[djdorifto]

Like what made you get lets say a Canon 40D than the equivalent from the Nikon side?

To me its more about feel of a camera and how the layout is. Now a days the camera and its equivalent are almost the same in picture taking quality so to me its all about how it feels in my hand.

What about you guys?

[RusherRacing]

I got a better deal on the Nikon D90 than I could find on a Canon 40D-50D

Otherwise I liked the feel of the Canon 40D best and probably would have went that route, but can't complain about the Nikon.

[BandyDesign]

I already had a D50 when I got the D90, so it was a natural upgrade to retain use of my nikon lenses. However I did have a hard time deciding between the D90 and the D300. Ultimately, I made the choice of the D90. The D90 has the newer sensor technology which meant better low light capability and quicker file processing. The D300 is a pro body and is waterproof, but for the money im quite happy with the D90. The D-movie function is a great convenience and the money saved went back into gear. D700 is the next step tho, I will go full frame

As of now, if you are wondering which waty to go, you can't go wrong either way, but if I could start over I would grab up a 40D or a 5D mkI. and at this point I would be rockin' the 5DmkII. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't have such a low priced full frame camera and Canon is catching up on the top end... maybe the 1DmkIV is beating the D3 line... dunno. I can't keep up with the top end stuff that I don't even dream of owning lol.

So to sum it up... right now Canon has a better lineup of cameras for someone who wants what I want out of a camera at the same price range, but who knows what might change in the near future. If you have any decent amount of gear with one or the other, go ahead and stick with that brand.

[Scott]

$$$.


Got a better deal with the D40X, so I went that route. Both Nikon and Canon make great cameras, so it came down to where I could save the most money at the time. With that said, if Minolta stayed in the game and made a decent DSLR, I would have probably traveled down that path, since I already have a few lenses from my 35mm days.

[UdubBadger]

had a 20d that my boss from the photography company helped me pick it out and said they were much easier to learn to shoot digital than the nikons (which was true when I tried out a few nikons) so I got the canon. I had always shot canon film too and knew they're glass was great. So I got some more lenses and I really loved how the canon shot and felt so i upgraded to a 40d last year, and some L lenses and when I get some more money after paying for a new car next spring, a 5d mk II will be my next big purchase.

[BillLee]

my dad had a Nikon N6006, so i decided to go with Nikon too.

[Vudoo4u2]

because canon FF was "affordable" (relatively), and FFFTMFW

[scollins]

Well, the Nikon D700 is comparably priced to the 5DMkII, so I wouldn't say that price should be an issue if you are looking for Full Frame. The 5DMkII does have video while the D700 does not.

And I don't personally believe that Full Frame is necessarily better than crop frame, it really depends on what you plan to do with your camera. I do mostly sports with medium to long telephotos, so the crop sensor gives me more "reach". Try to find an affordable 300mm F2.8 lens (the top end "equivalent" focal length of my 70-200 F2.8 on the D300.)

I went with the D300 because I liked the build quality, and the ergonomics are better in my opinion with respect to the control dials. I don't like the rear dial on the Canons. Generally speaking though, the Canons and Nikons are really neck-and-neck. Canon top-end glass is slightly more affordable than Nikon's equivalent, which makes me sad. Oh, and Canon runs the occasional rebate, making the price advantage more pronounced.

But, that is just something that a company in the #2 position in the market does to try and get more market share!!

[johnny]

cus my xti was on sale!!

[Vudoo4u2]

Originally Posted by scollins

Well, the Nikon D700 is comparably priced to the 5DMkII, so I wouldn't say that price should be an issue if you are looking for Full Frame. The 5DMkII does have video while the D700 does not.

And I don't personally believe that Full Frame is necessarily better than crop frame, it really depends on what you plan to do with your camera. I do mostly sports with medium to long telephotos, so the crop sensor gives me more "reach". Try to find an affordable 300mm F2.8 lens (the top end "equivalent" focal length of my 70-200 F2.8 on the D300.)

I went with the D300 because I liked the build quality, and the ergonomics are better in my opinion with respect to the control dials. I don't like the rear dial on the Canons. Generally speaking though, the Canons and Nikons are really neck-and-neck. Canon top-end glass is slightly more affordable than Nikon's equivalent, which makes me sad. Oh, and Canon runs the occasional rebate, making the price advantage more pronounced.

But, that is just something that a company in the #2 position in the market does to try and get more market share!!

its true, the 5dmkii and the d700 are comparably priced...but the resolution advantage of the 5dmkii really puts it in a different IQ league imo...really allows for some fantastic large prints, and if youre spending the $$, might as well?

I'm surprised we havent seen a D3 spinoff sensor in a D700s yet to compete

[UdubBadger]

I JUST WANT LOW NOISE AT 800/1600 ISO!

