D90 or 500D...Please help

[syedrizvi21]

Guys,
I have been reading a lot about D90 or 500D..Seems like each website just talks about the pros and cons depending upon their own mood and style. I would really appreciate if someone can help me here. This will be my first DSLR camera. I am looking to do some close ups, telephoto, and wide angle shots. In short, I want a long run camera with all purpose.

Please keep it to either these. I know a lot of people might tell me to go to either D80 or XSi. But I want to stay current with my equipment and do not want to worry about $100-$200. Just want to be more in versatility.

Thanks A lot.

[clams]

The first thing you should do is go to the store and see which one feels better in your hands. The next thing you should see is which company has the lens system that fits you. Take price into consideration. Do not overlook third party lenses. They are excellent alternatives.

Personally, I would have to just say just go with the 500D. It's cheaper and the mid range lenses are cheaper than the Nikon equivalents. The Nikon's have better ergonomics though. If you really want to invest in the Canon system, go 40D. It's better than 50D. Although I do understand your want to stay current, remember that the body is not as important as the glass. I know people who take ten times better pictures than me with D50s. Don't worry about the bodies. I think the review websites hype the differences up way too much. When I switched from XTi to 40D I only did for ergonomics. As you take pictures more, you'll realize it's not about the newest gadget in your camera but how comfortable it is in your hand and how fast you can reach the controls.

The difference between the D90 and D80, as well as the XSi and T1i are tiny. The video should not be a dealbreaker. dSLRs are for still pictures.

[syedrizvi21]

Any other opinion?

[syedrizvi21]

what about lenses, which company has better and cheaper lens?

[ProwlingTiger]

They are fairly equal in regards to lens selection. I always say it depends on personal preference regarding how the body feels. That's how I would choose.

I went Canon as I grew up with Canon and preferred their bodies and lenses.

[toxic]

first, the D90 is not in the same class as a 500D - it's an amateur-level camera, while the 500D is consumer...which presents a problem if you want video. as an amateur camera, the D90 has a better ergonomics than the 500D, so if you don't like the feel of consumer cameras, you either get the D90 or wait for the 60D.

in any case, go to a store and play with the cameras. compare the D90 to a 50D, or a D5000 with a 500D. that way you know which manufacturer's interface fits you better.

what about lenses, which company has better and cheaper lens?

both companies have a large selection of good, affordable lenses.

why not another manufacturer? Olympus? Pentax? is video that important to you?

[clams]

first, the D90 is not in the same class as a 500D - it's an amateur-level camera, while the 500D is consumer...which presents a problem if you want video. as an amateur camera, the D90 has a better ergonomics than the 500D, so if you don't like the feel of consumer cameras, you either get the D90 or wait for the 60D.

in any case, go to a store and play with the cameras. compare the D90 to a 50D, or a D5000 with a 500D. that way you know which manufacturer's interface fits you better.


This actually brings up an interesting dilemma with Nikon and Canon. Somehow the two are able to market their bodies in niches right between each other. The 500D is arguably more advanced than the D5000 but less so than the D90. Then again, the 40D and 50D are higher up than the D90 with their magnesium alloy builds which are more rugged and can take a beating.

[compuwar]

This actually brings up an interesting dilemma with Nikon and Canon. Somehow the two are able to market their bodies in niches right between each other. The 500D is arguably more advanced than the D5000 but less so than the D90. Then again, the 40D and 50D are higher up than the D90 with their magnesium alloy builds which are more rugged and can take a beating.

That's because they don't do head-to-head competition, they evolve their bodies in teams, and whichever team is next designs the next body to come using what tech they can, and iterating features.

Guys,
I have been reading a lot about D90 or 500D..Seems like each website just talks about the pros and cons depending upon their own mood and style. I would really appreciate if someone can help me here. This will be my first DSLR camera. I am looking to do some close ups, telephoto, and wide angle shots. In short, I want a long run camera with all purpose.

Please keep it to either these. I know a lot of people might tell me to go to either D80 or XSi. But I want to stay current with my equipment and do not want to worry about $100-$200. Just want to be more in versatility.

Thanks A lot.

You're not likely to get noticeably different results from either body in general purpose usage. So, you should either look at the entire systems and what niche uses you find important, handle them both, or just toss a coin- you won't be disappointed with the output of either camera if you get good lenses and can shoot good pictures. The overall choice isn't all that important, as both company's systems offer a range of options, both companies get excellent third party support, and both companies offer a range of bodies, flash systems, full frame sensors, etc.

[Markie0284]

The difference between the D90 and D80, as well as the XSi and T1i are tiny. The video should not be a dealbreaker. dSLRs are for still pictures.

As a Nikon shooter myself (D300), I can say that the difference between the D80 and the D90 is actually quite significant. The D90 has the D300 sensor, screen, and high ISO noise reduction. The image processing is also done quite differently. The D80 will produce vibrant pictures straight from the camera, but will leave little room for improvement in post processing, whereas the D90 will produce less vibrant images that can vastly improve from processing. In my opinion, the D90 is worth every penny, even as an upgrade from the D80.

As far as Canon vs Nikon, this is easy since you are a first time DSLR shooter... go with whichever one feels best for you. I PREFER Nikon, but I have nothing against Canon, and my initial choice was based on control/feel. In terms of image quality (IQ), canon and nikon are going to be nearly identical with the same types of glass. But, as mentioned before, the D90 and the 500D are not in the same class. In fact, Nikon's D90 is closer to Canon's 50D, but the 50D is actually a competitor to Nikon's D300.

