DSLR confused. Need assistance.?
I am planning to buy a DSLR, will I go for a NIKON D60 or Canon EOS 450D??
Thanks and I badly requirement your advice.
Answers: Firstly, Canon VS Nikon...
Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Nikon, Canon... the great debate stretches on and on and on.
There isn't a better brand. Sure, Ken Rockwell likes Nikon... Sure, other pros might use Canon... (Note: Yes, I expect Ken Rockwell is wrong at times and just plain biased in others, but he does hold a disclaimer and he does explain why he prefers Nikon...)
You'll notice that almost all sports and goings-on photogs use Canon because when the AF systems were new subsidise in the 90's, Canon's was closely better than Nikon. And of course, it's not cheap to change...
Now, both are tied. In the origin it was Nikon and pros. Then Canon caught up. The digital era brought Canon to the throne, and immediately... yes, there are subtle differences in their different lenses, but you can't compare it directly unless you hold the same camera body. Oh, put the camera body to the test as very well, but no, it doesn't work that way - they both are excellent brands.
Sure, sometimes Canon's a bit soft; etc. etc... but here's the *general* run down.
Sony = best image aspect (in fact, makes sensors for Nikon)
Nikon = best ISO handling
Canon = best of both
Some may not agree, but that's it. Some don't really mind a tiny, tiny, unnoticeable difference surrounded by Image Quality and therefore choose Nikon, as its ISO handling is superb. Especially photojournalists, you'll notice.
Personally, I similar to Canon. But think about the differences, what the lenses are and if you are thinking just about getting one, what you're going to do.
Canon makes great macros... etc. etc.
They all hold their 'top' lenses:
Canon ~ L
Nikon ~ ED
Sony ~ Carl Zeiss (the most expensive)
So you see, you cannot really compare them.
----
I've compared Sony because all you should consider. I don't like Sony myself, but it is not a impossible brand.
Additionally, this is what I offer to first DSLR buyers, based on the current marketplace:
Currently at the head of the market is the Canon 1Ds Mark III, followed shortly, or on par, next to the Nikon D3x.
Ten thousand, around there.
What you are asking is the best entry level DSLR, is it not? And on the other hand if you aren't willing to pay, it's the best DSLR for your money.
I recommend sticking next to Canon and Nikon, maybe Sony and Pentax, and definitely not Sigma or Olympus.
Sigma for its cameras, not its lenses, mind.
With the big four, excluding Olympus; Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax, are almost other available for mounting a third party lens.
I suggest the Canon EOS 450D/ Rebel XSi. The XS/1000D is also good, but is not *quite* as feature as the XSi, although none affect photo quality except the small 2 megapixel range surrounded by between which doesn't matter, anyway. More megapixels doesn't mean better, and too lots means more noise. I do *not* recommend the strange T1i/500D, as it's just really consumer targeted and is not much better than the XSi in jargon of quality. They've just boosted it up to 15 megapixels - again, I stress that it's a myth that megapixels net the image quality better - and added a video mode which can't even copy at 1080 at 30fps; instead, 20fps. A video camera would be much better suited for video, at this stage. Canon makes their own sensors, and their CMOS sensors are incredible because they've poured money into research for their developments. Canon bodies don't have Image Stabilisation, but they hold IS in quite a few their lenses. Of course, this means you could be paying a considerable amount more for IS, especially in complex end lens models, such as enormous telephotos, but the honourable side is that you can view the stabilisation at work through your viewfinder. IS in-lens is also better because IS for a telephoto may need to vary than one for a wide angle. So it's customised to suit the specific lens, and in nonspecific provides more stabilisation.
If you want to go Nikon, try the D90, or for a cheaper price, the D60. There's a new D5000... but again, I don't suggest it. The D60, D40x and D40 adjectives do not have an autofocus motor. They have a autofocus sensor of three focus points, as compared to most other DSLRs which enjoy around 11 points (at entry level stage). The D90 is an excellent camera; slightly more advanced, but there you run - you won't outgrow it that easily and it's a good inferior camera. Whereas the D60/D40x/D40 could hardly be as without AF you'd own to buy specially maed (AF-S) lenses. Yes, it seems that Nikon is headed towards making adjectives the lenses AF-S eventually, and all its entry level DSLRs lacking AF, it's still good so you can use other lenses from Nikon and third party lenses as okay. Tamron makes some AF lenses to be compatible with Nikon, but these are restricted. But Nikon's ISO handling is fantastic, with superbly low noise at better ISO. Like Canon, Nikon has in-lens stabilisation called 'VR', or Vibration Reduction.
