age old canon or nikon question

[LionOfJudah]

I am looking to get my first DSLR camera. Been looking at a nikon D90 and a canon EOS 500D. What are your thoughts and preferences on those?
(I'm not too fussed about the budget within reason and would rather get a "future" proof camera to last me a few years).
Main photography will be holidays, landscapes and the odd few portraits.

 

[aztechnology]

The D90 and 500D are not really a naturally competitive range. Both are excellent in what they offer, the D90 is considerably better built and more feature rich. The 500D is cheaper and smaller. I'd look at a 50D against a D90 for a better comparison.

Get to a shop and pick some up and have a play.

 

[Snapshot]

You can't really go wrong with either of them as long as you pick the one that suits you better. You need to handle them both to get this right.

 

[Mr Jones]

Just throwing ideas in but with it being a holiday type camera, would a smaller, well made camera be more of your interest? You might want to look into the Olympus E-620 for the built in body image stabilisation. It's not quite as small as the E-420/E-450 but it's small.

The weight lost/smaller size might be a negative on a bigger hand.

They are just as capable with a lot more features (bar the HD video, which is not-auto-focus anyway). The lens range is good and is expanding. Second-hand market isn't good though as the 4/3 lens is fairly new to the scene whilst the Nikon/Canon scene is might bigger for used lens.

Just something to think about.

 

[D.P.]

The D90 and 500D are not really a naturally competitive range. Both are excellent in what they offer, the D90 is considerably better built and more feature rich. The 500D is cheaper and smaller. I'd look at a 50D against a D90 for a better comparison.

Get to a shop and pick some up and have a play.

This TBH. D90 sits closer to the 50D than the 500D.


I would just go to a shop and feel them both..

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Frankly there's not that much in it between most Canon and Nikon cameras. The bigger differences will be in the lens options on each and the only genuinely significant difference is that Nikon don't offer the equivalent of Canon's F4L series lenses, e.g. the 70-200, 17-40 and 24-105. If you're not intending to ever bother about those (and they're not cheap), then just go with whichever you prefer holding.

 

[fowler002]

you say no budget and future proof, how about the 5d mk2 in that case?
there's someone on here who can get you it for half the price

 

[Raymond Lin]

LOL, no budget so get a 5D2

Why not thrown in a D3 while at it

 

[Inquisitor]

LOL, no budget so get a 5D2

Why not thrown in a D3 while at it

Hasselblad.

 

[Stag]

I've used Nikons all my life, and I'd say Canon have the edge.

Their lenses are that little bit sharper from what I understand, and their bodies seem to be that little bit ahead with Nikon catching up.

 

[D.P.]

I've used Nikons all my life, and I'd say Canon have the edge.

Their lenses are that little bit sharper from what I understand, and their bodies seem to be that little bit ahead with Nikon catching up.

I don't think it is as clear as that.
Some lenses the Canon equivalents is better, others the Nikon. Canon update their lenses more often though, and are usually a bit cheaper. Nikon don't have F/4 pro zooms, but Canon doesn't have the 14-24 2.8 or 200-400 4.0 which are astounding lenses. In general Nikon does wide angle stuff better, Canon make more primes with more frequent updates The Canon 17-55 IS EF-S is great relative to the Nikon 17-55, but the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is much better than the Canon.
Horses for courses.


As for bodies, Nikon I think is well ahead at the moment, especially in terms of features and ergonomics. For sometime Nikon lagged behind in the sensor design but since the D3/D300 debut Nikon has had the edge really. No sign of that changing, the Nikon D5000 sensor seems to be the best in its class. But it is hard to compare, Canon don't have a 24MP pro body, they don't have a pro level DX body like the D300 and they don't have a low noise sensor like the D700/D3 cameras. The D700 is streaks ahead d the 5dmk2 in most ways but ultimately they do different things better, e.g.. the 5dmk2 is great for landscapes but poor for sports, the D700 is excellent for sports and great for landscapes but giving less resolution.
The bottom line is the Canon ergonomics are not their selling point. When I went to purchase my first DSLR I was intent on the Canon, but the Nikon equivalent blew the Canon out of the water. Since then every Canon I have used apart from the 1D range has really sucked in handling. Specially the 350-500D type cameras, really awkward. But thats me. This is just something that Nikon is better at.


IIf you have a strong preference for landscape work, Nikons line up is best (14-24...) IF you prefer primes then Canon is best If you want exotic telephoto lenses the Canons are much cheaper.

 

[3dcandy]

Get out and try them, I did and found that a Canon 400D just felt right for me. The Nikon's where to large and felt uncomfortable, so I got the 400D. I am pleased with it, and won't be swapping for a few years yet unless I get lucky somehow!

 

[Namistai]

Between Canon and Nikon (or pretty much any other DSLR tbh), it's personal choice for the most part. Imo Nikon probably have a slight edge at this price point (~£1k) but that is only my opinion and I believe that the ergonomics would be more important than any slight edge on a technical level.

If you want to directly compare Nikon and Canon at this price point, I agree that the D90 is roughly on a par with the 50D. However, the advice I consistently see on here and other photography forums is that the 40D is the better choice for still photography as the sensor is less prone to noise due to the slightly lower pixel count. I'd personally go for a second hand 40D (can be had at very competitive prices) and a reasonable quality lens like a Canon 17-85mm IS as a starting point.

Remember that the camera body is only one part of the equation, and that the lens is also extremely important. I don't think you'll see any significant real world difference between any of the bodies at this price point, but I'm certain that you'll see the difference between lenses (I'm relatively new to DSLR and I can certainly tell the difference!).

 

[D.P.]

Between Canon and Nikon (or pretty much any other DSLR tbh), it's personal choice for the most part. Imo Nikon probably have a slight edge at this price point (~£1k) but that is only my opinion and I believe that the ergonomics would be more important than any slight edge on a technical level.

If you want to directly compare Nikon and Canon at this price point, I agree that the D90 is roughly on a par with the 50D. However, the advice I consistently see on here and other photography forums is that the 40D is the better choice for still photography as the sensor is less prone to noise due to the slightly lower pixel count. I'd personally go for a second hand 40D (can be had at very competitive prices) and a reasonable quality lens like a Canon 17-85mm IS as a starting point.

Remember that the camera body is only one part of the equation, and that the lens is also extremely important. I don't think you'll see any significant real world difference between any of the bodies at this price point, but I'm certain that you'll see the difference between lenses (I'm relatively new to DSLR and I can certainly tell the difference!).

Well said.