As a fair warning, I will suggest to stay away from Nikon's lower end cameras (D40/D60/D3000/D5000) as they will limit you in terms of lens choice.

[syedrizvi21]

As a Nikon shooter myself (D300), I can say that the difference between the D80 and the D90 is actually quite significant. The D90 has the D300 sensor, screen, and high ISO noise reduction. The image processing is also done quite differently. The D80 will produce vibrant pictures straight from the camera, but will leave little room for improvement in post processing, whereas the D90 will produce less vibrant images that can vastly improve from processing. In my opinion, the D90 is worth every penny, even as an upgrade from the D80.

As far as Canon vs Nikon, this is easy since you are a first time DSLR shooter... go with whichever one feels best for you. I PREFER Nikon, but I have nothing against Canon, and my initial choice was based on control/feel. In terms of image quality (IQ), canon and nikon are going to be nearly identical with the same types of glass. But, as mentioned before, the D90 and the 500D are not in the same class. In fact, Nikon's D90 is closer to Canon's 50D, but the 50D is actually a competitor to Nikon's D300.

As a fair warning, I will suggest to stay away from Nikon's lower end cameras (D40/D60/D3000/D5000) as they will limit you in terms of lens choice.



Wow....your point is if I go with low end canon like XSi which is compatible with Ef or Ef-s lenses, I will be in much better shape...As I am a beginner , I can grow my lenses and then buy a nice canon in which I can use my old same lenses..But this will not be the case with Nikon....WOW in this way..I will stick with canon....Atleast I will be able to use my lenses

[OreoCookie]

Wow....your point is if I go with low end canon like XSi which is compatible with Ef or Ef-s lenses, I will be in much better shape...As I am a beginner , I can grow my lenses and then buy a nice canon in which I can use my old same lenses..But this will not be the case with Nikon....WOW in this way..I will stick with canon....Atleast I will be able to use my lenses
Canon lenses have different limitations: EF-S lenses only fit on crop bodies and they will damage cameras with sensors larger than 1.6x crop. Life is just not that simple.

However, since you asked about the D90 and the D80, they do not have this limitation as they have a built-in focus motor.

[localghost]

Canon lenses have different limitations: EF-S lenses only fit on crop bodies and they will damage cameras with sensors larger than 1.6x crop. Life is just not that simple.

However, since you asked about the D90 and the D80, they do not have this limitation as they have a built-in focus motor.

I find that a bit misleading. EF-S lenses don’t generally damage full-frame cameras. They can not be mounted at all, unless you choose to modify them, in which case some EF-S lenses will hit the mirror of some cameras at some zoom settings. The advantage is that EF-S lenses are closer to the sensor, which improves image quality.

You can use the 1.5 nikon lenses on full-frame, if you want to live with an reduced image circle. While this implementation is far more user friendly than canon EF-S, it’s not ideal.

In any case I would not want to use crop lenses on full frame. You can always stick to full frame lenses right from the start, or sell your crop-lenses when you upgrade (lenses tend to keep their value very well). All canon full frame lenses work on all canon bodies, which is not the case in nikon world.

[OreoCookie]

I find that a bit misleading. EF-S lenses don’t generally damage full-frame cameras. They can not be mounted at all, unless you choose to modify them, in which case some EF-S lenses will hit the mirror of some cameras at some zoom settings. The advantage is that EF-S lenses are closer to the sensor, which improves image quality.
Point is that there are some limitations in both cases, but IMO they're not relevant for the OP.

[localghost]

Point is that there are some limitations in both cases, but IMO they're not relevant for the OP.

Right! (Markie0284 did list the affected camera bodies though)

[syedrizvi21]

OK final deal


As a beginner should I get D90 or not? I am also getting a Canon XSi for $500 with kit lens and D90 with 18-105mm Lens for $1025. Should I just buy Canon and spend the money on lenses. I want to do some macro shots and Nikon Macro lenses are very expensive as compare to Canon. Your honest opinion will be greatly appreciate.

[compuwar]

OK final deal


As a beginner should I get D90 or not? I am also getting a Canon XSi for $500 with kit lens and D90 with 18-105mm Lens for $1025. Should I just buy Canon and spend the money on lenses. I want to do some macro shots and Nikon Macro lenses are very expensive as compare to Canon. Your honest opinion will be greatly appreciate.

Get one and stick with it. The Tamron 90mm SP Di is a great macro lens and comes in Canon and Nikon versions with no price difference. You should look at the high-ISO samples at DP Review for both bodies and factor that into yoru decision if you may shoot high-ISO.

[OreoCookie]

OK final deal
You should simply go to a store and try how both feel.

[syedrizvi21]

Get one and stick with it. The Tamron 90mm SP Di is a great macro lens and comes in Canon and Nikon versions with no price difference. You should look at the high-ISO samples at DP Review for both bodies and factor that into yoru decision if you may shoot high-ISO.

I appreciate your suggestion but I want to get the body that I can keep for longer run.

Your suggestion to get the camera is not helping me enough....Please if you can provide me some cons and pros of D90 and lenses with canon and its lenses.

thanks

[compuwar]

I appreciate your suggestion but I want to get the body that I can keep for longer run.

