Nikon vs Cannon

I am VERY new to the world of photography. I basically have been using a point and shoot. Everyone whom I believe are good photographers have been telling me that Nikon is the best starter camera, then some have said Cannon. Im not too familar with what series (D90, 5000 or whatever) but, I really wish someone would help me!!! Since this is an investment, I really wish I could find out what camera would give me the most bang for my buck. Since im a freelance make-up artist, I plan on doing mostly modeling, event gathering photography. Any sugguestions on what a good camera for a newbie would be? All info would be greatly appreciated! )

Just wanted to point out that its Canon not cannon... As for which, its really just 6 of one half a dozen of another, both are fine cameras. I'll let others go into detail.

Free2BMe said:

I am VERY new to the world of photography. I basically have been using a point and shoot. Everyone whom I believe are good photographers have been telling me that Nikon is the best starter camera, then some have said Cannon. Im not too familar with what series (D90, 5000 or whatever) but, I really wish someone would help me!!! Since this is an investment, I really wish I could find out what camera would give me the most bang for my buck. Since im a freelance make-up artist, I plan on doing mostly modeling, event gathering photography. Any sugguestions on what a good camera for a newbie would be? All info would be greatly appreciated! )

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lethaltalons/

Consider these other options. Do not get sucked into all that hype

There are so many people asking questions about buying their first camera. They post questions such as - Which camera is the best for this or that, - Is Canon better than Nikon, - Which camera do I need to photograph the kids, etc.

May I make a suggestion to these people. All modern DSLRs are capable of taking very good pictures of pretty well any subject in good light and not so good light. Obviously every camera has its strengths and weaknesses but all of them are more capable than cameras of say 15 years ago and bear in mind that wonderful pictures were taken 20-30-40-50-60 years ago with cameras that were so very lacking in features. Have a look at some old newspapers. On the back sports page you will come across pictures of footballers just as the boot makes contact with the ball for the winning goal, or pictures of a cricket player catching the ball to decide the Test match etc. Then remember that many of those shots were taken without the benefit of in camera light meters ( or may be not even a hand held one), bracketing, auto focus or even auto film advance.

So, what is the point of my rant? Well, save yourself loads of heartache and frustration, just do the following sequence in your buying procedure.

1. Decide on your budget and stick to it.
2. Go to as many places as possible and handle every DSLR in your price range.
3. Choose the one that is most comfortable in your hands.
4. Buy it.
5. Start the learning process by taking lots of pictures
6. If and when you get stuck ask for help here.
7. Have lots of fun.
--

If you have time, please have a look at my website. http://www.lincolnshireimages.co.uk/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/richardspencer

Canon good, Nikon bad.

Naaah! I've just been wanting to say that and see if the flamers go nuts.

Seriously, this argument has been going on for decades. Both systems are extraordinary and are popular with most pros. I'm a Canon user, but have used Nikons and liked them too. I just feel more comfortable with the Canon line.

I'd see what sort of beginning package price you can get on either brand. Also, try handling the actual camera/lens and see if it feels comfortable. Do the controls make sense "out of the box" or are you forced to resort to the manual every ten seconds?

Both systems are excellent. You won't go wrong with either brand.

I can't help you decide on specific cameras because you haven't stated your budget.

Well I will add that I did move to Nikon from Pentax a little over a year ago and do not in any way regret the move. While yes, all cameras are capable of taking great shots the difference in these shots starts to become more noticeable when you start to jack up the ISO. For some it does not matter since their shooting only has them in low iso land, while other such as myself use high ISO very often. I feel that Canon/Nikon do have an advantage in this department over the other brands, though the sony NEX-5 looks pretty damned good in high ISO as well. But again this may not be an issue for you.

Or how about the auto-focus abilities? I don't really know how all the entry-level cams compare but it is worth looking into.

Like shooting movies? Canon seems to have taken the lead here.

In the end they will all do a fine job and each has their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I would avoid spending too much on a setup until you feel that that is the setup for you. You may find that your taste will change down the road and the setup you have just doesn't cut it. That's how I felt with Pentax, and in some regards I feel that my Nikon gear seems to be putting on some weight.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lethaltalons/

When comes a time you are persuaded to buy, say a Canon, it just make you a Canon owner, it doesn't make you a photographer.

If unsure, then go with your heart of that particular brand that is at the top of your head. All cameras are able to perform the task. If you like the merc, then buy it instead of getting BMW.

Psycologically, the camera tends to perform better for you once you prefer that particular brand. No one here can help you and if there is one that pushes you a particular model, that is rubbish.
--
David I used to rely on divine appointment with the subject.
Main Arsenal: GH1
My Gallery: http://david-low.smugmug.com/

Any Low budget camer will do for you, Canon of Nikon, it does not matter, get one, get familiar with it and stick to your brand. Quality is equal.

Regards from Holland,

Hans
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hanskool/

"Richard the picture man" gave you some of the best, most succinct advice I've seen in a while. To quote:

"So, what is the point of my rant? Well, save yourself loads of heartache and frustration, just do the following sequence in your buying procedure.

1. Decide on your budget and stick to it.
2. Go to as many places as possible and handle every DSLR in your price range.
3. Choose the one that is most comfortable in your hands.
4. Buy it.
5. Start the learning process by taking lots of pictures
6. If and when you get stuck ask for help here.
7. Have lots of fun."

I tend to recommend Canon or Nikon for most people, mostly because they offer the most expansive systems , and eventually just about every DSLR owner I know ends up buying more 'stuff'. BUT: if you look at Olympus, Pentax and Sony and are satisfied with their range of lenses, remote releases, flash and so on, then by all means add them to your consideration. All will produce excellent images in skilled hands .

