Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 23, 2006, 8:43 PM   #1
Log
Senior Member
 
Log's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Not saying im not satisfied with my D50 thus far, but i just have to ask all you nikon shooters. If you could start all over, would you stick with nikon, or switch to canon? Current lenses are irrelevent, lets just say you have $10k and you could spend it on new bodies and lenses... would you stick with nikon?

-Logan

PS: the reason i ask is, while touring sportsshooter.com i noticed a few pics of people with their new Canon equipment saying what a relief it was switching from nikon.
Log is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 23, 2006, 9:01 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 76
Default

i'm perfectly happy with the Nikon D50 I have purchased. I did not like the way the eqivelant cannon felt at all before and even less now. The pictures have been pretty comparable between the two. However the feel and look of the Nikon are a lot better for me.

The cannon just feels like my last p&s camera with the plastic body that had things break and crack on it after a few months of using it without ever dropping it or anything but just opening and closing hinges and doors.


Quikster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 12:22 AM   #3
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

I can't really comment on this since my budget was limited to $1000. I didn't even look pass the D50 and Rebel XT. I bought the RebXT, used it for 6 weeks and returned it since it was way too small for my hand. My only solution was a battery grip which pushes the cost pass my budget and into the 20D range.

Same deal for lenses. The only walk around lens (for future purchase) that I looked at was Canon's 17-85 IS USM and Nikon's 18-200VR, and hands down, for price and focal range, Nikon's 18-200VR wins.

Sport shooters tend to use Canon, and it's obvious on any sporting events you see on TV. But like I said, my budget was limited, and I didn't even consider high end stuff. Keep in mind that these people get their gears from their company, real photographers don't make enough to afford really expensive cameras and lenses.

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 4:37 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22
Default

I chose the Nikon D50 over the Canon 350d (Rebel XT) primarily because of its ease of handling. Like a previous poster I didn't have the budget or inclination to look beyond that price range.

One thing I like about Nikon is their upgrade path. The D50 and D70s are both excellent entry level models for beginner/intermediate while the D200 offers professional level features without going the whole hog of the D2H. A friend of mine who started out with a 350d is now bemoaning his lack of decent upgrades - the 30d is not enough of a jump in his opinion to make it worthwhile while the 5d is too big a jump. Canon seems to lack a D200 level model.

I do get a twinge of doubt every time I see Canon cameras being used by professionals and appearing on adverts, but never enough to make me regret my choice. The only thing I would change is my initial lens choice - that 18-70 would have been a better base lens than the 18-55.
eeperman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 7:27 AM   #5
Log
Senior Member
 
Log's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 394
Default

rey wrote:
Quote:
Sport shooters tend to use Canon, and it's obvious on any sporting events you see on TV.
and i dont understand why that is when nikon has comparible cameras with comparible burst rates...

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"-Logan
Log is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 8:07 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

It's not the burst rates. Pro sports shooters don't even need the burst (although it helps). It's about the glass. Canon has more choices at the top tele end, and they are fast performers in AF (which does have a bit to do with the camera). Nikon by comparison does not have the selection or the performance in bright, prime tele's.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 9:34 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 76
Default

Plus its not like they care about cost or best bang for your buck as they are paid for by the employers anyway.

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
It's not the burst rates. Pro sports shooters don't even need the burst (although it helps). It's about the glass. Canon has more choices at the top tele end, and they are fast performers in AF (which does have a bit to do with the camera). Nikon by comparison does not have the selection or the performance in bright, prime tele's.
Quikster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 10:10 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 147
Default

what rjseeney says is right, they need lots of mm wich catch lots of light and focus fast.
nikon doesnt have allot of options in that field, though i've seen allot more nikon shooters at this WK then before on tv.

i bought the D50 a week or so ago, and tried the 350d for 2 weeks before the purchase of a nikon.
the thing that came into my mind immediatly when i saw this thread was that the cheaper canon lenses feel.. cheap! very cheap, with rubber or weird zoomrings. and it feels like you're holding a very lightweight brickstone. i could never get used to that.
the thumbwheel on the more expensive canons is great. but so are the wheels on the nikons wich even the cheapest nikon has.
so its all nikon for me for the feel, and usability.
chris89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 11:41 AM   #9
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

I prefer the Nikons to the Canons. Nor is there a lack of high end Nikon glass...

People who make money off their photrography switched to Canons when they came out with their D1s and followed up with the Mark II D1s. Thus giving them a strong competitive edge.

Finally, Nikon released the D2x and many are switching back. If it's your living, it's not as expensive as if it's a hobby. You spend money to make money...

But both companies make fine cameras, and for my particular needs, the D2x puts more pixels on my target, so I prefer the D2x...

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 12:46 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Log,
You and I are going down the same road. If I recall, you already have a d50. As knowledgeable users have been trying to beat it through my thick skull, the cameras all equal out in the end. It is that long-term path and the subsequent investment of flashes, lenses!, etc that will lock you in. I often wonder if I relied on power tools and bought into one system, could I objectively acknowledge one is better than the other. I'd be comfortable with one. I'd kNow how to use it, have the accessories and attachments. Why would I advocate another brand of power tools? Could I be capable of acknowledging nice new features from major competitors. It does seem to me, you get used to what you have and then can't help but advocate it. My point, it seems Nikon owners have committed and learned their systems. Same with Canon and others.

I also agree with the progression path to higher end cameras. Nikon has just NOT had something in that price point. Nikon's stairstep up through the next levels is either not enough benefit (aging d70s), or way too drastic for most of us d200 at nearly $2,000.

My debate has eliminated the Rebel XT for the Canon 30d. How do you like that?!? d50 at $700 or 30d at $1400!!!! I'm not scared to spend a little. I just haven't found the right camera. 30d pushes my budget a bit but d50 is a done deal, cut the check on move on. (But will I have regrets about not spending a little more to get more?!) Nikon has just not had anything above the apparently EXCELLENT entry-level d50 with the d70(s) starting, as some people put it, to get a little long in the tooth.

NOW, we have this new introduction from Nikon. I am one impulse away from going down and using a coupon I have (expires today) from picking up the 30d. Then, I get news of this Nikon introduction. Not experienced enough to offer opinions but I agree with most, I think it's going to be the d70s replacement and compete more directly with the CAnon 30d. It may be JUST underneath in some spec's but that would give Nikon an INCREDIBLE progression path more comparable to CAnon's. True entry-level with the d50. Then, a very compelling, very-capable mid-level consumer for those wanting to fork out a little more for a longer term investment.

That's where I am. I am certain I will push and outgrow the d50. I don't want just a dslr point and shoot. I'm ready to jump into this at full speed.

I hear you can't go wrong with the d50. I just don't want to spend $600 and have regrets. I can't get over MY impression, my influence from that CAnon advertising dollar that I will be in better hands shooting my long-term interest (amateur sports) with Canon products. Logically, I know I'll never spend the money for all that high end glass but I can't pull away from that CAnon mystique. While I hear more Nikon users (primarily beginners) RAVE about the pictures they get, say d50 versus Rebel owners, I can't get CAnon out of my head.

Long way to state, I'm in that same boat and following this closely. If that perspective adds any, looking forward to responses. SO WHAT ABOUT CANON'S AI, AI SERVO, ETC.??? Does nikon have some comparable focusing system? Is this a useful feature or marketing hype???
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:09 PM.