Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mrcowdude20, Oct 3, 2011.
What camera is better for a beginner, Canon or Nikon, again for beginners? And cheap...
Budget? What do you want to capture? How far do you want to go?
Are you looking at SLRs or compact cameras?
Are Nikon or Canon the only choices you would consider?
What the heck? (how far I want to go)
DSLR / SLR
Nikon and Canon are my top choices.
There is no "better" brand - Canon and Nikon are both equally good and buy buying a DSLR from either maker you're buying into the two best DSLR systems in the World.
My choice is Canon because I've used Canon since 1978 and am happy to stay using Canon, but if I were starting from scratch I'd be just as happy with Nikon.
Go to a camera store and handle both brands, see how you get on.
One is no better then the other. There are so many factors that come into it, the best thing you can do is go to your local camera store, touch and feel the different SLR's they have until you find one that is comfortable in your hands, has the features you want and fits your budget, then you'll have found the 'best' one for you.
Nikons are leaned more towards beginners and Canons are leaned more towards professionals.
I feel like the Nikon UI is easier to grasp than the Canon's, but that the Canon's UI gives you more liberty.
Definitely go with a Nikon. (I'd recommend Nikon D60, sells for about $450 used, $600 new)
Both are very equal at this point... I was a long time Nikon Pro Services member for 15 years and then when I sold all film cameras... I decided to go with a Canon 20D, because at that point Canon had a nice lead on they're own chips and war a bit ahead of the Nikon curve. I then went for a 5D and loved it and has worked great now since May 2006. Bot are very well made and great cameras and like others on here, if I was given a full swap of Nikon equipment, I would probably be just as happy. The only thing I have found is that Canon is very nice to all their customers, whereas Nikon was a little cold and limited new equipment to keep demand high. Small issue as far as I am concerned, but have a Canon fixed is fast and very well done the first time.
I will stick my neck out a little and say there is no practical difference between the two for the average casual/amateur photographer. Pros and serious amateurs can and will argue the different merits of the two brands forever, but in the end I think they are equivalent.
Handle both before you buy, and choose whichever you prefer and/or can get at the lowest price.
I own a Canon, but I cross-shopped Nikon, Pentax and Sony and I liked all four brands.
As a beginner, you will be learning on how to use a DSLR one way or another. Both companies have consumer grade bodies and kit lenses with dummy modes that basically makes it a bigger and better quality point and shoot.
My advice is to see which one fits better in your hands and how do you like the ergonomics and menu system. I own Canon P&S, but Nikon DSLRs.
I will echo what has been posted by these, it comes down to a matter of personal choice. Factors include camera body feel, camera usage (types of pictures you take), ease of menu use, etc. I personally went with Canon because I liked their range of lenses better than Nikon's, and their menu was easier for me to understand. As I have advanced in my photography and started using off camera flash, I realized Nikon's flash system is better, BUT the difference did not make me go out and sell all of my lenses and switch. The difference was not that much of a deal to me. Once you decide on one, then stick with it. Whatever body you start with, you will eventually want to upgrade with better quality lenses and eventually a more expensive body. A good lens can work on any body, but the expense of adding equipment will dictate that you stick with one manufacturer. Both Nikon and Canon are the most common systems and both have great cameras. You will not go wrong with either. so go out and play with both lower end DSLRs and try some of the higher end ones as well because that is where you will eventually go. See how they feel in your hands and play with the dials on the camera and the menus, etc. You can research the heck out of these on the internet, but it is only after handling them that your heart will tell you what feels right for you. Once you make your decision, don't look back. All of us go through periodic body/lens envy and peak at the other guys' stuff. But for the most part we stick with what we got and go from there. Good luck and have fun trying to decide.
As others have stated there is no such thing as "better" in general, but only "better" depending on the person.
The best advice is go to the store and try out the camera bodies and use one you are comfortable with. Ergonomics are pretty big when it comes to cameras. If you find it cumbersome to use, chances are you won't use it.
I personally like Canon bodies and Canon's selection of primes. One of my good friends prefers Nikon bodies and Nikon's lenses. It all depends on how you like it.
You will often find the people who argue one brand over the other are people who don't truly understand photography and don't know how to get the same shot with both bodies. I can switch between either and it makes no difference to me. I just happen to really like Canon's bodies, not for technical reasons, but for ergonomics.
Get whatever your friends have. It's much easier to swap lenses and get help when you are on the same system.
Otherwise, buy Canon as only gays buy Nikon hehe
Oh noy, i was thinkin bout a nikon. Shoot.
Sharing lenses does have its benefits. Lucky for me most of my friends are Canon so if I want to borrow a 600mm I can, or if my friends want to borrow my wide angles (which I have the most of) they can. It works out nicely.
That being said only buy it if you truly like it.
In the entry-level segment, I think offerings from Pentax are best value for money, at least down here in Aus.
With the 'underdog' status, you'll tend to get more features (eg in body shake reduction) for less compared with 'the big two'.
The high ISO performance of the Pentax k-x and k-r's sensors is excellent as well, giving higher-end cameras a run for their money.
The problem with Pentax is that there isn't as much room to grow. They don't offer a full frame option and the lens selection isn't as vast as Canon and Nikon. They are a good value for the money, but there is a trade-off.
Mirrorless cameras are the future. DSLRs will be a niche product in 10 years. Hardly anyone will be lugging around these big bulky cameras for much longer. I ditched my Canon 5dII for a Leica M9 and couldn't be happier. Sure there's a lot the 5dII could do that the M9 can't, but the M9 goes with me everywhere quite nicely. The NEX and micro4/3 cameras are great too.
You're absolutely right.
I still bought into the Pentax system knowing fully well that I won't be able to upgrade to FF (for now). Going FF isn't something I think I would need. Who knows. May be the new Pentax-Ricoh relationship will produce some interesting products.
Pentax has this intangible appeal in my opinion. Their "limited" lens designs and the "odd" focal lengths (31mm, 43mm, 40mm, 55mm, 70mm, 77mm) make them pretty unique. But you certainly won't get the large selection of lenses and accessories like Nikon/Canon.
Their silent/fast focussing lenses (SDM/DC) aren't as refined as Canon and Nikon. And Pentax doesn't have fast affordable primes with the closest thing being 35mm f2.4.. On the other hand, their limited lenses exudes craftsmanship and care.
I see your point, but (imo ) saying that there is no room to grow isn't universally true, it really depends what you're after.
The OP hasn't specified, but for example - plenty of users don't move much far beyond the standard kit.
Pentax offer (imo) more then enough for these users, and those who need more.
In the standard zoom range, Pentax actually have quite a decent selection for many levels of photographer:
DA 18-55 II/L/WR kit, DA 16-45mm f/4.0, DA 18-135mm WR, DA 17-70mm SDM, DA* 16-50mm f/2.8
+ the raft of forwards compatible FA and F zooms that both autofocus and meter on digital bodies.
As runlsd mentions, there's an interesting selection of unique DA and FA Limited primes for another target audience, not found anywhere else.
It's a different story with long fast telephoto glass, but with this widespread notion of "Pentax don't do high end stuff" trickling down and influencing the buying decisions of many people who are otherwise fine at entry level (and more than that), it's no wonder Pentax isn't in great shape.
It's great marketing that is doing wonders for Canikon ("What camera can I buy next?"), but a lot of people (imo) are ending up misinformed of Pentax's strengths. A lot.
I'll agree their DA* lineup leaves much to be desired, until they sort out their flakey SDM motors, I couldn't recommend DA* lenses for the moment. But they're almost there.
(Imo) Pentax cator from entry level all the way up, spanning many flavours of advanced enthusiast.
If you're operating a business Canon or Nikon makes sense for the support networks, industry abundance/availability etc etc.
These ideas filter down the chain and help sell entry level bodies.
Then again, if you've done your research and find the Nikon or Canon roadmap attractive for your needs, then you've done the right thing, and there are many fantastic options available there.
My point is, saying that there's no room to grow may be true if you want to shoot Wimbledon for publication, but otherwise, the line of where you can and can't go isn't always clear - and no line fits all.
Definitely Canon. No, I mean definitely Nikon.
Just kidding, there is no better or worse, both camera manufacturers make very good products. There are some »better« and »worse« cameras in each manufacturer's line-ups, but overall, they are both very, very good.
I would make everything dependent on how the respective camera body feels in your hands. A second factor that may be important is whether you have friends or family who have invested money in one system.
Did someone really reccomend a £5000.00 leica m9 as an entry level dslr?????
............Still I suppose once you get into it you could upgrade to a Hassy.
Leica is NOT a DSLR but a Rangefinder WITHOUT a mirror.
There is no such thing as the better camera.
Fact: Nikon HAS better AF
but that's about all I can say.
I'm a Canon man because I prefer Canon lenses.
errr that was kind of part of my point????????? lol.........Its not a great choice for an entry level dslr?...the other part was that it's not really entry level??
still good call from the poster on the 4/3 systems worth looking at...
For beginners, I recommend Canon.
I'm a Nikon shooter, but I know what I want out of my camera, lenses and flash.
Canon has more lens choices at varying prices. Nikon is more of a professional system and it shows in their pricing.
Canon is really good at marketing and it catches a lot of people. A few years ago my friend wanted a DSLR to take photos of his kids. So he goes out and buys the Canon Rebel XTI with the kit lens. He was quite disappointed with it and I wasn't a fan of it. He just picked up the Nikon D5100 so lets see how he likes that.
I started getting into photography in 2004 and I really wanted to go with Canon, but I just didn't like the ergonomics of it. So I picked up the Nikon D70 which was replaced by the D200, D300 and now the D700 and I can say that I am happy since I wanted a full frame sensor from the start. I also learn that it's best to invest in good glass from the beginning. If you can't afford the f/2.8 zooms, get the f/1.8 primes.