Maybe I'll just look for a 7d or even a 50d. Who here has a 50d and how is the high ISO noise?

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2

its true, the 5dmkii and the d700 are comparably priced...but the resolution advantage of the 5dmkii really puts it in a different IQ league imo...really allows for some fantastic large prints, and if youre spending the $$, might as well?

I'm surprised we havent seen a D3 spinoff sensor in a D700s yet to compete

I'm sure the D700s is coming at some point.

Looking at DxOMark's sensor scores, the D700 and 5dMkII have nearly the same overall score.

DxO Mark: D700 (80.5) 5DMkII (80.3) - slight lead to D700
Color Depth: D700 (23.5) 5DMkII (23.7) - slight lead to 5DMkII
Dynamic Range: D700 (12.2) 5DMkII (11.9) - slight lead to D700
Low-Light ISO: D700 (2303) 5DMkII (1815) - big advantage to D700.

DxOMark's Camera rankings


Now if we look at D300 vs 50D, the D300 stomps the 50D! This is the Flame forum afterall!

[Vudoo4u2]

Originally Posted by scollins

I'm sure the D700s is coming at some point.

Looking at DxOMark's sensor scores, the D700 and 5dMkII have nearly the same overall score.

DxO Mark: D700 (80.5) 5DMkII (80.3) - slight lead to D700
Color Depth: D700 (23.5) 5DMkII (23.7) - slight lead to 5DMkII
Dynamic Range: D700 (12.2) 5DMkII (11.9) - slight lead to D700
Low-Light ISO: D700 (2303) 5DMkII (1815) - big advantage to D700.

DxOMark's Camera rankings


Now if we look at D300 vs 50D, the D300 stomps the 50D! This is the Flame forum afterall!

entirely agree, the D700 gets fantastic scores in quality and is on par with the 5dmkii for quality (Each has a slight but negligible edge in various things)

I was just meanig in the sense of....21mp vs 12.1 mp...its a big difference in printing sizes/options at the end of the day, just depends on whether those needs are important

but who am i kidding, this is a flame forum..nikon sucks

[lucky7]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I JUST WANT LOW NOISE AT 800/1600 ISO!

Maybe I'll just look for a 7d or even a 50d. Who here has a 50d and how is the high ISO noise?

my friend just got a 7D about a month ago, and he is NOT at ALL happy about the noise performance. i think he's frustrated he didnt save the extra cash for the 5D at this point.

anyhow i have an XTI, and im sure i'll have it for a long time. i got one, because my dad had one. i tried using a nikon once, but i couldnt figure out how to navigate the stupid menus. i think it was a D40, although i cant tell them apart.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by lucky7

my friend just got a 7D about a month ago, and he is NOT at ALL happy about the noise performance. i think he's frustrated he didnt save the extra cash for the 5D at this point.

anyhow i have an XTI, and im sure i'll have it for a long time. i got one, because my dad had one. i tried using a nikon once, but i couldnt figure out how to navigate the stupid menus. i think it was a D40, although i cant tell them apart.

me too... the d40 was like super complicated to just pick up and use.

[NYG8GT]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

me too... the d40 was like super complicated to just pick up and use.

LOL WUT?

I was a complete noob, only time I ever handled a DSLR was in Best Buy, and I was using mine by the 2nd day and taking some pretty decent photos.

[Fat Buff Guy]

how big can you go w/ a 12mp/21mp ? i havnt really played much w/ canon digital, i like their 35mm as i have an xt 2000. I know i have played w/ d5000, d300, and a bit w/a d90 and i didnt have much problem figuring them out. the d300 took me the longest. i am gonna try like hell and get a d90 for xmas. but i woulnt mind at least playing w/ a canon, just to see. im not completely biased on either or.

[Phiberglass]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I JUST WANT LOW NOISE AT 800/1600 ISO!

Maybe I'll just look for a 7d or even a 50d. Who here has a 50d and how is the high ISO noise?

They're about equal up to 1600 ISO then the 7D takes big lengths on the 50D. Plus you have the new AF system in the 7D.

Here are some shots that show the 7D ISO.

1600


3200


12800 out of camera


Not my photos, posted on POTN forums by Sauk and Woos. Pretty impressive IMO.

[Fat Buff Guy]

holy mother of god.

[dcstep]

If high ISO performance in a Canon is what you want, the the 5D2 is better than the 7D, IME. I own both and get as good a performance from the 5D2 at 3200 as the 7D at 1600. Those high ISO examples shown are actually in pretty good light, with the subjects dominating the frame. When you get truly low light and a small subject, then the noise gets pretty strong on the background.

Anyway, I feel more free with the 5D2 in low light than with my 7D.

Dave