Your suggestion to get the camera is not helping me enough....Please if you can provide me some cons and pros of D90 and lenses with canon and its lenses.

thanks

The pros and cons equal out- it's really not as much about a particular body as it is buying into a particular system. I chose Nikon, but I could get the same results with Canon. I doubt that shutter life is going to be drastically different, and both companies are putting out some very excellent new lenses and have a bunch of great older ones. If you can't shoot with both bodies and factor in the line versus current body, then simply choose one- because ultimately it makes less difference than your choices in lenses, subjects and skills, either tool is a great photographic tool. Right now, the Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but I doubt that'll stay true for long given the economics and currency conversion issues both companies face. Nikon bit the pricing bullet in Feb., Canon hasn't repriced yet AFAIK.

Overall, I'm much, much happier with the ergonomics of Nikon- and that's a factor for me that transcends some other considerations. Other folks prefer Canon's ergonomics- I can't tell you which you'll prefer, so you'd have to handle both to figure it out. I would say if you do- don't just handle the body you intend to purchase, but a few others to see what the line's ergonomics are like, as you'll be getting a new body in ~4 years and it'll handle a little differently than whichever you choose today.

[syedrizvi21]

those are some effective points...What Nikon Do you use? Also I am looking for Macro shooting.

I went to BestBuy and held both cameras. Canon was lighter and Nikon was heavier. I do not care about the top LCD as you can do the same thing with the side LCD's

Lenses are really cheap for Canon...I am assuming they would go cheaper as the economy turns down. Nikon's are really expensive.

[sailor720]

I have a d90, my GF was a rebel XT. They both take great pictures, but the nikon is much nicer to use imho, it fits my hands better and the controls are way easier to access. Shooting M mode on the rebel is a pain cause i can never remeber where the shift button is, on my d90 i have 2 wheels and can change almost any setting by using a max of 1 button and a wheel. In short i bought the nikon because the ergonomics are worlds better for me and i could afford the price difference.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think it should be clarified what markie0284 was talking about when he advised you to stay away from Nikon's low end bodies. Nikon makes a handful of camera bodies that don't posses focusing motors in them, they require AF-S lenses in order to be able to autofocus, this isn't as big of a problem as you might think since the low end bodies are each company's money makers. Nikon has been turning out a lot of new AF-S lenses, and re-designing some of their existing lenses to be AF-S. I seriously doubt you'll have any trouble getting whatever lens you need to fill virtually whatever sort of role in an AF-S version anymore.

What all this means is that if you get something like the D60 from Nikon you won't be able to autofocus with say an 85 mm prime lens because Nikon currently doesn't have an AF-S equipped 85 mm prime lens. You could mount it and shoot with it just fine, but you'd have to focus manually.

Now the Nikon bodies from the D90 on up all have focus motors built in, as well as AF-S contacts meaning that there are no lens limitations at all for those bodies. You can mount an 85 f/1.8 and autofocus with the camera's motor, then mount an AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8G and autofocus with the lenses motor.

Nikon has a better implementation with regards to full frame lenses and crop lenses (Canon calls this EF-S and EF, Nikon calls it DX and FX). FX cameras can mount a DX lens and shoot at reduced resolution because DX lenses are designed to cast an image the size of the D90's sensor into the camera, that won't cover an FX sensor, but at least they can still be used. Canon EF-S lenses can't be mounted on EF cameras (5D on up) at all.

The best thing to do if you have any intention on upgrading in the future is to buy either FX lenses (Nikon) or EF lenses (Canon). That way you will never have compatibility issues at all.

I prefer the Nikons to the Canons, but that's me and you'll need to shoot some with both brands to find out what's better for you. But rest assured that if you're going with at least a D90 from Nikon, you can use any Nikon lens out there with no problems, the compatibility issue isn't there unless you go below the D90 and then it's not bad at all. The D90 will last you just as long as a 500D (probably longer, it's better constructed IMO) this longevity thing is just a misunderstanding.

SLC

[compuwar]

those are some effective points...What Nikon Do you use? Also I am looking for Macro shooting.


I have both a D2x and a D3x, mostly now I use the D3x. Macro-wise the Tamron 90mm is what I'd probably choose unless I needed a specific working distance or focal length. The few macros I do though don't really need a dedicated lens, so I use a 35-70mm AF-D, which does well enough for my needs.


I went to BestBuy and held both cameras. Canon was lighter and Nikon was heavier. I do not care about the top LCD as you can do the same thing with the side LCD's


I'd focus more on changing settings than weight, with the camera up to your eye, how quickly can you change speeds, modes, focus modes, etc? Are the controls a good fit for your hand?


Lenses are really cheap for Canon...I am assuming they would go cheaper as the economy turns down. Nikon's are really expensive.

No, well-run companies rarely make things cheaper in a bad economy, as you can't climb back up that rope when the economy turns, and your economies of scale fail if you don't have enough orders. Given the Yen's strength and Nikon's raises, I can't see Canon being able to afford to cut prices and stay competitive and profitable, especially given Nikon's market share growth during the downturn. The best you can expect is rebates on already-produced but not sold goods, and JIT manufacturing makes that shallower cuts and less often offered.

[romanaz]

The first thing you should do is go to the store and see which one feels better in your hands. The next thing you should see is which company has the lens system that fits you. Take price into consideration. Do not overlook third party lenses. They are excellent alternatives.

