Digital SLR cameras: Canon or Nikon?

[Roy Hersh]

I am looking to add a new camera to the collection and want a digital SLR. I've checked out the Nikon D-90 and 5000, and the equivalent by Canon.

What would be your recommendation based on your personal experience?

[Frederick Blais]

I think both companies are making great products. Often it is a question of phisolophy too. Canon is the big company with lots of budget and big development team, while Nikon is much smaller. From the photos I've seen, Nikon seems to offer better contrast while Canon offer better saturation of colors. For the same price, Canon seems to offer better QPR, often you have to pay a little more for Nikon for the same specs, though Nikon often offer better protection against the element.

One thing to consider is if you got compatible lens from an old SLR. Canon in my opinion does offer a better range of lens, also better built.

I used to be a Nikon user, but the camera broke 2 months after the warranty ended, the customer support did give me poorly service, they did not want to repair the camera as they suggested it would not be a good idea for the cost involved while never saying the cost or letting me make the decision. They did offer me 50$ gift certificate in exchange of my camera that they would use for spare parts.... wow that's a half a percent return on investment... From that moment I became a Canon user and never looked back.

Now for the model to chose, go in store and feel confortable with it too, some grip are different and I find the grip on some models to be way too small. Smaller grip = less control and more movement which is not good to make photos in low light condition with no tripod.

For canon product review, my favorite site is : www.digital-photography.com

You might also consider old models, I use the Canon 5D at the moment, but since the 5D Mark II is on the market, the price has really dropped and the quality it offers is still awesome for all our needs, unless you need video or live shot.

Good hunt!

[Peter W. Meek]

I like the Canon line, but as Frederick says it may be that my large collection of compatible Canon lenses might be a factor. I've bought almost every model in the Canon EOS line until the last few, and had (still have) a film body that fits all those lenses. You just can't beat good glass and Canon and Nikon both have that.

Canon has (I think) a slightly longer experience with Image Stabilization technology. If you ever have reason to try making telephoto shots from a wildly moving platform I can tell you the Canon system can do it. 166 handheld shots taken in the midst of a tugboat race and not one is spoiled due to camera shake. These were taken from a moderately sized (35') express cruiser. The tugs ranged from 3000hp/120' down to 145hp/35'. Our boat was bouncing around so badly that I had to hold the camera in one hand leaving the other hand and both legs to clamp onto the boat. Lens? 200mm - the equivalent of a 320mm lens on film. This is shrunk to fit this page; the original was about 4x bigger (16x area). In the original you can blow it up and almost see the expressions on the people's faces.


Detail of the girl standing at extreme right

Those boats were probably over 400' away.

[Roy Hersh]

I should give more info. My last film camera was a 1982 Canon AE-1. However, I had that for about 20 years. I still have the two additional lenses I bought, above and beyond the 50. I had an 18-55 mm and a 55-200mm -- but I can't imagine that today's cameras will fit those old lenses?

Additionally, the vast majority of my use for this camera would be for still, low light bottle shots for Portraits AND something besides my simple point and shoot digi cam. These photos are used almost exclusively for publishing online FTLOP newsletter. So in reality, I know that a digital SLR is probably overkill. However, it would be great to avoid the "shake" factor.

Thanks for suggestions! I am open minded to hear more from you guys or anyone else. Thanks!

[Glenn E.]

Additionally, the vast majority of my use for this camera would be for still, low light bottle shots for Portraits AND something besides my simple point and shoot digi cam. These photos are used almost exclusively for publishing online FTLOP newsletter. So in reality, I know that a digital SLR is probably overkill. However, it would be great to avoid the "shake" factor.

An SLR is seriously overpowered for what you want to do.

My go-to camera is a Panasonic DMC-TZ3 that I bought at Costco a couple of years ago. It has a 10x zoom Leica lens, built-in image stabilization, and a modest 7.2 megapixel resolution (3072 x 2304, which is far too large for online use anyway). They no longer make this version of the camera, but the latest version has a 12x zoom lens and I think 10 megapixel resolution.

Its low light performance is very good, and I'm able to hand hold 1-2 second exposures at night with the image stabilization. The only down side to the camera that I have noticed while using it is that you cannot take pictures from point blank - it generally needs about 24" minimum focal distance. But with a 10x zoom that's really not a problem because I can take label pictures from 5' away.

