So as there is so many people saying that they are of equal quality and capability, would I be stupid to opt for the Nikon that is a couple hundred dollars less(since money is in limited supply for me, $200 matters) and put that money towards a lens? I mean at this point, I haven't been swayed one way or the other--they both seem fantastic. I think it's going to come down to which one feels better to me.
Unfortunately, $200 is NOT enough money, alone, to make your initial decision about which brand you buy into. Because honestly, for the rest of your life, you'll be spending at least 10-20x that much on camera gear. Just don't do it, I'm serious!
Of course, for those of us for whom money is never going to grow on trees, we do want to consider the overall pricing of investing in a system. And personally, I find that Canon and Nikon can cost about the same depending on your standards and what you shoot. You might not be able to get a brand new flagship Canon full-frame for less than $8,000, but a used 1Ds mk3 can now be had for about the same price as the 5D mk2 was when it first came out, just under $3K...
Either way, I'm still gonna stick with my earlier recommendation: If you shoot a lot of telephoto sports, wildlife and action etc, then Canon will probably ALWAYS have a better system with it's great 1.6x and 1.3x crop options. However if you love wide angles, landscapes, adventures and weird geeky things, then Nikon is probably ALWAYS going to pack more functionality into their cameras, and historically speaking / for the time being, Nikon whoops Canon in the department of wide angles. Nikon may also be the low-light champion with ISO and autofocus, but that could change at the drop of a hat so I wouldn't base much off of that.
Unfortunately, $200 is NOT enough money, alone, to make your initial decision about which brand you buy into. Because honestly, for the rest of your life, you'll be spending at least 10-20x that much on camera gear. Just don't do it, I'm serious!
Of course, for those of us for whom money is never going to grow on trees, we do want to consider the overall pricing of investing in a system. And personally, I find that Canon and Nikon can cost about the same depending on your standards and what you shoot. You might not be able to get a brand new flagship Canon full-frame for less than $8,000, but a used 1Ds mk3 can now be had for about the same price as the 5D mk2 was when it first came out, just under $3K...
Either way, I'm still gonna stick with my earlier recommendation: If you shoot a lot of telephoto sports, wildlife and action etc, then Canon will probably ALWAYS have a better system with it's great 1.6x and 1.3x crop options. However if you love wide angles, landscapes, adventures and weird geeky things, then Nikon is probably ALWAYS going to pack more functionality into their cameras, and historically speaking / for the time being, Nikon whoops Canon in the department of wide angles. Nikon may also be the low-light champion with ISO and autofocus, but that could change at the drop of a hat so I wouldn't base much off of that.
=Matt=
Spoken like a true pro - very well stated Matt.
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
I have been using the Canon 7D for rodeo and barrel racing events for a couple of years. The 8 frames per second it gives you is fantastic. I love the camera!
There are aspects of both that I like but at this point the only thing that sways me is the 8fps on the Canon. I will be shooting sports(horse shows to be exact) so that is important to me. I will also be doing portraits so I need something versatile. I have read a TON of reviews and so far these two seem like the best two candidates. Any input on these two cameras? I am hoping to buy one or the other in the next week or so. I would love to hear from you!
since you're asked for an opinion on which I would prefer, I'd simply say Canon because its Canon and you can't go wrong with Canon it also meets your requirements (8fps)
I'll enter the fray as a Canon film user and Nikon digital user. I shoot night field sports with the Nikon D300 and D7000. The D7000 does have the ISO advantage. the D300 gets up to 8 fps when the grip is added. Note that the D300 gets the extra 2 fps (from 6 fps improved to 8 fps) only when you are using 8 AA batteries (using rechargeables makes this a worth doing). Just adding a spare camera battery in the grip doesn't get you anything except longer life. The D7000 maxes out at 6 fps, which is fine for me.
You have gotten enough vaired advice to go either way. Sit down and make a list of priorities: fps, night photography, weight and feel of camera, action vs. portraits. Before you decide, think about what is most important to you. Where would you like your photography to take you?
Look at which system will get you there. Then hold the cameras, weigh your priorities and decide.
Please let us know what you decide.
thanks for posting this thread. I am sure that the info is useful for lots of people.
As a Nikon shooter I would have to say you can't go wrong with either camera. If you look at the pictures posted here you will find outstanding captures taken with both systems. What you have to consider is your budget, what type of pictures you want to take and which brand has the equipment taht fits your needs.Then go down to the camera store and see which one has the ergonomics that you like. Also take a look at their menu systems. I would also look at what the other players are offering (Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung. etc). There are lots of excellent cameras to choose from.
The quality of your photos will be determined more by the effort you put into it than by whatever system you choose.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I am currently shooting the D7000 and LOVE it for its pure versatility. I have done action, portraits and landscapes with it. My only gripes so far are actually pretty minimal, in bright sunlight you have to adjust the exposure compensation down about one stop cause it likes to blow out highlights. My other gripe is it only offers a 3 stop bracket, which for HDR work kinda blows. Other than those two minor things I LOVE my body and wouldn't trade it for the world.
Comments
Of course, for those of us for whom money is never going to grow on trees, we do want to consider the overall pricing of investing in a system. And personally, I find that Canon and Nikon can cost about the same depending on your standards and what you shoot. You might not be able to get a brand new flagship Canon full-frame for less than $8,000, but a used 1Ds mk3 can now be had for about the same price as the 5D mk2 was when it first came out, just under $3K...
Either way, I'm still gonna stick with my earlier recommendation: If you shoot a lot of telephoto sports, wildlife and action etc, then Canon will probably ALWAYS have a better system with it's great 1.6x and 1.3x crop options. However if you love wide angles, landscapes, adventures and weird geeky things, then Nikon is probably ALWAYS going to pack more functionality into their cameras, and historically speaking / for the time being, Nikon whoops Canon in the department of wide angles. Nikon may also be the low-light champion with ISO and autofocus, but that could change at the drop of a hat so I wouldn't base much off of that.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Spoken like a true pro - very well stated Matt.
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
since you're asked for an opinion on which I would prefer, I'd simply say Canon because its Canon and you can't go wrong with Canon
http://choudhrysaab.smugmug.com
You have gotten enough vaired advice to go either way. Sit down and make a list of priorities: fps, night photography, weight and feel of camera, action vs. portraits. Before you decide, think about what is most important to you. Where would you like your photography to take you?
Look at which system will get you there. Then hold the cameras, weigh your priorities and decide.
Please let us know what you decide.
thanks for posting this thread. I am sure that the info is useful for lots of people.
Chris
When you come to a door... walk through it.
If it's locked... find an open window.
The quality of your photos will be determined more by the effort you put into it than by whatever system you choose.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"