Nikon vs Canon - a request

[mcarabian]

I know I know, everyone is getting tired of this comparison but I'm sort of stuck on which one to get, the Nikon D50 or the Canon Rebel XT (350 I think). The clincher for me would be how well the camera will photograph the snake. If anyone photographed their snake with either camera, would you post up the pics for me? Can you also include what kind of lens you used (this part is not necessary but I'm curious about how well the 'stock' lenses compare to other lenses out in the market).
Thanks in advance :)

[mbdorfer]

Joejr is using the D50 with the standard lens, I believe.
He has posted several threads. Here's one of them :cool:
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28541

[mcarabian]

Very nice! Ok, I'v made my decision, unless someone else posts up fantastic pics they've taken with the Canon :grin01:
Thanks for the quick reply! :)

[Kvlt]

i can post some pics taken with the 350D when i get home from work.
the D50 is 6mb while the 350D is 8mb...which means you can crop more to get better closeups.
Take a look at this link:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.asp
BUT what is more important is how the camera feels when you hold it...because both camera's are awesome and will take amazing pictures. So i would go to a camera store or something and try to hold both the camera's and find out which feels more comfortable.

[mcarabian]

BUT what is more important is how the camera feels when you hold it...because both camera's are awesome and will take amazing pictures. So i would go to a camera store or something and try to hold both the camera's and find out which feels more comfortable.

That's the problem - I used to have a big clunky SLR, so BOTH cameras felt pretty sweet to me when I held them. I actually looked over the reviews on that website and on a couple of other sites and was still stumped :rolleyes: The only complaint worth noting about the Canon is the stock lens that comes with it, but I can easily just buy the body and get a better (perhaps cheaper?) lens on the market. It's one of the reasons I was curious about pics taken with the stock lens.
Thanks for the reply and I'm looking forward to seeing your pics :)

[Hurley]

This photo was taken (obviously way scaled down to fit here) with the stock lens on a Rebel XT with pop-up flash and completely crappy lighting conditions (one 75 watt bulb burning in the room):

http://cccorns.com/freepics/06Jan/IGotHim.jpg

I honestly have had the camera for just a couple days, so I don't have much to show you as I'm still working through the features and options, but so far I love this camera. :D I can't compare to the Nikon D50 as I've never used it. This 8mp camera is a huge step up from my little Fuji Finepix 3800 3mp'er. I think they are both fine cameras and you won't go wrong no matter what you decide. I'm looking forward to trying out the camera with a slave flash. :)

[2i2_D3gr33s]

If you buy either of the two, you're going to be happy. It's like, do like coke or pepsi? And the only way you're going to get a much better camera than either of those you listed, is buy spending an extra grand, which I'm guessing you're not going to do. One thing you might want to look into, though, is prices on accesseries, if you're planning on buying any. That may change your mind, knowing there will be a big difference once you figure in everything you plan on buying outside the camera itself.

[Joejr14]

I echo Connie with my love for my new camera, of course, I don't own a crappy Canon so I cannot vouch for it. ;)

Just kidding, of course. They're both entry level DSLR's and will take comparable photos. Accessories are a major factor, but quite honestly it's all the same. Flashes for the Cannon are not any cheaper than for the Nikon.

There is really no difference when you're talking about 6mp versus 8, or even 10mp. I'm using a crappy 18-55mm standard lens kit (only a $100 lens) and I'm thrilled. If I was using like a 105 or 150mm Nikon Micro lens I'm sure the pictures would be outstanding. Same with a hot shoe flash. Right now I'm just using the standard built in flash, but it's working well.

I might add, it's SO worth spending the $3 to buy some Ge or Philips reveal or natural light bulbs---particulary in the 100w range. I bought a pack of 4 Philips because it was A) cheaper and B) more output in lumens and the difference is amazing. If you could set a pair of those up over your 'shooting location' you could do without a flash--at least for snake pictures. I did that with one and had the f-stop cranked up to f/36, and the pictures were slightly dark---but a very easy fix in photoshop.

Anyway, it's all up to you. Both cameras have very similar features and are similar in price range.

Either way you'll be very happy with the quality of pictures you're getting from it.