I used to use a Pentax SLR many years ago, and my original intent when I bought this camera was that I would use it for snapshots and eventually get a digital SLR for my semi-serious amateur photography. But I've liked this camera so much that I've never bothered to buy the DSLR!

My sister-in-law has a Canon and my youngest brother has a Nikon, both DSLR, and neither one of them out-performs my little Panasonic.

There is one real down side to the camera, though, for serious still life shots. It won't take an external flash. So if that's a requirement for you, then you'll need something else. But since its low-light performance is so good I doubt you'd actually need one, especially if you plan to use a light box.

[Glenn E.]

Here's an example - this was hand held, camera above my head to clear the crowd, and about a 1-second exposure. I had to reduce it to 1024 x 768 to fit nicely on the forums... the original is crisper.

[Eric Guido]

Roy,

Do do a large amount of food photography for the editorial work i do with snooth and the advertising for my work. I can tell you that my Nikon D90 has been reliable for years and takes amazing macro pics. It's also durable and Nikon (the one time I had an issue with the battery) was great about quickly replacing a battery that went bad. I will say that I've been told you can get more for your money with canon but I'd say that Nikon is the camera for the photographer that wants complete control over the camera's settings (mixed with well designed and easy to use presets) and reliability. For close up work I would suggest a good tri-pod with your camera and a macro lens which will allow you to get extremely close to the item you're shooting.

Here are some recent pics from my nikon.

[Frederick Blais]

Roy, from what you describe, if you want to achieve the best results in low light situation, you need a flash. Though most of camera do have a built in flash, the best results are achieve from external source of light or mounted flash. You often pay more than twice the amount of a non image stabilizer lens vs one with it. Before investing into this, I'd simply get a flash you can mount on you camera and manage the angle of light. What they call a "cobra" flash is perfect. A tripod is nice, but only when you use it at home, it is something you'd probably don't want to cary around touring vineyards and lodges with 10 other persons. An SLR with a flash would definitively be the first thing I'd put my money on. Then a tripod, then extra lenses.

One thing to consider, yes point and shoot camera can achieve nice photos, but you'll never get, and I really say NEVER! get any interesting nor near professional depth of field management. I think this is really what stands out as good photo versus a stunning photo where you can really get your subject out of the background and create emotion from a photo.

Point and shoot also strugle for wide angle photos as they often start from 35mm and above. From SLR its easy to start from 18mm or 25 depending on the crop of the captor. Wide angle are great for Douro valley shots.

[Roy Hersh]

I know some that would say that a DSLR is beyond what I need to buy, but I agree 100% with Frederick on that score.

I think this is really what stands out as good photo versus a stunning photo where you can really get your subject out of the background and create emotion from a photo.

This is the major reason that I found Frederick's winning photo of the 2008 PORTraits contest so captivating. It exuded emotion and the depth of field was stunning and not lost on this amateur photo enthusiast. For anyone who has not seen this photo, you really need to look it up in the newsletter archives.

Anyway, I definitely would get a wide angle 18-55 mm lens and probably a 55-200 mm lens as well. I still have an old top notch SLIK tripod that I might be able to still use. However, maybe some of the comments here are correct and I don't need to go hog wild with a D-90 at this point and could save some money for more bottles of Port.

I really appreciate all of the great responses and am open to hear even more. This has been very helpful today!

[Moses Botbol]

My buddy is a product manager at Nikon, so he'd kill me if I suggested anything else.

[Peter W. Meek]

Anyway, I definitely would get a wide angle 18-55 mm lens and probably a 55-200 mm lens as well.

Before you buy extra lenses, remember that the imaging surfaces in all but the most expensive (maybe $10,000 and up) digital cameras are smaller than the image area of 35mm film. That 18-55 is really like a 29-88 and the 55-200 is effectively an 88-320. I have a 10-22 that is none too wide in some circumstances.

The downside to all Digital cameras is finding good wide-angle lenses that don't give too much of a fish-eye effect and have flat fields. Mount a prospective wide lens on the camera and open up the aperture as much as possible to verify the look of the image and to check whether the lens stays in focus on a flat plane (good) or on the surface of a sphere centered on the lens (bad). Put a sheet of newspaper on the wall and move the camera back and forth to be sure that the edges of the printing go out of focus at the same time as the center. Also that the lines and columns stay straight. (No pincushion or barrel effect.) The 10-22 will focus down to about 9" and still is in focus from the center to the edges with the edges being almost 12" away (33% farther) from the lens - very flat focus.

(Of course with a true fish-eye lens - intended to take in an entire hemisphere - you DO want a spherical focus. Generally you are trying to keep everything in view in focus and nothing is very close to the camera.)

[Frederick Blais]

You might want to take a loot here :

http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/defau ... category=0

It's the canon refurbished items, they probably have the same for Nikon I guess. I did previously buy those items(2 lenses), they get 10-15% rebate off the brand new item. So far, no problems with those items.

[Glenn E.]

Roy - a friend of a friend works for Canon, and periodically sends me a flyer with deals on overstocked or refurbished equipment. He usually sends one out shortly before Christmas, so if he does do that again I'll try to remember to forward it your way. If memory serves there aren't usually any lenses in the flyer, but bodies and external flashes are pretty common.

[Bryan H.]

Roy,

We had a Nikon D-70 and loved it. It was stolen, and we replaced it with a Nikon D-40, and love it too. I'm an amateur, and my wife is also an amateur but she does have a bit of a knack for it.

I suggest checking out this website: www.kenrockwell.com

I have never seen such an informative site. The guy gets and reviews almost everything--cameras of all kinds and brands, lenses of all kinds and brands, and has a refreshing, no nonsense style. He makes no money from any camera companies, buys or borrows the products he reviews so no company is influencing him with free products, so it seems unbiased, and you will quickly see that his advice will keep money in your pocket for Port, as the theme throughout his reviews and analysis is definitely not towards spending big dough on high end cameras. (In fact, in his view the best DSLR you can get is the D40, unless you are a pro that is going to shoot all day--I'm paraphrasing but take a look and you will see what I mean.)

Ever since stumbling on this site about 5 years ago, I go there before buying any to do with photography. There is a wealth of other info on the site as well on taking pics, etc.

Good luck.

[Bryan H.]

Correction to the above: I have never seen such an informative site for cameras.

blows it away.

[Eric Menchen]

I think this is the place Fred wanted to link: http://dpreview.com/ It has lots of good information.

As for general thoughts, I'll pass along my impressions, which are really my wife's as Marijke is the true photographer in the house. She is semi-pro, having shot a few weddings, a magazine thing, and a little stuff for her regular job where she is isn't a full-time photographer, but an outreach person that spends most of her time writing. In the Canon vs. Nikon, she indicates that in general, Nikon has the better glass, but Canon usually leads in electronics. Her solution is to shoot with a Canon, and to buy the nice L-series lenses when she can afford it. Right now her primary camera is the 5D, and at her work they just bought a 5D Mark II. These cameras have a full frame sensor, so an 18-55mm lens is truly that. While a lot of cameras don't have a full-frame sensor, I think Peter's comment is off on the current price-point, as it is certainly below $10,000 now to get one. Marijke also has a Panasonic point-and-shoot like the one Glenn mentioned that she carries around all the time and is very happy with.

If you are going to carry this around a lot, consider the camera body construction. The less expensive EOS cameras are plastic, but the higher end ones are metal. Within a week of her purchase Marijke dropped her camera onto our cement garage floor from about 2-3 feet. I'm glad it wasn't plastic.

[Roy Hersh]

Fantastic advice and I am in no immediate hurry to buy a new camera, although I do really want one. My point and shoot digi cam (my 2nd consecutive Pentax Optio is great for taking the photos you see in the newsletter. But it is crappy for macro shots and I can't get close to bottles or labels with ease. It really bad in low light w/out the flash, even having software to edit/manipulate images.

So it is time to head back into my former passion for photography. I've taken a bunch of classes and back at NYU, some amazing classes for dark room work on both B/W and Color (the former was what I loved).

I realize the holidays are right around the corner and annual inventory clearance sales should abound in this economy. That will provide me the time to do the research, because if nothing else ... after years in the professional purchasing realm ... I love to buy and negotiate.

Thanks again for all of the sound commentary and views expressed on these two brands. Eric, your point about plastic vs. metal was not lost on me as in the Douro there are no soft surfaces. Would you believe my first time there, I brought along a full sized tri-pod and full camera set up. I have some amazing shots with inspiring depth of field from that trip. I still like to look at the old photos I took. There were 11 rolls of 36 exp. at the time I thought that was a lot (2 week trip to Portugal). Now I blow through that in a few days during our tours. Way too many bottle shots. If I ever loaded them all on PORTraits, it would instantly double in size.