Sony; your best bet is the A200 or A300. I stress that the A350 is not worth it, and the 14 megapixels sort the frame-per-second rate only 2. That's lower than many others which hold at least 2.5. Mostly 3fps. Sony is not an inexpensive bran, and for their equivalent of 'L' series lenses, Carl Zeiss (although slightly better than the Canon L series), start around $1500 and average around $2000-3000. But you won't miss out on the image trait. After all, Sony makes sensors for Nikon. In built stabilisation mode you can use any lens and of course it will be 'stabilised'. Again, it may not be as effective as in-lens stabilisation, but it works.
Pentax still provides excellent sign quality; not so much as the others, but provides a good adjectives rounder and is the best bang for the buck. Its advanced amateur camera, the K20D, is available for a considerably inexpensive price, compared to its rivals, and provides an excellent DSLR. The entry level DSLR, the K200D, is an excellent camera as very well, and there is now a K-M, or K1000. This is not comparatively as good as the K200D, and for the price, it's recommended that you get the K200D instead. However, if you can't carry your hands on the K200D, the K-M is still a good buy. All Pentax cameras enjoy in built stabilisation, but again, this is not *quite* as effective as Sony's. But it does work, memo.
Overall, Sony has the best image trait, Nikon has the best ISO handling, with lower commotion, and Canon has the best in-between.
Olympus and Panasonic run on the 4/3's system. Currently, Panasonic solely has two Lumix DSLRs, and use Lumix/Leica lenses. The Leica lenses, in unique, offer excellent image aspect, but here note: the 4/3's system has troubles. It runs on the 4:3 ratio, close to most compact/point-and-shoot cameras, and when you print at 6x4, for example, a small, tiny sliver is cropped out. This isn't much of a difference, but the focal-length multiplier, which normally on other APS-C cameras, which is most DSLRs up to the professional range (they tend to use full frame sensors), is around 1.5x, is 2x on the 4/3's system. There are also several drawbacks, such as the certainty that you can only use 4/3's lenses and that everything is doubled. The aperture, if f/2.8, is really f/4, and the length is not 18mm but double that and so forth. I don't recommend it, but its not bad contained by terms of image competence.
---
Now, if you've decided on the Nikon entry level reach and have your heart set on it, even though you know the AF problems...
Then here: I don't suggest the D60. It's not much worth over the D40. If anything, I suggest the D40. 6 megapixels is more than enough to enlarge a photo to considerable sizes. And when you seize 10 megapixels, do note that it doesn't mean you can print double the size. No, not at adjectives... you can print slightly larger without too much pixelation, but that's about one or two, perchance three sizes larger only. If you want, the D40x is also a great camera with the best compromise, and the price difference... resourcefully, it depends on the price difference. I say get the D40, salvage the money for a good lens; but only if the price difference is smaller number than $150... there aren't many polite lenses you can get at that price.
---
I've given you more than you need, so I apologise for that... but its still upright to know all the information so you can compare it as you need.
Personally, I use Canon, as aforementioned, but hold used Nikon as well.
They both take a great photograph surrounded by the right hands.
But people pushing Nikon never mention that the entry horizontal bodies from Nikon don't have AF motors, and that limits the nature of lenses you can use. I don't shoot Nikon, but I see lots of d40 and d60 owners show up here complaining about it.
Entry level Canon bodies don't enjoy this issue. On that alone, I'd go Canon if you are looking at an entry level body similar to the d40 or d60.
Don't forget, these things aside, the camera also has to be easy to use, or cram. How does it feel in your appendage? can you get around to menu easily? Can you seize to often changed things like ISO and exposure compensation speedily?
