Canon - Nikon Observations

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:35:22 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:50:32 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:44:00 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:20:30 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:06:42 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:17 GMT, measekite
wrote:


Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90?

1. More rugged, better construction quality
2. No movie gimmicks
3. Much better autofocus
4. Quicker and more responsive
5. Better image quality
6. Better metering
7. Ability to fine-tune the AF of individual lenses

I guess those are the main reasons. Coming from a D200, the D300 is
also very familiar to me. Also I bought a factory refurbished model
with a 3 year warranty at a great price, so the difference in price
between it and a new D90 wasn't as big.

But the D90 is certainly a great camera compared to others in its
class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics"
compared to the competition.

It appears from reading your posts that you would choose a Nikon D90 over
a Canon 50D and spend less money on the body.

Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)?

Personally, I prefer the Nikons over the Canons. But what it comes
down to is what you feel most comfortable with. You'll generally get
better results with a camera that is more enjoyable to use and doesn't
put any roadblocks in your path. For some people, that may be the
less expensive body. For some, the additional features in the more
expensive body are more important.

Okay, I can agree with that. I do prefer the look and feel of the Nikon
D90 over the Canon 50D but am still bothered by the reviews that claim the
Canon is a better model.

Review are just that: reviews. They "review" the features of a
certain product. Only you can determine what works best for you.

The D90 and 50D are not in the same class, so a direct comparison
between the two isn't really valid. The D90 is a very high end
plastic consumer grade camera, while the 50D is a lower-end "semi-pro"
camera. The more appropriate comparison is the 50D vs. the D300, in
which case the Nikon blows the Canon away.


Why?

I have read in more than one place that the D90 will produce overall the
same results and the D300 for less $ and if that is the case you should
be able to compare it to the results produced by the 50D as well.




What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given
better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens
line as a group are optically better than Nikon for less money. I also
found this surprising.

Do all the reviews tell you this, or just one? Are you planning to buy
the entire line of lenses from either company? The fact is that both
of them make some winners and both make some that are not so good. Canon
has larger selection of expensive high-end lenses in their "L" line, so
perhaps that is why the reviews you see are skewed. However, imo Nikon
has more consistent quality across their entire product line. Even their
kit lenses are pretty good.

The reviews for the Canon 24-105 are consistently very good not matter who
reviews it. The 18-105 Nikkor did not fare as well. Now I know that the
Canon is a full frame lens and the Nikkor is a Dx but we are speaking
about results.

And you can use a full frame lens on a DX camera as well. So you can buy
the Canon 24-105 for the 50D.

If I understand what I am reading (and I may not) a Canon 50D with the
Canon 24-105 lens should produce better images than a Nikon D90 with the
new 18-105 DX lens.

If that is the case then my problem would be this. The Canon combo will
produce better results but I like the look and feel and controls of the
Nikon. What I really want is the benefits of the D90 with the image
quality of the Canon without having to spend much more $$.

measekite wrote:

From what I see is that Canon has a better line of better lenses but I
prefer the Nikon D90 body. While I would rather have a full frame the
price I want to spend for a camera body is under $1,500. But I still want
the best image quality that I can afford.

From what many have advised me is to go with Canon lenses and compromise
on the body. Some have even told me that the Canon Digital Rebel XSi
would give me better image quality over the Nikon D90 and not much
different than the Canon 50D when using the same lenses.

Yet this depends on which lenses you're talking about.

If you look at the features of the cameras, in terms of things like
focusing, flashes, and metering, it's a wash. The Nikon has better
flashes, but the AF on the Canon is better, and the metering is about
the same.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:30:49 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]
From what I see is that Canon has a better line of better lenses but I
prefer the Nikon D90 body. While I would rather have a full frame the
price I want to spend for a camera body is under $1,500. But I still
want the best image quality that I can afford.

From what many have advised me is to go with Canon lenses and
compromise on the body. Some have even told me that the Canon
Digital Rebel XSi would give me better image quality over the Nikon
D90 and not much different than the Canon 50D when using the same
lenses.

The XSi is nowhere in the same class as the D90, and you know that!

In what respect. In look and feel and the way the controls operate? I
agree. In terms of image quality? That depends on the lenses. Some say
they are about the same while others say differently.