Personally, I would have to just say just go with the 500D. It's cheaper and the mid range lenses are cheaper than the Nikon equivalents. The Nikon's have better ergonomics though. If you really want to invest in the Canon system, go 40D. It's better than 50D. Although I do understand your want to stay current, remember that the body is not as important as the glass. I know people who take ten times better pictures than me with D50s. Don't worry about the bodies. I think the review websites hype the differences up way too much. When I switched from XTi to 40D I only did for ergonomics. As you take pictures more, you'll realize it's not about the newest gadget in your camera but how comfortable it is in your hand and how fast you can reach the controls.

The difference between the D90 and D80, as well as the XSi and T1i are tiny. The video should not be a dealbreaker. dSLRs are for still pictures.

40d to 50d is small difference as well, but you get the lens focus correction option, which I hear is a big deal (not enough for a 300-400 difference for me when I got my 40D).

IMO go with either body, they both are good. IMO Canon's lens are easier to figure out, like naming scheme and all, and you don't have such an issue with DX vs FX etc.. and canon has some cheap good lens's, like the 50 f/1.8, the 85 f/1.8 and the 55-250 (decent lens for its price).

[toxic]

I find that a bit misleading. EF-S lenses don’t generally damage full-frame cameras. They can not be mounted at all, unless you choose to modify them, in which case some EF-S lenses will hit the mirror of some cameras at some zoom settings.

no, they won't. you just get vignetting.

The advantage is that EF-S lenses are closer to the sensor, which improves image quality.

huh? EF-S mount has nothing to do with image quality. it has to do with cost and weight, and Canon decided to add a rubber extension to prevent them from mounting on non-APS-C cameras.

You can use the 1.5 nikon lenses on full-frame, if you want to live with an reduced image circle. While this implementation is far more user friendly than canon EF-S, it’s not ideal.

don't the D700 and such have a DX shooting option?


the deal with Nikon is that the D40, D60, and D5000 MUST use AF-S lenses. that means you don't get autofocus if you want to use non-AF-S lenses...but there're plenty of AF-S lenses at every focal length range, so it shouldn't be a big issue unless you want older lenses. DX lenses will work on everything.

with Canon lenses, EF lenses will mount to any Canon SLR, and EF-S will only mount to the 20-50D and 300-500D without modification.

[compuwar]

You can use the 1.5 nikon lenses on full-frame, if you want to live with an reduced image circle. While this implementation is far more user friendly than canon EF-S, it’s not ideal.


Please do enlighten me to what's not ideal about being able to use my already paid-for DX format lenses on my D3x- because it seems pretty ideal to me to not have to always carry a second body to use something I already own- and if I'm doing it, I obviously (a) don't have the angle of view covered in FX and (b) am willing to accept a 10.5MP image as the result.

[TheStrudel]

It shoots the DX images at 10.5MP? I didn't know that. I thought it was 6.1 MP, though I guess that was on the 12 MP sensors as opposed to one twice as large. Handy to know. That strikes me as an acceptable compromise, though I'd still probably opt for the D3 instead of D3x if I was buying.

[localghost]

no, they won't. you just get vignetting.


huh? EF-S mount has nothing to do with image quality. it has to do with cost and weight, and Canon decided to add a rubber extension to prevent them from mounting on non-APS-C cameras.



don't the D700 and such have a DX shooting option?


the deal with Nikon is that the D40, D60, and D5000 MUST use AF-S lenses. that means you don't get autofocus if you want to use non-AF-S lenses...but there're plenty of AF-S lenses at every focal length range, so it shouldn't be a big issue unless you want older lenses. DX lenses will work on everything.

with Canon lenses, EF lenses will mount to any Canon SLR, and EF-S will only mount to the 20-50D and 300-500D without modification.



Please do enlighten me to what's not ideal about being able to use my already paid-for DX format lenses on my D3x- because it seems pretty ideal to me to not have to always carry a second body to use something I already own- and if I'm doing it, I obviously (a) don't have the angle of view covered in FX and (b) am willing to accept a 10.5MP image as the result.



„The "S" in EF-S stands for "short back focus", which means that the rear element of the lens is closer to the image sensor than on regular 35 mm SLR cameras.“ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-S

A shorter back focus can simplify and therefore (at least theoretically) improve lens design.

Nikon decided to keep the the same back focus and let the camera do the cropping. While it’s a lot better to be able to use your lenses with dramatically reduced image circle/resolution than not at all, I most definitely would not consider that an ideal use of any given available budget for any system.

[compuwar]

It shoots the DX images at 10.5MP? I didn't know that. I thought it was 6.1 MP, though I guess that was on the 12 MP sensors as opposed to one twice as large. Handy to know. That strikes me as an acceptable compromise, though I'd still probably opt for the D3 instead of D3x if I was buying.

For me, the ability to crop significantly was a high-value property of the tool. I rarely use high-ISOs, and I wanted to do extremely large prints and have the ability to court a gallery which specializes in extremely large prints. The fact that the DX crop will print about as large as the images from my D2x was a bonus.

[THX1139]

what about lenses, which company has better and cheaper lens?

Better AND cheaper? Pick one...

