the Rebel but not quite on level with the 40D or soon coming (maybe) 50D.

Canon does not have better colors. Do not let any brand **** fill your head with that nonsense. All cameras are equal in RAW, and if you want the Nikon to have brighter, more poppy amateur color settings in JPEG, you can do that. You just have to tell the camera to do it as it will generally lean to neutral sharpness and color saturation as this allows more room for accurate post production.
karinatwork said:
I just think too much, I guess. Then again, I look
at their lenses, and I think they're more expensive and don't cover
the same range as the Nikons, especially in my price range (low to
bottom! LOL)
Click to expand...
I would really argue that in the long run, on the beginner side of things, that Nikon and Canon are basically in parody with each other on prices for entry level lenses. When you get into the higher end pro optics then Canon is actually generally cheaper by a few percentage points.
karinatwork said:
Please don't flame me! I'm not really worried, or seriously thinking
about switching, I'm just pondering - and wondering if anyone else
feels like that sometimes, and I think you guys are really nice and
maybe can share some thoughts with me... :)
Click to expand...
Just remember that the grass is almost never greener on the other side, just a different breed. If you jumped to Canon, which it doesn't sound like you will, you will just have a few new problems to deal with. Each brand works in a certain way. As long as you are with Nikon or Canon you are going to be fine.

I shoot with both systems and can safely assure you that both are equally capable of doing a good job. They may go about it in a slightly different fashion, but in the end it's the shooter that counts not the camera. I repeatedly find posts on other sites like Flickr and Photo.net that have suprising images made with point and shoot cameras.

If you are a beginner, and I have been reading your posts for some time and understand that you are, concentrate on bettering your skills and don't switch cameras until you hit a point where you can rightfully say that the camera is just not capable of doing what you need. If you do it this way you will be a lot happier.

Go out and take some photos!
karinatwork said:
--
Karin At Work

Click to expand...
--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-
 
Of course, you are right - it is about the lenss, and at the low end of the SLR range Nikon has Canon beat. There's no need to consider the entry level Rebel range. If you do want to change to Canon, then only look to the higher spec'd 40D or better, and to their "L" lenses - but be prepared to spend more than you probably would like to or need to.

Right now you have something that is hard to beat at that price level. There's no reason to change unless you are projecting into the future and your needs at that time. That would require much more experience and research than you currently have though, if I'm reading things correctly.
 
Will do! :)

But...

... just out of curiosity... did it ever cross YOUR mind? :)

--
Karin At Work

 
I did briefly already comment on it.

There are some situations where it might be of help but they would be rare unless that type of work is the major emphasis of a particular photographer. People who have cameras with Live View are finding it not to be of any use most of the time.

I never did like having to use the LCD for composing shots in any of my compact cameras. It was a necessary evil with them but doesn't have to be with a D-SLR.

What I would say is that if a camera has Live View then it may come in handy on occasion, but that should not be a reason to either buy or avoid buying a D-SLR camera as it is currently implemented.
 
To be honest...yes. Last year I seriously considered selling my full Nikon kit to get a 5D and a couple lenses. I knew that I needed something better focusing, high ISO performance, dynamic range, construction.

I sat down with a pad of paper, jotted out the pros and cons of the system. Found that in all truth the Canon system was only actually better at one of those things, high ISO noise reduction.

I went out and rented a 5D and a D200. I came to realize that the D200, other than noise was, for me, a much better body. I prefered the snappier focus, the higher frames per second, the sealed body, the ergonomics. The 5D gave me a more familiar performance as far as field of view which was awesome, but really a non issue. I am extremely happy with the lenses that I have and how they perform on the DX sensor, and for the wide angle stuff I found that I really prefered the Nikon optics.

I ultimately decided that the D200 wasn't enough of an upgrade either. I have a D80, and was willing to wait and see what Nikon and Canon brought to the plate in the next generation. I do already have the 30D, but I have an extremely limited kit as I only use this for work because they require it.

Waiting for the D300 ended up being just the right thing to do. I got the noise performance that I wanted, far better FPS, amazing focus, the same ergonomics from the D200 that I loved...in short I learned a good lesson. Figure out what it is you need from a camera. Don't settle for something that will only just slightly approach that or improve on what you have. It has to be a full list improvement before it is worth it.

At this point now I have come to realize what it will take to get me to buy a new camera. At least double the resolution, a real 16bit AD converter that can produce files with at least 2 more stops of dynamic range as compared to my D300, even stronger construction, even more improved AF, and at least 30% more battery time. We'll see what my tune is in a year or so, but for now I can't see anything less really changing my mind and making me drop another chunk of change.

Right now I am addressing the need to better my PP skills and looking at some new optics. Really thinking about a 14-24, 70-200 and if they ever update the darn thing a new 80-400.

I really think that with this latest release of cameras, Canon and Nikon have basically closed the gap in performance to about 5% difference from like models. Price is another issue, but in the game of performance tools that is something you are always going to have to deal with and any pro knows that you have to pay for what you need and quibling about the price of things won't get you anywhere.

For an amateur. As long as you stick with the good brands (Canon and Nikon) you should be fine. It can seem tempting to go with the other guys, and they have their merits, but they usually have one or two things to brag on and then trail completely on all other fronts as compared to the big boys. I wouldn't write them off and am thankful that they exist to keep Nikon and Canon looking to new out of the box ideas, but ultimately are a poor choice (for myself) as they just don't have the ultimate R&D required to be full competitors in the pro market which is where most even amateurs hope to be as far as skill at some point.