Treat such advice and those who give it with some scepticism. You've
handled the cameras, and know how you like the D90. Nikon has plenty of
lenses which will give you both walk-round versatility and the highest
image quality - more than adequate for your needs.

One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me think
the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then read
many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will find their
final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.



As savageduck says: Go buy!

I would advise buying soon, before the prices go up.

With the economy the way it is I think prices will go down some.

Cheers,
David

measekite wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:35:22 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:50:32 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:44:00 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:20:30 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:06:42 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:17 GMT, measekite

wrote:


Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the
D90?

1. More rugged, better construction quality
2. No movie gimmicks
3. Much better autofocus
4. Quicker and more responsive
5. Better image quality
6. Better metering
7. Ability to fine-tune the AF of individual lenses

I guess those are the main reasons. Coming from a D200, the
D300 is also very familiar to me. Also I bought a factory
refurbished model with a 3 year warranty at a great price, so
the difference in price between it and a new D90 wasn't as big.

But the D90 is certainly a great camera compared to others in
its
class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics"
compared to the competition.

It appears from reading your posts that you would choose a Nikon
D90 over a Canon 50D and spend less money on the body.

Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)?

Personally, I prefer the Nikons over the Canons. But what it
comes
down to is what you feel most comfortable with. You'll generally
get better results with a camera that is more enjoyable to use
and
doesn't put any roadblocks in your path. For some people, that
may be the less expensive body. For some, the additional
features in the more expensive body are more important.

Okay, I can agree with that. I do prefer the look and feel of the
Nikon D90 over the Canon 50D but am still bothered by the reviews
that claim the Canon is a better model.

Review are just that: reviews. They "review" the features of a
certain product. Only you can determine what works best for you.

The D90 and 50D are not in the same class, so a direct comparison
between the two isn't really valid. The D90 is a very high end
plastic consumer grade camera, while the 50D is a lower-end
"semi-pro" camera. The more appropriate comparison is the 50D vs.
the D300, in which case the Nikon blows the Canon away.


Why?

I have read in more than one place that the D90 will produce overall
the same results and the D300 for less $ and if that is the case you
should be able to compare it to the results produced by the 50D as
well.




What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are
given
better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon
lens line as a group are optically better than Nikon for less
money. I also found this surprising.

Do all the reviews tell you this, or just one? Are you planning
to
buy the entire line of lenses from either company? The fact is
that both of them make some winners and both make some that are not
so good. Canon has larger selection of expensive high-end lenses in
their "L" line, so perhaps that is why the reviews you see are
skewed. However, imo Nikon has more consistent quality across their
entire product line. Even their kit lenses are pretty good.

The reviews for the Canon 24-105 are consistently very good not
matter who reviews it. The 18-105 Nikkor did not fare as well. Now
I know that the Canon is a full frame lens and the Nikkor is a Dx
but
we are speaking about results.

And you can use a full frame lens on a DX camera as well. So you
can
buy the Canon 24-105 for the 50D.

If I understand what I am reading (and I may not) a Canon 50D with
the
Canon 24-105 lens should produce better images than a Nikon D90 with
the new 18-105 DX lens.

If that is the case then my problem would be this. The Canon combo
will produce better results but I like the look and feel and
controls
of the Nikon. What I really want is the benefits of the D90 with the
image quality of the Canon without having to spend much more $$.

At the sizes you're talking about experts can't tell the difference
between shots made with a 39 megapixel Hasselblad and a point and
shoot. Do you really think that you're going to be able to tell the
difference between shots made with two DSLRs with similar specs and
similar lenses?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

measekite wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:30:49 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]
From what I see is that Canon has a better line of better lenses
but I prefer the Nikon D90 body. While I would rather have a full
frame the price I want to spend for a camera body is under $1,500.
But I still want the best image quality that I can afford.

From what many have advised me is to go with Canon lenses and
compromise on the body. Some have even told me that the Canon
Digital Rebel XSi would give me better image quality over the Nikon
D90 and not much different than the Canon 50D when using the same
lenses.

The XSi is nowhere in the same class as the D90, and you know that!

In what respect. In look and feel and the way the controls operate?
I agree. In terms of image quality? That depends on the lenses.
Some say they are about the same while others say differently.