[OreoCookie]

Better AND cheaper? Pick one...
Usually third-party lenses are better and cheaper (better price/performance). They're available for Canon and Nikon … ;)

For many purposes, third-party lenses are great. Of course, they are agnostic, they're good on Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax bodies. ;) For instance, Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 zoom is amazing, better than the `originals' (Nikon's 12-24 mm or Canon's 10-22 mm lens).

Regarding original lenses, the (minor) differences start showing in higher price categories. For instance, Nikon offers a cheap 80-200 mm f/2.8 zoom which is heavier, but faster than Canon's 70-200 mm f/4 zoom. Optically, they're both excellent. Canon has a nice 17-40 mm f/4 zoom which Nikon does not have. On the other hand, Nikon's 18-200 mm superzoom is a lot better than Canon's. Both have very nice primes and -- unless you're willing to spend over $1.3k on a prime -- they are more or less similarly priced.

[localghost]

OK final deal

As a beginner should I get D90 or not? I am also getting a Canon XSi for $500 with kit lens and D90 with 18-105mm Lens for $1025. Should I just buy Canon and spend the money on lenses. I want to do some macro shots and Nikon Macro lenses are very expensive as compare to Canon. Your honest opinion will be greatly appreciate.

what about lenses, which company has better and cheaper lens?

Generally I’d spend my money rather on glass than on bodies. this would mean Xsi, but the price difference is negligible once you start buying multiple 500+ lenses. So if the choice is really limited to these two cameras and you want to keep it for more than two or three years, I’d recommend getting the D90 (if nothing else you’ll appreciate the bigger body / better ergonomics).

A strong point for canon in respect to price/performance are the f4-zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200; between 500 and 1200 bucks), a lot better than the kit lens. I also like the small primes (85 f1.8, 35 f2 etc) a lot – very good optically, inconspicuous, downright cheap. Maybe someone can chime in with Nikon examples for good price/performance, as I don’t know their lens line up very well.

Make a list of the lenses you need and can afford for a small kit during the next couple of years (reviews at http://www.photozone.de/, http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/, ...) and choose the body accordingly.

[CountBrass]

Buy a Nikon D3000 instead. If you're really impatient (the D3000 isn't avalable yet) buy it's predecessor, the D40. I'd reccomend being patient and waiting a couple of weeks for the D3000 as it has a 2nd gen sensor.

Several reasons for recommending the D40 (all except the price applies to the D3000 as well):
1. It's dirt cheap: less than a top end compact.
2. It's a really good camera.
3. It takes standard Nikon lenses despite being 2/3 the size of a standard DSLR.
4. It's easy to use.
5. The reason I choose Nikon: your lenses won't be made obsolete. Your biggest investment will (should) be in glass. Nikon don't obsolete their lenses, Canon do.
6. Canon don't make a really wide-angle or fisheye lens for their DSLR cameras.

Don't be tempted by the D40x or the D60: they have more pixels but they are slower cameras, inferior in every other way to the D40.

If you really must have a D90 (why?) then buy it's replacement instead, the D5000.

Edward

[localghost]

Buy a Nikon D3000 instead. If you're really impatient (the D3000 isn't avalable yet) buy it's predecessor, the D40. I'd reccomend being patient and waiting a couple of weeks for the D3000 as it has a 2nd gen sensor.

Several reasons for recommending the D40 (all except the price applies to the D3000 as well):
1. It's dirt cheap: less than a top end compact.
2. It's a really good camera.
3. It takes standard Nikon lenses despite being 2/3 the size of a standard DSLR.
4. It's easy to use.
5. The reason I choose Nikon: your lenses won't be made obsolete. Your biggest investment will (should) be in glass. Nikon don't obsolete their lenses, Canon do.
6. Canon don't make a really wide-angle or fisheye lens for their DSLR cameras.

Don't be tempted by the D40x or the D60: they have more pixels but they are slower cameras, inferior in every other way to the D40.

If you really must have a D90 (why?) then buy it's replacement instead, the D5000.

Edward

That’s plain wrong. The EF-mount was introduced 1987 in the advent of autofucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_lens_mount) an is here to stay. There are no plans nor rumors to change it. You could even say it’s less likely with Canon, since their implementation is the newest. It’s wider than Nikons, so you can mount Nikon lenses on Canon (loosing autofocus) but not vice versa (without loosing infinity focus).


The only exception to this are medium format rumors for both Nikon an Canon which will a) coexist with 35mm DSLRs b) be very expensive (have a look at the recent tilt shift lenses with a bigger image circle to get an idea; current medium-format bodies cost a multiple of Canon or Nikon top-end offerings, so be prepared to spent at least 20.000 for a basic kit).

My Canon 15mm fisheye is excellent, very useful even on a crop camera. There is also 8mm sigma fisheye for Canon (gets good reviews). Nikon right now has a wide angle advantage if a) you want extreme angle on full frame b) want zoom c) care for sharpness but not for distortions d) can spent about 1500. Canon has excellent primes like the 14 f2.8 II, 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4 which Nikon does not. All of them in a price range probably not very relevant to the OP.

[OreoCookie]

That’s plain wrong. The EF-mount was introduced 1987 in the advent of autofucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_lens_mount) an is here to stay. There are no plans nor rumors to change it. You could even say it’s less likely with Canon, since their implementation is the newest. It’s wider than Nikons, so you can mount Nikon lenses on Canon (loosing autofocus) but not vice versa (without loosing infinity focus).
The point is that there are essentially two different Canon mounts as EF-S lenses either don't fit full-frame or large-frame bodies or they may even damage the camera.