Sorry about the rant. I had a 15 minute break and felt like going off a bit. Hope the info is helpful.
--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-
 
karinatwork said:
Do you ever feel like "the other brand" has more to offer? Do you
ever think, if I would switch, I'd get better results?
Click to expand...
Hi Karin,

Of course it depends on what you mean by better results. If I'm not getting good results with one of my Nikons... the problem is usually me ;-)

That said there are differences between models that can affect results. Some cameras are noisier at high ISO than others. Some shoot more frames per second or have better autofocus than others. It's all a trade off though since no camera is perfect... and the ones that are close to perfection cost a small fortune. Every photographer is different as well, so finding the right camera can be a challenge and so can finding the right lenses. Before a purchase is made of course I will analyze and agonize over various details, but once I've made the decision I try to avoid buyer's remorse or second-guessing since that just kills the excitement of buying a new tool or toy. And worrying about gear too much also gets in the way of the creative process, so I try to avoid it.

It also takes time to learn a new camera until you understand all of the features and settings enough to really put them to use while shooting. As I invested more time (not to mention more money) in Nikon equipment, switching just no longer seemed attractive to me. If I had only one Nikon body and two or three lenses it would be easier to switch to another brand. Since I now have two Nikon bodies (D70 and D200) and nine lenses, switching would be time-consuming and expensive for me. Still, I would consider it if I ever feel that another brand offers something that I seriously need and can't get from Nikon. I don't know what that would be since many of these camera manufacturers just keep one-upping each other.
karinatwork said:
Let me be frank, I am thinking a lot about the Xsi, and I am
wondering how I would be doing with that camera, if the Live View
would make any difference, or the apparently larger lense line-up, or
their better ISO performance, or their brighter colours (btw, is this
all true or not?). I just think too much, I guess. Then again, I look
at their lenses, and I think they're more expensive and don't cover
the same range as the Nikons, especially in my price range (low to
bottom! LOL)
Click to expand...
Features (like Live View) are a personal decision. The lens lineup can be important... if one company offers more lenses that you need at prices you can afford... that can be important. I think Nikon has a lens lineup to suit just about anyone's needs, and then there are all the old lenses that still work with new DSLR bodies.

Brighter colors, sharpness, contrast, etc. can all be modified by changing the camera settings or by post-processing. Switching brands isn't going to get you anything different beyond different default settings. High ISO performance may vary, but sometimes you trade noise for overly aggresive noise reduction. I prefer to do my noise reduction on the computer, but of course some sensors are still noiser than others.
karinatwork said:
Please don't flame me! I'm not really worried, or seriously thinking
about switching, I'm just pondering - and wondering if anyone else
feels like that sometimes, and I think you guys are really nice and
maybe can share some thoughts with me... :)
Click to expand...
Even though I never seriously consider switching to another brand, I certainly ooh and ahh over other cameras sometimes. I'd love one of those tiny new Olympus e420 DSLRs with the 25mm pancake lens! We just bought a house though, so I don't think I'll be buying any new cameras or lenses for quite some time. So of course I'm happy with my D70 and D200. I have to be... for a long time!

Sean
 
No.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the street.

- You only need a few lenses.

- Live view is helpful for 2 situations, close up work and crowded places. Unless you do a lot of either it’s not going to get you much.

- Live view will reduce sharpness as you will not be able to hold the camera as steady.
- Your camera dose an excellent job at high ISO levels with very low noise.

The photographer is the largest variable in image quality.

Morris

--



http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~morris/POD
 
Thank you for this candid reply. :)
Maybe one day I'll be wiser. I keep growing older, but not smarter!
--
Karin At Work

 
I just got into digital photography, and I had battled with whether I wanted a nikon or a canon. It came down to ergonomics and build quality. I feel that the camera is a tool for me to take great images, I don't need a high FPS or a ton of auto focusing points. What mattered to me was whether or not my camera could last until the mirror mechanism goes out. The d60 just feels sturdy and durable where the canon rebels feel like low density plastic. I'm certain that canons are just as good as nikons, however i'd like to have my camera feel like the 800 dollars I spent on it went into a durable product.
 
Karin:

I did! several years ago I switched to canon, in film works ,sold all my nikon gear bought canon, eos A2E or something a real toy, compared to the 8008s I gave up, and my FM2, then moved up to a eos 1n rs a real barn burner of a camera fast and had pelicle mirror no blackout when you depressed shutter lens' 300 f4 20 2.8 28-105 70 300 5.6L all nice equipment. Well that lasted about a year and half and I came crawling back to nikon, in as few a words DON'T DO IT!!!

Work harder with what you have, I dare say canon equipment will do anything yours won't do just work to maximize your equipments ability and yours also.
LOL, Rubicon:
 
Congrats and welcome here! I still own my E510 + some lenses though. :)

An interresting discussion. In our household we have my hb, Steven shooting with the 40D and I am using the D300(also got the D70s and D200).

Imo the Nikons are better with metering(always have to adjust with Canon, especially with strong backlighting whilst Nikon seem to get it much more right). I like the camera to figure it out for me so as to have more time for what I want to do, and that is taking pictures.
Kurt Kivig said:
Hi Karin..
Yes, I have thought alot about changing brand...and finally I did it.
I have only had my new little "baby" for 3 days, so I didnt had much
time to get to know it..
But I think I love it...and maybe it will learn to love me too -
little by little..;-)
But the thing is....that actually I changed from Olympus to Nikon
;-)...and this is my first appearance in this forum..;-)
Click to expand...
 
Don't have the 30D but find the 40D noise quite good. Compared to my old 20D, the 20D might be maybe just a tad better at iso 1600 but not by much. The 400D was worse though and it wouldn't surprise me if the 450D won't be all that good at higher isos either. Strangely, the 40D seems to have a similar sensor as the 400D but with improvements in software and some hardware changes(microlenses on the individual pixel sites?)
rhlpetrus said:
People there are not too happy re noise performance of 450D:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=27292779

This seems to have happened to the 40D, which many say has worse IQ
than 30D.
--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top