One is an entry-level camera, the other a much higher-end camera.

Canon 450D GBP 379

Nikon D90 GBP 635

One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me
think the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then
read many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will find
their final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.

You may need a significantly better camera than the 450D to see a
significant difference in the lenses (i.e. something which couldn't be
corrected in software). If the lenses were really /that/ bad, why would
anyone buy them?

Yes, I like my Nikon 18-200mm VR, but I am well aware of its shortcomings
compared to a perfect 18mm or ideal 200mm lens. And to all the focal
lengths in between. I want a lens which I don't have to swap (because of
environmental considerations for a particular trip). If I wanted a lens
for architecture, I'd probably get a PC lens, and use if on a tripod.


Go to a photo store and try each combination for yourself - is the lens
quality good enough for you?

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
measekite wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:30:49 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]
From what I see is that Canon has a better line of better lenses
but I prefer the Nikon D90 body. While I would rather have a
full
frame the price I want to spend for a camera body is under
$1,500.
But I still want the best image quality that I can afford.

From what many have advised me is to go with Canon lenses and
compromise on the body. Some have even told me that the Canon
Digital Rebel XSi would give me better image quality over the
Nikon
D90 and not much different than the Canon 50D when using the same
lenses.

The XSi is nowhere in the same class as the D90, and you know
that!

In what respect. In look and feel and the way the controls
operate?
I agree. In terms of image quality? That depends on the lenses.
Some say they are about the same while others say differently.

One is an entry-level camera, the other a much higher-end camera.

Canon 450D GBP 379

Nikon D90 GBP 635

While this is true, what leads you to believe that there will be a
significant difference in image quality? They have roughly the same
pixel count, roughly the same noise levels, roughly the same dynamic
range, so where's this noticeable difference going to come from?

One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me
think the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then
read many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will
find
their final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.

You may need a significantly better camera than the 450D to see a
significant difference in the lenses (i.e. something which couldn't
be
corrected in software). If the lenses were really /that/ bad, why
would anyone buy them?

Very likely true. You'd also need a significantly better camera than
the d90.

Yes, I like my Nikon 18-200mm VR, but I am well aware of its
shortcomings compared to a perfect 18mm or ideal 200mm lens. And to
all the focal lengths in between. I want a lens which I don't have
to swap (because of environmental considerations for a particular
trip). If I wanted a lens for architecture, I'd probably get a PC
lens, and use if on a tripod.


Go to a photo store and try each combination for yourself - is the
lens quality good enough for you?

Cheers,
David

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:35:21 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:35:22 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:50:32 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:44:00 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:20:30 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:06:42 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:17 GMT, measekite
wrote:


Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90?

1. More rugged, better construction quality
2. No movie gimmicks
3. Much better autofocus
4. Quicker and more responsive
5. Better image quality
6. Better metering
7. Ability to fine-tune the AF of individual lenses

I guess those are the main reasons. Coming from a D200, the D300 is
also very familiar to me. Also I bought a factory refurbished model
with a 3 year warranty at a great price, so the difference in price
between it and a new D90 wasn't as big.

But the D90 is certainly a great camera compared to others in its
class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics"
compared to the competition.

It appears from reading your posts that you would choose a Nikon D90 over
a Canon 50D and spend less money on the body.

Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)?

Personally, I prefer the Nikons over the Canons. But what it comes
down to is what you feel most comfortable with. You'll generally get
better results with a camera that is more enjoyable to use and doesn't
put any roadblocks in your path. For some people, that may be the
less expensive body. For some, the additional features in the more
expensive body are more important.

Okay, I can agree with that. I do prefer the look and feel of the Nikon
D90 over the Canon 50D but am still bothered by the reviews that claim the
Canon is a better model.

Review are just that: reviews. They "review" the features of a
certain product. Only you can determine what works best for you.

The D90 and 50D are not in the same class, so a direct comparison
between the two isn't really valid. The D90 is a very high end
plastic consumer grade camera, while the 50D is a lower-end "semi-pro"
camera. The more appropriate comparison is the 50D vs. the D300, in
which case the Nikon blows the Canon away.


Why?

I have read in more than one place that the D90 will produce overall the
same results and the D300 for less $ and if that is the case you should
be able to compare it to the results produced by the 50D as well.