You can still mount DX lenses on full frame Nikon bodies and the camera will switch automatically to DX mode (unless it's a third-party lens or you manually override it). And you can use many old lenses (although that advantage is getting less and less relevant with time). (BTW, Nikon also has a 14 mm f/2.8 prime (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/208-nikkor-af-14mm-f28-d-ed-review--test-report); however, the new 14-24 mm f/2.8 zoom is optically superior (http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=2).)

In any case, I don't think this discussion is particularly relevant to the OP.

[mattyb240]

This thread is really irritating to read, to the OP you have had countless pieces of advice pretty much all of them valid.

I must ask this question, have you actually looked into how a camera works? What aperture, iso, and shutter speed are? How you can control them? If not then look into it, then decide how quick you want to access these features, then go hold the camera bodies and see which you like more ergonomically.

Having an SLR won't make you a pro, but it will enable you to take much better pictures if you are willing to put the effort in! It seems as though you want the best and cheapest camera, it doesn't happen. As already stated, all the pros and cons equal out between what ever brand be it Canon or Nikon. However I wouldn't recommend the D40 unless you want to use it as a point and shoot. But thats not a slate on D40 users as it can take great pictures! It's just I know people who use them and I find it great to hold but hate having to push buttons to do simple stuff.

D90 and Xsi are great cameras just go whichever feels better. And to be honest OP if you can't decide after all this information I would just go and flip a coin as its clear you aren't taking it in.

[Jupi]

syedrizvi21, heed the advise of many people commenting on this thread, go to the store and "feel" both cameras.

Almost 3 months ago, after reading countless forums and reviews I went to Henry's to purchase T1i. My heart was set on it and all I wanted to do is pay for it. After handling the camera for a few minutes I decided to give d5000 a try just to compare, some things on T1i didn't feel 100% comfortable - the weight distribution, the feel when you turn the control wheel, placement of dials and buttons, etc. I gave d5000 a try and then, following salesperson's advise, D90.

After holding D90 in my hands for a few minutes and taking a couple of pictures, making few adjustments, I decided that this is the camera for me. It took me almost a month to finally be comfortable with spending more money and buy it, but in the end I'm extremely happy with my decision. I've got decent lenses for it too (18-200 VR and 35mm 1.8G), so in the end I think I'd made a right decision.

My point is this. Go to the store, and try a few cameras out. You may, in the end, go with something different altogether.

(The reason I didn't go with Nikon d300, it felt to big for me, I thought I'd think twice taking it with me on the walk just in case)

[romanaz]

Usually third-party lenses are better and cheaper (better price/performance). They're available for Canon and Nikon … ;)

For many purposes, third-party lenses are great. Of course, they are agnostic, they're good on Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax bodies. ;) For instance, Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 zoom is amazing, better than the `originals' (Nikon's 12-24 mm or Canon's 10-22 mm lens).

Regarding original lenses, the (minor) differences start showing in higher price categories. For instance, Nikon offers a cheap 80-200 mm f/2.8 zoom which is heavier, but faster than Canon's 70-200 mm f/4 zoom. Optically, they're both excellent. Canon has a nice 17-40 mm f/4 zoom which Nikon does not have. On the other hand, Nikon's 18-200 mm superzoom is a lot better than Canon's. Both have very nice primes and -- unless you're willing to spend over $1.3k on a prime -- they are more or less similarly priced.

I'm sure Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 is just as heavy as Canon's 70-200 f/2.8. Nikon doesn't have (AFAIK) a 70-200 f/4 equivalent to canons. Each brand has lens's that trump the others in certain areas. But even so, to most people, those don't make much of a difference, more so looking @ the mid-range zooms, like the 17-55 or the 17-85 type lens's.

I know for me, since I'm a big fan of primes, I like the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2, and I'm sure I'll probably pick up at least one of them, as well as a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, as it would be a perfect lens for what I do. =D

to the OP, pick whatever one you like, they both will get the job done. But make sure you feel the cameras first and feel how their next step up camera's feel. For me, I enjoy the Canon feel and placement of buttons opposed to Nikon and especially sony. Plus my 40D is a bigger camera for my bigger hands, I'd have to pony up to a D300 for a similar size.

[localghost]

The point is that there are essentially two different Canon mounts as EF-S lenses either don't fit full-frame or large-frame bodies or they may even damage the camera.

You can still mount DX lenses on full frame Nikon bodies and the camera will switch automatically to DX mode (unless it's a third-party lens or you manually override it).

We already discussed that, I think the differences are clear now.


And you can use many old lenses (although that advantage is getting less and less relevant with time). (BTW, Nikon also has a 14 mm f/2.8 prime (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/208-nikkor-af-14mm-f28-d-ed-review--test-report); however, the new 14-24 mm f/2.8 zoom is optically superior (http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=2).)

In any case, I don't think this discussion is particularly relevant to the OP.

Did you even bother to read the 14mm review you linked? Not so good … . You can use all Canon EF Lenses since 1987 on the current bodies (like the wonderful 80-200 2.8), almost everything before that would have been manual focus. If you want to use old manual focus lenses, go ahead and put the MF-Nikons on your canon body, nothing wrong with that. The selection is in any case a lot bigger with canon.

If you don't wan't to sell your crop-lenses later, just buy full frame lenses right from the start - plenty to choose from.