Here's some sample pictures, which have been cropped from the original 3000x2000 size.

Blizzard: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/Joejr14/DeansSnakes016-1.jpg

Coral Snow: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/Joejr14/deans132.jpg

Hypo Lav: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/Joejr14/deans83.jpg

[Hurley]

Heh, I don't have a crappy cannon either, but I love my Canon. :p


:-poke:

[Joejr14]

Heh, I don't have a crappy cannon either, but I love my Canon. :p

:-poke:

I've had a rough day, thank you very much.

[Joker]

Dont be bitter Joe. Your Nikon is still OK. But Im with Connie I love my Canon and mine is even the old model. :shrugs:
Josh

[Menhir]

Remember - the body is often the cheapest part that you have in your collection after a few years. The decision between Nikon and Canon is a decision between two different systems of lenses, flashlights and all that other equipment you need. Every system has it's good and bad things and the more you read about the whole system, the more you will know which body to start with.

E.g. I do like the concept of the usability of Nikon Bodys. Most of them feel better to me than Canon ones do. They also have a different philosophy of how images are already changed by the body itself - leading to "softer" pictures with less noise at Canon, and "sharper" pictures with a little more noise at Nikon. Nikon also seems to give the photographer a little more responsibility for the pictures with less "automatics". On the other hand, Canon has a little cheaper lenses and the IS on the teles is a brilliant thing.

Of course, if you ask a different photographer, he will tell he the complete opposite of what I told you - so the best thing is, don't buy anything at all. :crazy02:
So long story short - think twice about the body, but think three times about how you like the whole system. You will still use good lenses in ten years - the body will change.

Greetings

[Joni Garcia]

This photo was taken (obviously way scaled down to fit here) with the stock lens on a Rebel XT with pop-up flash and completely crappy lighting conditions (one 75 watt bulb burning in the room):


Great picture Connie... how come I can't get my Canon Rebel to cooperate like that?! Must be the user. :crazy02:

[Kvlt]

i'm still new to slr photography but here's a pic i took with the kit lense.

[CameraGeek]

I work in a store that sells several makes and models of cameras, including the Nikon D50 and Canon Rebel XT. You are not going to go wrong with either camera. When I'm talking to a customer looking for a starter D-SLR and they are trying to make this same decision, I ask them if they have any old Canon EOS equipment that they would like to use with their new camera. If they have no legacy EOS equipment that they want to use, then I suggest that they get the Nikon, for the sole reason that it is a couple hundred or so bucks cheaper. You can then use the money you saved to get an additional lens, or flash, or some other accessory.

I've worked with both cameras, and they are both wonderful. Both cameras are capable of taking great pictures (including the Canon with the so-called crappy lens).

[mcarabian]

Wow - all of these pictures are so crisp! I feel like I'm back to square one again, but I'm starting to agree with those who believe both cameras are pretty great and either should be fine for my projects.
It does boil down to price and availability - the Nikon seems to win this one in the local stores (I don't like buying anything that's over $500 from the internet, it freaks me out for some reason).
I'm not so worried about lens and accessories, both Nikon and Canon are pretty good about the quality of lenses they put out and price is not that big a deal for me (the more expensive my object of desire is, the harder I work to get to it, it's a great motivator! )
Once again, thanks for all the advice folks. This is a great forum, I feel lucky to have found it :)

[mbdorfer]

A word about Canon quality, FWIW. I can't speak for the digitals, but I have owned both Canon and Nikon Film cameras. I sold all the Nikon stuff and still have the Canon A1 and F1. The Canon's are in every way equal to the Nikon's, if not better. Canon's optics are phenomenal and the bodies have held up well to a fair amount of abuse :wavey:

[Joejr14]

Nikon, imo, has the best lenses on the market. Most reviews that you read about lenses will agree with that.

Like I said---both cameras are very good cameras. Each is going to do something a little bit different, and give options that the other camera doesn't.

Read up at www.dpreview.com and see what matches up with what you'd like.

And as an FYI, I got my Nikon from Buydig.com, and didn't have any problems. Just make sure that you're checking out website ratings before you go buying a camera from a NY Camerashark website.

[Kvlt]

i got my camera from buydig as well...you can check www.resellerratings.com for info about online stores.

[PssdffJay]

I havent looked at the d50, but when i was debating on cameras i was looking at the D70 and the Digital rebel. The clincher for me for the d70 was metal body compared to the plastic rebel, and faster fps shots on the D70. not a huge difference between them, but as i do a lot more photography then just snakes, i went with the Nikon.

But i agree with most in here, both are great cameras and at the entry level of things, both will take great pictures! Goodluck! :)

[Joejr14]

The D70 has it's drawbacks, which is interesting when considering that the D50 is it's 'smaller' sister.

For example, the D50 has usb 2.0, the D70 has usb 1.1. The D50 also has fully uncompressed NEF Raw, while the D70 doesn't. D70 does have 1/3 EV stops, while the D50 only has full 1 ev stops.

Compact flash versus secure digital, as well. Makes a difference if you've got a bunch of memory cards sitting around.

Just strange that the D50 is release later with some significant upgrades, ya know?

Like I've said from the beginning, a DSLR is great---you really cannot go wrong.

[Rich Z]

A word about Canon quality, FWIW. I can't speak for the digitals, but I have owned both Canon and Nikon Film cameras. I sold all the Nikon stuff and still have the Canon A1 and F1. The Canon's are in every way equal to the Nikon's, if not better. Canon's optics are phenomenal and the bodies have held up well to a fair amount of abuse :wavey:

Hah! Interesting how everyone's perspectives can differ at times. Personally I had a Canon A1 myself for several years. I sold it to buy a Nikon N90S and personally felt that the Nikon lenses were a dramatic cut above what I was using with the Canon. The overriding criteria when I bought the Fuji FinePix S1 and S3 series of digital camera bodies was that I REFUSED to give up my Nikon lenses in order to go digital. The Nikon (Nikkor) lenses are superb.

Which brings up a point. If you get ANY major brand name camera body, do not then half step to save money by getting some off the wall brand lenses for it. You may not realize it right away, but eventually you will come to recognize the significant error you have made. Even if you can't see the difference in photos, others WILL be able to. The off brand lenses are cheaper priced for a reason.

[mcarabian]

Which brings up a point. If you get ANY major brand name camera body, do not then half step to save money by getting some off the wall brand lenses for it. You may not realize it right away, but eventually you will come to recognize the significant error you have made. Even if you can't see the difference in photos, others WILL be able to. The off brand lenses are cheaper priced for a reason.

I agree - The Nikkor lenses are also why I think I'll be going with the Nikon D50. I have my eye on that fisheye lens. Once I have that, and the lens that comes with the kit, I'll be set for at least a few years :)
Question about DSLR's: I like to use a polarizer with my regular SLR, are polarizers now obsolete since you can pretty much touch up the pic once it's in your computer?

[PssdffJay]

You can use lens filters just as you would with a 35mm slr. I would recomend using it 1 to protect from scratches and 2 different effects or to block uv rays.

[mcarabian]

Good to know, thanks Jay :)

[PssdffJay]

Good to know, thanks Jay :)

No prob! I guess all my days as a nerdy yet ruggedly handsome school photographer are finally paying off. Just kidding.

[Denise]

Iv got the NikonD70s, with kit lens, 50mm 1.8 and Tamron 90mm Di. (Ivnot experimented with it much just yet) It definatley helps with a better lens, much sharper pics, I have been using the 50mm the most and its a relativley cheap lens to add to your lens collection.
Whichever body you get Id say you`ll love the 50mm;-)
Good luck in your chioce
Denise

[NeoDude]

This picture was taken with the Canon 350D with a Canon EF-S USM IS 17-85mm Lens (The kit lens is quite poor)...

http://www.neodude.co.uk/photos/albums/Floyd/Floyd1.jpg

Also most of the images on my photography site were taken with this combination (Link in my sig)

[mcarabian]

I just realized this thread is still going - Thanks for the help folks :)
I got a Nikon D50 and it's wonderful to use ( I think I have a few pics uploaded in the photo gallery sections). I'm getting the Nikkor lens I have my eye on as soon as I pass my Phd exams :)