Canon and Nikon both have seriously great lenses...but are you going to be willing/able to afford to buy them? Or are you going to stick with their consumer grades of lenses (which are also very good)?

One of the most important things about a DSLR is ergonomics (they all have so many features that you'll be inundated for a while). Richard's advice to handle cams is right on: you need to see how a cam feels in your hands and thumb through the menus. Most people I know prefer Canon or Nikon based only on this, as lens selections from both are great. I'm a Canon shooter, but if I was starting over today, I'd probably go for Nikon. And that might change back next year. Canon and Nikon are extremely competitive with each other and their #1/#2 positions change regularly.

You also need to think carefully about what you're going to shoot. If you shoot things like concerts, indoors under available light, and so on, you'll want to look at reviews and check out high-ISO performance, perhaps.

One thing: don't forget to budget for a good tripod. You may not feel an immediate need for one, but if you get serious about photography, you'll almost certainly need one eventually. A good tripod can cost as much as a low-end DSLR, so just be prepared.

Abbott

(nt)

How I hate that term.

My 1DIII accidentally fell onto a parking lot from a height of 8'. 100-400L was mounted on it. The only damage was a very small chip in the body paint...everything else works perfectly and hasn't missed a shot in the 9 months since the accident happened.

I took the same camera with the 70-200L lens on a jetboat ride. Very splashy and very wet. Absolutely no problems (this was months after the parking lot incident).

And I shoot with that same camera in very nasty dusty conditions all the time. Zero problems.

I've had my old EOS 20D out in light rain, heavy dust, and other "abusive" environments. Zero problems.

When I shot Nikon, I had more mechanical lens problems than I ever have with Canon. That doesn't mean (to me) that Canon lenses are necessarily more "robust".

I have friends with various Nikons (I used Nikon F2, F3, F4 film cameras) and many have had problems. I have other friends with various Canon cams, and there have been problems there as well.

If you buy comparable-class cameras, I'll bet that statistically valid samples will show roughly equal "robustness". Same holds for repair problems and most other things. Both Nikon and Canon make excellent tools, and both have problems.

Abbott

Why limit yourself to two brands? You would be overlooking the feature-set and value of competing brands like Sony, Olympus and Pentax.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml

Canon

About 85% of the trip's members were shooting with Canon gear, mostly 1Ds MKII. There were a couple of 1D MKII and 5D's, with several people having Rebel XT and XTi bodies as backups.

There were quite a few camera failures, most of them occasioned by our shooting in rain on the first day ashore in The Falklands. The rain was not heavy – more a persistent drizzle than a heavy rain, but it took its toll. In all, 90 minutes of wet shooting produced six 1Ds MKII cameras which stopped working for one reason or another. Three of them recovered after a night of drying out. Three remained hors de combat for the rest of the trip.

Three Canon 5D's died that day, with one subsequent recovery. Two Rebel XTi's lost their rear LCD's, though otherwise continued to work (which is a real hassle, because though one can keep shooting, there's no way to change any settings, or at least to know what the changes are).

We also lost two video cameras, one with a dead sound board and the other a total cardiac arrest. Several lenses bit the dust during the trip, including two Canon 70-210mm f/2.8L IS, and a Canon 28-135mm.

Nikon

There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies – mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures.

Don't drag that single incident about an extreme weather condition journey. How many people will take a trip like that? I probably won't. And mostly the people kept shooting because they paid $1000s and wanted to risk damage.

Actually same here, I don't get the big fuss. Both make great cameras. My brother shoots Nikon and I use a Canon and we have a great time shooting together. I recently recommended a Nikon DSLR camera to a friend - nice kit at a nice price.

What matters is what works for you, try out several cameras and see what you prefer.

Ed

hotdog321 said:

Canon good, Nikon bad.

Naaah! I've just been wanting to say that and see if the flamers go nuts.

Seriously, this argument has been going on for decades. Both systems are extraordinary and are popular with most pros. I'm a Canon user, but have used Nikons and liked them too. I just feel more comfortable with the Canon line.

I'd see what sort of beginning package price you can get on either brand. Also, try handling the actual camera/lens and see if it feels comfortable. Do the controls make sense "out of the box" or are you forced to resort to the manual every ten seconds?

Both systems are excellent. You won't go wrong with either brand.

I can't help you decide on specific cameras because you haven't stated your budget.

Click to expand...

Seems Canon has cleaned up their act. The Antartic trip review was what swung it for me. I really wanted to buy the 5DII but that convinced me to go to the Nikon D700. With regards to the other poster if I spend a few grand on a camera I want it to function under all conditions I subject my body to. I will be using it in snow, wind, rain, humidity. I don't want to look like a fool when my camera gives up the ghost because of a bit of drizzle or the wrong kind of snow.

Free2BMe said:

I am VERY new to the world of photography. I basically have been using a point and shoot. Everyone whom I believe are good photographers have been telling me that Nikon is the best starter camera, then some have said Cannon. Im not too familar with what series (D90, 5000 or whatever) but, I really wish someone would help me!!! Since this is an investment, I really wish I could find out what camera would give me the most bang for my buck. Since im a freelance make-up artist, I plan on doing mostly modeling, event gathering photography. Any sugguestions on what a good camera for a newbie would be? All info would be greatly appreciated! )

Click to expand...

Don't automatically disregard the other brands.

I'm a long time Nikon user, but have a problem recommending their entry level cameras due to their lack of auto focus (AF) motors - meaning NO AF with many of the best Nikon mount lenses.

I do think the "stabilized" body cameras offered by some (not N or C) are a better overall approach than stabilized lenses.

It's truly hard to buy a "bad" camera these days - pick what features you like & what works best for you.

Cheers.
--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) 2010 fastglass