[flosseR]

Buy a Nikon D3000 instead. If you're really impatient (the D3000 isn't avalable yet) buy it's predecessor, the D40. I'd reccomend being patient and waiting a couple of weeks for the D3000 as it has a 2nd gen sensor.

Several reasons for recommending the D40 (all except the price applies to the D3000 as well):
1. It's dirt cheap: less than a top end compact.
2. It's a really good camera.
3. It takes standard Nikon lenses despite being 2/3 the size of a standard DSLR.
4. It's easy to use.
5. The reason I choose Nikon: your lenses won't be made obsolete. Your biggest investment will (should) be in glass. Nikon don't obsolete their lenses, Canon do.
6. Canon don't make a really wide-angle or fisheye lens for their DSLR cameras.

Don't be tempted by the D40x or the D60: they have more pixels but they are slower cameras, inferior in every other way to the D40.

If you really must have a D90 (why?) then buy it's replacement instead, the D5000.

Edward

I dont know where to start arguing with this post. Are you for real or are you just trolling? I am guessing the second. but just a few questions: D5000 replaced the d90? interesting notion. D3000 is the way to go? the OP asked for D90 or D500.... I am happy for you if you are happy with your D40 purchase, since you must own one.

to the OP:
I own a D90 and nearly NO Nikon Glass.
I do semi wide angle (sold my 10-20mm, its fun for a while but gets old really fast) at 17mm.
I own quite a few 3rd party lenses and am more than happy wih it. I am really happy with my D90 and I went with the D90 for the high ISO quality. I debated a long time with myself to go Canon or Nikon, after coming from Olympus, but in the end its a preference choice.
I got a prosumer body that will last me a few years and I just upgrade the glass as I go along until I can justify another body.

//FR
PS:it IS frustrating to read this thread.

[SLC Flyfishing]

PS:it IS frustrating to read this thread.

It is, so much misinformation and fanboyism floating around in here.

SLC

[Demosthenes X]

I prefer Nikon's ergonomics to Canon's, and imo their menu system and controls are far more user-friendly.

You mentioned lenses, and as it happens I was talking about lenses just last night with my local camera store. The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage. Nikon, OTOH, makes good lenses at every price point. So while Canon lenses might be cheap compared to Nikon lenses, they're not nearly as good.

That said, Sigma and Tamron both make excellent third-party lenses. :)

I'd buy the Nikon, because I prefer them. But there's nothing wrong with Canon's offerings, either.

[compuwar]

The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage.

The cleark is likely to be an idiot. Canon used to make relatively poor kit lenses, that's not been true for at least 2 years now.

[localghost]

I prefer Nikon's ergonomics to Canon's, and imo their menu system and controls are far more user-friendly.

You mentioned lenses, and as it happens I was talking about lenses just last night with my local camera store. The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage. Nikon, OTOH, makes good lenses at every price point. So while Canon lenses might be cheap compared to Nikon lenses, they're not nearly as good.

That said, Sigma and Tamron both make excellent third-party lenses. :)

I'd buy the Nikon, because I prefer them. But there's nothing wrong with Canon's offerings, either.

(prices for europe, in euro)
Decent Kit EF-S 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS < 100
Good 50mm 1.8 < 100
Hyped but still fine EF-S 55-250mm 4.0-5.6 IS < 200
Very good 35mm 2.0 < 250
Decent EF-S 17-85mm < 300
Very good 50mm 1.4 USM ca 300
Excellent EF 85mm 1.8 < 350
Excellent EF-S 60mm 2.8 Makro < 350
Excellent EF 100mm 2.0 ca 400
Decent EF-S 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS < 400
Good EF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM < 450
Excellent EF 70-200mm 4.0 L USM ca 550
Excellent EF 15mm 2.8 Fisheye < 600
Very good EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM < 700
Good EF 17-40mm 4.0 L USM < 700
Excellent EF 200mm 2.8 L II USM < 700
Very good EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM < 900
Very good EF 24-105mm 4.0 L IS USM < 1000
Excellent EF 135mm 2.0 L USM < 1000
Excellent EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM < 1000
Very good EF 70-200mm 2.8 L ca 1000

[OreoCookie]

I'm sure Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 is just as heavy as Canon's 70-200 f/2.8. Nikon doesn't have (AFAIK) a 70-200 f/4 equivalent to canons.
That's exactly what I've said. However, the price-points of both lenses are comparable (depending on the version of the Canon, of course). Nikon also has an expensive variant of this lens (the 70-200 mm).

[toxic]

You mentioned lenses, and as it happens I was talking about lenses just last night with my local camera store. The clerk there was quite dismissive of Canon's low end lenses: they make excellent high-end lenses, but below a certain price point, their lenses are garbage. Nikon, OTOH, makes good lenses at every price point. So while Canon lenses might be cheap compared to Nikon lenses, they're not nearly as good.

there are just as many bad Canon consumer lenses as there are Nikons.

18-55 I, II, USM
17-85 IS (arguably)
20 f/2.8
24-90
28-105 f/4-5.6
75-300
...and that's about it. the 28-105, 24-90, and 18-55s are all discontinued.

tell me, are all fifty billion Nikon standard zooms great?

