Canon and Nikon "system" buy ins...``

G

GEH007

Suspended / Banned
Messages
279
Edit My Images
No
Ok, my dilemma nears conclusion I think.

I've decided to go against entry level and straight in at mid market.

Had some more time in Jessops today, getting a really good feel on both the Canon 40d and the Nikon D90.

I much preferred the handling and feel of the Canon, the build quality felt much much better. The Nikon felt lighter. In terms of performance, didnt feel a great difference, perhaps the Canon a tad quicker and more responsive, but I still think the Nikon had a marginally brighter viewfinder.

I've no Canon or Nikon bias, I'm starting back in SLR from scratch.

From my hands on experience, Im leaning towards the Canon, preferring the build and handling over a few more features with the Nikon. I'll probably go with the kit lens to start with and add a longer telephoto shortly, perhaps 70-200 or 300.

Is there any reason a new investor should rethink in favour of Nikon over Canon that I am unaware of? Have I missed something? Ease of use? Cost of accessories or lenses etc.

Thanks again.
 
go with your gut feelings .they are both very good
 
The Canon has a slightly better range of lenses, including a range of constant F4 L grade lenses which are a bit absent on the Nikon range.

The flash system on Nikon is slightly better than the Canon.

Other accessories - equal.

It really boils down to which you like the feel of best.
 
:agree: The D90 is a newer model, but the 40D, as you say, has a more solid feel to it. Pick the one that feels right to you, you're the one that has to work with it.
 
Many many years ago I was in the same position. It came down to one camera feeling better in my hands than another. Everything else was nearly equal. If it feels right, it probably is. I've not regretted the purchase
 
I would say the 40D offers brilliant value but the D90 is the superior offering with more features, 12MP sensor, 6400Max ISO, HDMI connectivity, better resolution screen but it does use SD/SDHC cards.

However I do have a 40D and would say that Canon's lenses IMO are of a better standard, the 40d also has a higher FPS rate of 6.5 vs the D90's 4.5FPS.

The Canon 50d is more like the Nikon D90 than the 40d.

Go to several more shops and try both.
 
big will said:
I would say the 40D offers brilliant value but the D90 is the superior offering with more features, 12MP sensor, 6400Max ISO, HDMI connectivity, better resolution screen but it does use SD/SDHC cards.

However I do have a 40D and would say that Canon's lenses IMO are of a better standard, the 40d also has a higher FPS rate of 6.5 vs the D90's 4.5FPS.

The Canon 50d is more like the Nikon D90 than the 40d.

Go to several more shops and try both.
Click to expand...

Hmm, how is the d40 brilliant value if the D90 is superior AND cheaper? Is it just the features you mention or is there more?

I presume some of the premium for the Canon is for the outsanding build quality.

Thanks all for the comments so far.
 
andrewc said:
The Canon has a slightly better range of lenses, including a range of constant F4 L grade lenses which are a bit absent on the Nikon range.

The flash system on Nikon is slightly better than the Canon.

Other accessories - equal.

It really boils down to which you like the feel of best.
Click to expand...
I agree with this assessment.

Some of Nikon's lenses are absolutely brilliant - the 14-24mm f/2.8 is simply in a league of its own - and on average I'd say their build quality of consumer-grade lenses is better. But their range simply isn't as wide. Canon offers:
  • the f/4 L lenses, such as the 17-40 f/4 L, 24-105 f/4 L IS, and 70-200 f/4 L (IS or non-IS), which are very popular and which simply don't have equivalents in the Nikon line-up;
  • quite a few very very fast lenses (eg 24mm f/1.4 L, 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L) which are faster than the nearest Nikon equivalents;
  • a number of high-quality-but-affordable telephotos (eg 300mm f/4 L IS, 100-400mm L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L) which again don't have Nikon equivalents.

I don't want to over-egg this. There are many areas where both systems will serve you equally well - for example if you're a wedding photographer then they'll both give you an excellent 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS/VR. But if your interests are more outdoorsy (wildlife, birds, aircraft, sports, etc) then you might notice more of a difference.
 
Whats your best price for the D90?
 
StewartR said:
I agree with this assessment.

Some of Nikon's lenses are absolutely brilliant - the 14-24mm f/2.8 is simply in a league of its own - and on average I'd say their build quality of consumer-grade lenses is better. But their range simply isn't as wide. Canon offers:
  • the f/4 L lenses, such as the 17-40 f/4 L, 24-105 f/4 L IS, and 70-200 f/4 L (IS or non-IS), which are very popular and which simply don't have equivalents in the Nikon line-up;
  • quite a few very very fast lenses (eg 24mm f/1.4 L, 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L) which are faster than the nearest Nikon equivalents;
  • a number of high-quality-but-affordable telephotos (eg 300mm f/4 L IS, 100-400mm L IS, 400mm f/5.6 L) which again don't have Nikon equivalents.

I don't want to over-egg this. There are many areas where both systems will serve you equally well - for example if you're a wedding photographer then they'll both give you an excellent 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS/VR. But if your interests are more outdoorsy (wildlife, birds, aircraft, sports, etc) then you might notice more of a difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, most helpful. Just for clarity, outdoors is definitely more my thing; are you saying the Canon range is better for outdoors as Nikon dont have comparative ranges of the same quality?
 
GEH007 said:
Hmm, how is the d40 brilliant value if the D90 is superior AND cheaper? Is it just the features you mention or is there more?

I presume some of the premium for the Canon is for the outsanding build quality.

Thanks all for the comments so far.
Click to expand...

Everywhere I've seen it, the 40D is cheaper than the D90, albeit not by very much.
 
Ah OK, didn't realise you were looking with kit lens.

Remember the Canon 40D comes with a £60 Canon cash back!! So it will be cheaper!

The Canon 40D body only is cheaper than a D90 body only even without the £60 cashback.
 
big will said:
Ah OK, didn't realise you were looking with kit lens.

Remember the Canon 40D comes with a £60 Canon cash back!! So it will be cheaper!

The Canon 40D body only is cheaper than a D90 body only even without the £60 cashback.
Click to expand...

Yes, including kit lens as starting from scratch, unless there's a better way.

Good point on the cashback, had forgotten that.

So, by that calculation it makes the Canon kit lens a lot more expensive than the Nikon one, does that sound correct?
 
The Canon 17-85 is over priced in many peoples opinion and the quality of the 18-105 is extremely good for the price!

It sounds like the Nikon D90 + 18-105 VR kit lens is your best option to be honest.

The 40D would be the best option if you already had some lenses or was going to buy some other lenses.

I picked up a 40D second hand for £460 from a Cheshire camera store, with 6 month warranty.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.
 
Thanks for your comments and input Will, appreciated.

Talk about chucking the cat in amongst the pigeons! :)
 
andrewc said:
I got a Canon refurb 40D for £ 499 from Jessops a while ago. Body only but a good spec. It was perfect condition.
Click to expand...


I got a Canon 40D refurb from Canon's own ebay page, got the body, a 17-85mm IS lens and a years warranty for £640.

I bought it purely because I could, I had been using a 400D, had some money, and bought the 40D, and I am so glad I did, as much as I love the 400D, the 40D feels so much better, more comfortable, and I can't wait until I get a 100-400mm lens for it.
 
GEH007 said:
Thanks for that, most helpful. Just for clarity, outdoors is definitely more my thing; are you saying the Canon range is better for outdoors as Nikon dont have comparative ranges of the same quality?
Click to expand...


Nikon don't have some tele's with a constant app of F/4, its a perceived gap (by some) in the range.
Personally, I don't think there is a gap, unless you actually want cheaper f/4's.
To be honest, I'm sick of reading this nonsense, but one man's nonsense is another man's deal breaker, so what do I know..:shrug:
 
joxby said:
Nikon don't have some tele's with a constant app of F/4, its a perceived gap (by some) in the range.
Personally, I don't think there is a gap, unless you actually want cheaper f/4's.
To be honest, I'm sick of reading this nonsense, but one man's nonsense is another man's deal breaker, so what do I know..:shrug:
Click to expand...

Not every amateur can justify spending £1000 on an 70-200 f2.8 IS, when they can buy the f4 IS version for half the price....a midmarket lens for a midmarket body :)
 
I don't think the 70-200 range is a good example, but I understand you're sentiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top