Try getting your hands on the body, most walmarts, bestbuy and such have these bodies on display.
Related Questions:
Thanks and I badly requirement your advice.
Answers: Firstly, Canon VS Nikon...
Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Nikon, Canon... the great debate stretches on and on and on.
There isn't a better brand. Sure, Ken Rockwell likes Nikon... Sure, other pros might use Canon... (Note: Yes, I expect Ken Rockwell is wrong at times and just plain biased in others, but he does hold a disclaimer and he does explain why he prefers Nikon...)
You'll notice that almost all sports and goings-on photogs use Canon because when the AF systems were new subsidise in the 90's, Canon's was closely better than Nikon. And of course, it's not cheap to change...
Now, both are tied. In the origin it was Nikon and pros. Then Canon caught up. The digital era brought Canon to the throne, and immediately... yes, there are subtle differences in their different lenses, but you can't compare it directly unless you hold the same camera body. Oh, put the camera body to the test as very well, but no, it doesn't work that way - they both are excellent brands.
Sure, sometimes Canon's a bit soft; etc. etc... but here's the *general* run down.
Sony = best image aspect (in fact, makes sensors for Nikon)
Nikon = best ISO handling
Canon = best of both
Some may not agree, but that's it. Some don't really mind a tiny, tiny, unnoticeable difference surrounded by Image Quality and therefore choose Nikon, as its ISO handling is superb. Especially photojournalists, you'll notice.
Personally, I similar to Canon. But think about the differences, what the lenses are and if you are thinking just about getting one, what you're going to do.
Canon makes great macros... etc. etc.
They all hold their 'top' lenses:
Canon ~ L
Nikon ~ ED
Sony ~ Carl Zeiss (the most expensive)
So you see, you cannot really compare them.
----
I've compared Sony because all you should consider. I don't like Sony myself, but it is not a impossible brand.
Additionally, this is what I offer to first DSLR buyers, based on the current marketplace:
Currently at the head of the market is the Canon 1Ds Mark III, followed shortly, or on par, next to the Nikon D3x.
Ten thousand, around there.
What you are asking is the best entry level DSLR, is it not? And on the other hand if you aren't willing to pay, it's the best DSLR for your money.
I recommend sticking next to Canon and Nikon, maybe Sony and Pentax, and definitely not Sigma or Olympus.
Sigma for its cameras, not its lenses, mind.
With the big four, excluding Olympus; Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax, are almost other available for mounting a third party lens.
I suggest the Canon EOS 450D/ Rebel XSi. The XS/1000D is also good, but is not *quite* as feature as the XSi, although none affect photo quality except the small 2 megapixel range surrounded by between which doesn't matter, anyway. More megapixels doesn't mean better, and too lots means more noise. I do *not* recommend the strange T1i/500D, as it's just really consumer targeted and is not much better than the XSi in jargon of quality. They've just boosted it up to 15 megapixels - again, I stress that it's a myth that megapixels net the image quality better - and added a video mode which can't even copy at 1080 at 30fps; instead, 20fps. A video camera would be much better suited for video, at this stage. Canon makes their own sensors, and their CMOS sensors are incredible because they've poured money into research for their developments. Canon bodies don't have Image Stabilisation, but they hold IS in quite a few their lenses. Of course, this means you could be paying a considerable amount more for IS, especially in complex end lens models, such as enormous telephotos, but the honourable side is that you can view the stabilisation at work through your viewfinder. IS in-lens is also better because IS for a telephoto may need to vary than one for a wide angle. So it's customised to suit the specific lens, and in nonspecific provides more stabilisation.
If you want to go Nikon, try the D90, or for a cheaper price, the D60. There's a new D5000... but again, I don't suggest it. The D60, D40x and D40 adjectives do not have an autofocus motor. They have a autofocus sensor of three focus points, as compared to most other DSLRs which enjoy around 11 points (at entry level stage). The D90 is an excellent camera; slightly more advanced, but there you run - you won't outgrow it that easily and it's a good inferior camera. Whereas the D60/D40x/D40 could hardly be as without AF you'd own to buy specially maed (AF-S) lenses. Yes, it seems that Nikon is headed towards making adjectives the lenses AF-S eventually, and all its entry level DSLRs lacking AF, it's still good so you can use other lenses from Nikon and third party lenses as okay. Tamron makes some AF lenses to be compatible with Nikon, but these are restricted. But Nikon's ISO handling is fantastic, with superbly low noise at better ISO. Like Canon, Nikon has in-lens stabilisation called 'VR', or Vibration Reduction.