The difference is that the superior construction, speed and autofocus
of the D300 will allow you to get those results under more conditions
than the D90.





What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given
better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens
line as a group are optically better than Nikon for less money. I also
found this surprising.

Do all the reviews tell you this, or just one? Are you planning to buy
the entire line of lenses from either company? The fact is that both
of them make some winners and both make some that are not so good. Canon
has larger selection of expensive high-end lenses in their "L" line, so
perhaps that is why the reviews you see are skewed. However, imo Nikon
has more consistent quality across their entire product line. Even their
kit lenses are pretty good.

The reviews for the Canon 24-105 are consistently very good not matter who
reviews it. The 18-105 Nikkor did not fare as well. Now I know that the
Canon is a full frame lens and the Nikkor is a Dx but we are speaking
about results.

Perhaps you should be comparing different lenses?



And you can use a full frame lens on a DX camera as well. So you can buy
the Canon 24-105 for the 50D.

If I understand what I am reading (and I may not) a Canon 50D with the
Canon 24-105 lens should produce better images than a Nikon D90 with the
new 18-105 DX lens.

If that is the case then my problem would be this. The Canon combo will
produce better results but I like the look and feel and controls of the
Nikon. What I really want is the benefits of the D90 with the image
quality of the Canon without having to spend much more $$.

I seriously doubt that the Canon combo will produce better results in
real world situations, regardless of what the reviewers say. If
you're not comfortable with that particular 18-105 lens, go with a
different one that tests better.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:57 -0000, "whisky-dave"
wrote:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009011205505119336-savageduck@savagenet...
On 2009-01-12 05:34:22 -0800, "whisky-dave"
said:


"Larry Thong" wrote in message
m...



Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors.

I thought the moon landing used Hasselblads .

Yep!
However Nikons including DSLR's have been used on most missions, including
the current series of Shuttle missions.
http://www.nikonweb.com/nasaf4/

Seems only the nikin website seems to see themselves are "exclusively" being
used ;-)

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/metadata/camera.htm


I wonder if they choose the camera depending on what they are offered.

Government contracts usually require a product to meet some rigorous
specifications. If the the common belief is that they always "go to
the lowest bidder" were true, then we'd see a lot of Canons on NASA
missions because they cost less than Nikons.

However, Canon is the official camera of the NFL. (Which means that
they pay a lot of money to wear that badge...)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:44:35 GMT, measekite
wrote:

One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me think
the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

Keep in mind that the 18-200 is considered to be a consumer grade
all-in-one lens, so don't expect it to be on the same level with more
specialized ones. If you are interested in ultimate image quality,
you shouldn't even be considering an 18-200 from anyone.

Even so, you should be looking at actual images made with that lens
rather than somone's test charts of a particular copy of it. You may
find that it is quite suitable for your purposes.



For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then read
many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will find their
final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

In some cases, the opposite is true. It depends on the lens and, in
some cases, who is reviewing it.


I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.

All in all, Nikon and Canon make very comparable products. Go with
the one that feels best to you - you'll be much happier in the long
run.









As savageduck says: Go buy!

I would advise buying soon, before the prices go up.

With the economy the way it is I think prices will go down some.

Cheers,
David

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:39:30 -0800, SMS
wrote:

measekite wrote:

From what I see is that Canon has a better line of better lenses but I
prefer the Nikon D90 body. While I would rather have a full frame the
price I want to spend for a camera body is under $1,500. But I still want
the best image quality that I can afford.

From what many have advised me is to go with Canon lenses and compromise
on the body. Some have even told me that the Canon Digital Rebel XSi
would give me better image quality over the Nikon D90 and not much
different than the Canon 50D when using the same lenses.

Yet this depends on which lenses you're talking about.

If you look at the features of the cameras, in terms of things like
focusing, flashes, and metering, it's a wash. The Nikon has better
flashes, but the AF on the Canon is better, and the metering is about
the same.

Keep in mind that the D90 and 50D are not competing cameras. The D90
is Nikon's highest end consumer camera while the 50D is Canon's best
"prosumer" offering. Compare the 50D with the D300 and you'll find
the Nikon has the better metering and AF. The D90 should really be
compared to the best of Canon's Rebel line.