[CountBrass]

I dont know where to start arguing with this post. Are you for real or are you just trolling? I am guessing the second. but just a few questions: D5000 replaced the d90? interesting notion. D3000 is the way to go? the OP asked for D90 or D500.... I am happy for you if you are happy with your D40 purchase, since you must own one.

to the OP:
I own a D90 and nearly NO Nikon Glass.
I do semi wide angle (sold my 10-20mm, its fun for a while but gets old really fast) at 17mm.
I own quite a few 3rd party lenses and am more than happy wih it. I am really happy with my D90 and I went with the D90 for the high ISO quality. I debated a long time with myself to go Canon or Nikon, after coming from Olympus, but in the end its a preference choice.
I got a prosumer body that will last me a few years and I just upgrade the glass as I go along until I can justify another body.

//FR
PS:it IS frustrating to read this thread.

It is frustrating read a thread with so many pixel counters, like you, and so few photographers. Problem with asking this kind of question on a computer rather than a photography forum I guess. Not sure how listing the gear you own adds any weight to your opinion though. "Ooh look I've bought some glass, I've no clue about how to use it and can't show you any pictures but I've thrown money at the subject so I must know what I'm talking about: you should waste your money following my recommendations as well."

The D40 is an excellent camera. I own one. I also own a D700. The difference between my D40 and D700 and your D90 is simply that I use mine to take photographs instead of just wanking over them.

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?

My recommendation still stands though, unless you plan on regularly printing poster/A2+ sized prints, buy a D40. It's a better camera than the D90 and D5000. Only it's imminent replacement, the D3000 (basically a gen 2 D40), looks to be better.

[CountBrass]

It is, so much misinformation and fanboyism floating around in here.

SLC

Well duh. This is a camera forum on a Mac site, what do you expect?

Pretty dumb place to ask any kind of photography question: the chances are you'll get 10 responses from pixel counters / equipment wankers for every 1 from someone who uses their camera to, you know, take photographs.

The responses that do make me laugh are the ones that try to justify their own poor decisions and persuade the suckers to follow suit. "I bought a D90 and some ****** Sigma glass and therefore so should you, even if the D90 has been superceded and Sigma produced the cheapest and nastiest glass you can buy." The thing is, this guy doesn't care because he doesn't take any photographs anyway.

[cube]

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?


You keep repeating this falsehood. This completely discredits your posts.

[romanaz]

It is frustrating read a thread with so many pixel counters, like you, and so few photographers. Problem with asking this kind of question on a computer rather than a photography forum I guess. Not sure how listing the gear you own adds any weight to your opinion though. "Ooh look I've bought some glass, I've no clue about how to use it and can't show you any pictures but I've thrown money at the subject so I must know what I'm talking about: you should waste your money following my recommendations as well."

The D40 is an excellent camera. I own one. I also own a D700. The difference between my D40 and D700 and your D90 is simply that I use mine to take photographs instead of just wanking over them.

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?

My recommendation still stands though, unless you plan on regularly printing poster/A2+ sized prints, buy a D40. It's a better camera than the D90 and D5000. Only it's imminent replacement, the D3000 (basically a gen 2 D40), looks to be better.


I'm not a nikon user, but I can clearly see that the D5000 is not a D90 replacement. First off, handling of it, its made of plastic and smaller then the D90. From what I've read, its the D90 sensor in a smaller body with that articulating display. Wheres my second control dial? Wheres the in-body focus motor? How about the better viewfinder? And I'm also sure Nikon as a business wouldn't replace a over 1000 dollar camera body with a sub-1000 dollar camera body.

And the D3000 is more of a D60 replacement, similar specs in terms of sensor and resolution are concerned. You recommending getting a D40 is like me recommending getting the original Rebel at this point. Its outdated technology, which while it can be had for cheap, you would be better off getting a newer camera to start with.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well duh. This is a camera forum on a Mac site, what do you expect?

Pretty dumb place to ask any kind of photography question: the chances are you'll get 10 responses from pixel counters / equipment wankers for every 1 from someone who uses their camera to, you know, take photographs.

The responses that do make me laugh are the ones that try to justify their own poor decisions and persuade the suckers to follow suit. "I bought a D90 and some ****** Sigma glass and therefore so should you, even if the D90 has been superceded and Sigma produced the cheapest and nastiest glass you can buy." The thing is, this guy doesn't care because he doesn't take any photographs anyway.

You were one of the one's I was referring to. But it's all good.

SLC

[Nordichund]

The D90 is a nice camera. The D5000, which replaces it, is just better. Why wouldn't you buy the updated version?



In your case I won't be taking any advice on photography from you on these forums.

I have a D90 and I love it.

As for taking advice about photography on these forums generally, all I can say is that I've read some very helpful advice and been very satisfied with the results. On the other hand, there are some, just like in the Apple forums, who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

That's life. :cool:

[flosseR]

to end this bickering, i would like to thank everyone that has brought so much crap to this thread. I wont get into an argument with anyone over my equipment. In the end the op needs to buy what he wants.

'never argue with an idiot, first they bring you down to their level and then they beat you with experience'
/F

[richpjr]

Nikon vs Canon is like Chevy vs Ford or Honda vs Toyota.

People have different opinions, preferences and things that appeal to them or turn them off. The best advice in this thread is go play with both of them and see which one appeals to you. Virtually all of the various models mentioned here will take fine pictures. Some have things they do a bit better than others, but overall, if you take the time to learn to use whatever camera you decide on, you'll be able to take great pictures.