Sony; your best bet is the A200 or A300. I stress that the A350 is not worth it, and the 14 megapixels sort the frame-per-second rate only 2. That's lower than many others which hold at least 2.5. Mostly 3fps. Sony is not an inexpensive bran, and for their equivalent of 'L' series lenses, Carl Zeiss (although slightly better than the Canon L series), start around $1500 and average around $2000-3000. But you won't miss out on the image trait. After all, Sony makes sensors for Nikon. In built stabilisation mode you can use any lens and of course it will be 'stabilised'. Again, it may not be as effective as in-lens stabilisation, but it works.
Pentax still provides excellent sign quality; not so much as the others, but provides a good adjectives rounder and is the best bang for the buck. Its advanced amateur camera, the K20D, is available for a considerably inexpensive price, compared to its rivals, and provides an excellent DSLR. The entry level DSLR, the K200D, is an excellent camera as very well, and there is now a K-M, or K1000. This is not comparatively as good as the K200D, and for the price, it's recommended that you get the K200D instead. However, if you can't carry your hands on the K200D, the K-M is still a good buy. All Pentax cameras enjoy in built stabilisation, but again, this is not *quite* as effective as Sony's. But it does work, memo.
Overall, Sony has the best image trait, Nikon has the best ISO handling, with lower commotion, and Canon has the best in-between.
Olympus and Panasonic run on the 4/3's system. Currently, Panasonic solely has two Lumix DSLRs, and use Lumix/Leica lenses. The Leica lenses, in unique, offer excellent image aspect, but here note: the 4/3's system has troubles. It runs on the 4:3 ratio, close to most compact/point-and-shoot cameras, and when you print at 6x4, for example, a small, tiny sliver is cropped out. This isn't much of a difference, but the focal-length multiplier, which normally on other APS-C cameras, which is most DSLRs up to the professional range (they tend to use full frame sensors), is around 1.5x, is 2x on the 4/3's system. There are also several drawbacks, such as the certainty that you can only use 4/3's lenses and that everything is doubled. The aperture, if f/2.8, is really f/4, and the length is not 18mm but double that and so forth. I don't recommend it, but its not bad contained by terms of image competence.
---
Now, if you've decided on the Nikon entry level reach and have your heart set on it, even though you know the AF problems...
Then here: I don't suggest the D60. It's not much worth over the D40. If anything, I suggest the D40. 6 megapixels is more than enough to enlarge a photo to considerable sizes. And when you seize 10 megapixels, do note that it doesn't mean you can print double the size. No, not at adjectives... you can print slightly larger without too much pixelation, but that's about one or two, perchance three sizes larger only. If you want, the D40x is also a great camera with the best compromise, and the price difference... resourcefully, it depends on the price difference. I say get the D40, salvage the money for a good lens; but only if the price difference is smaller number than $150... there aren't many polite lenses you can get at that price.
---
I've given you more than you need, so I apologise for that... but its still upright to know all the information so you can compare it as you need.
Personally, I use Canon, as aforementioned, but hold used Nikon as well.
They both take a great photograph surrounded by the right hands.
But people pushing Nikon never mention that the entry horizontal bodies from Nikon don't have AF motors, and that limits the nature of lenses you can use. I don't shoot Nikon, but I see lots of d40 and d60 owners show up here complaining about it.
Entry level Canon bodies don't enjoy this issue. On that alone, I'd go Canon if you are looking at an entry level body similar to the d40 or d60.
Don't forget, these things aside, the camera also has to be easy to use, or cram. How does it feel in your appendage? can you get around to menu easily? Can you seize to often changed things like ISO and exposure compensation speedily?
Try getting your hands on the body, most walmarts, bestbuy and such have these bodies on display.
Related Questions: