Do I stay with Nikon or move to Canon? Please read

DropDead said:
Well the main reason I was intrested in the 40D was for the quick FPS. Just because I wouldn't want to miss any action :D
Click to expand...
the headline 6.5 fps of the 40D is very rarely reached, it's more normally ~5fps in real world circumstances.
 
mikeward said:
then again the fps isnt that big of a deal try to get 1 pic in focus rather than 5-6 blurred ones can be ab better option.
Click to expand...

So true, the number of times I have to explain 'mirror slap' to machine gunners next to me in a hide.

The other advantage is that your brother uses Nikon, so you would be able to borrow his lenses.

Anyway one more vote for the D90
 
As mentioned before, unless your shooting motorsports, concentrating on fps for what you want to use the camera for forget, kit surfing at 60mph, try 200mph motorbikes or 600mph aircraft and even then you don't need the machine gun effect of fps.

Mainly you'll be using it indoors, so either a fast lens or good iso performance is required. It pains me to say this but canon are behind the curve ball with this, Nikon has moved streets ahead.

Your problem is a decent setup for £800, which especially nowadays isn't as achieveable as it once was. Nikon D90 Body on its own is most of your budget all gone without getting a decent fast lens and even 2nd handmarket prices have rocketed.

But in answer to your question, for the ISO performance alone, I would go for the Nikon D90. I've been severely temped too switch (get rid of 1D Mkiin, 20D and L lenses) and get the D300 and Nikon 200-400mm f4 lens and 300mm f2.8 but it always comes to $$$$

Peter
 
If you're doing nightclub photography, you're going to need a flash as well. Probably best to look at the costs of those when you're deciding.

(I'm sort of brand agnostic... Nikon, Leica, Mamiya, Yashica, Sony compact... Need a Canon now. MORE CAMERAS!)
 
The good thing here is that you'll enjoy either. So pick your poison and just go with it. There's no bad choice here.
 
DropDead said:
Well the main reason I was intrested in the 40D was for the quick FPS. Just because I wouldn't want to miss any action :D

But. In all honesty. I doubt the Continous shooting will be needed. But it would be nice to have such a fast FPS.
Click to expand...

Don't know if this has already been stated but, if your working in a club. You could get the 40D a nice piece of f2.8 glass [tamron 17-50] & a flash for the same price as the D90.

Equality you could get a D60/70 at a guess and the same combo of glass and flash for the D90 [at a guess im a canon man]
 
If your brother has Nikon, perhaps you could lens share if you went Nikon as well?

Thus saving you both some wonga........just a thought.
 
i must be too young, what is wonga???:p
 
What about the Canon 50D. It has good noise capabilities and 6.3 FPS. You can get it for £750 at the mo if you look. What length lens would you need?
 
BirderOzzie said:
What about the Canon 50D. It has good noise capabilities and 6.3 FPS. You can get it for £750 at the mo if you look. What length lens would you need?
Click to expand...

Oh don't, poor sods going to be even more confused :lol::lol::lol:

Bet he never expected so many posts !!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top