File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Yes, it's another "what should I buy thread"

I'm upgrading from an entry level SLR to a semi-pro and my choices are as follows:

Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm lens kit for $1400 AUD
or a Canon EOS 30D with a standard 18-55mm kit for around the same price.

The canon is a very popular model amongst professionals, but in terms of features such as AF points, included lens and resolution (I am fully aware of the megapixel myth) it falls short to the Nikon. Why does the Nikon get so much bad press.

Thoughts? Opinions? What would you choose?

NB: I am fully aware of the fanboyism on both sides so I would appreciate objective replies fron serious photographers please.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 10-11MCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2006:02:22 10:31:16ISO Speed Rating100Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width300Image Height328
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
I know nothing about the Nikon side, but I can tell you that my EOS 30D and 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit ($1400 US) is much better than the 18-55mm kit. The new 17-55mm IS kit also looks good.
>> Anonymous
I don't see the point in upgrading from an entry-level SLR to a better one if you're still going to use the 18-55 kit lens. So I vote Nikon, or better yet, get some better glass for your existing camera.

Why do you want to upgrade the camera anyway?
>> Anonymous
The D80 falls short on image noise and FPS.

I have a 30D, I'd gladly recommend it to you, but then again, if you have a starter SLR, stick to that system, start getting lenses, not bodies.
>> Anonymous
>>75586

I got the same kit you got, but the 28-135 is garbage. Pictures are extremely soft regardless of aperture and it feels like a toy. And Canon was too cheap to include a lock to prevent the heavy lens from extending while around your neck. Also, the front barrel has a lot of play while zooming.

However, I think the 30D is a great camera. I had an older P&S Canon before, and because I really liked it a lot I decided to stick with the same manufacturer.

It doesn't really matter whether you go Canon or Nikon, though. Just get the one you like best. But if you do get the 30D, I think you'd be better off in the long run by just buying the camera and then a better lens, such as the Sigma I mentioned or the Tamron everyone here seems to like.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>75591such as the Sigma I mentioned or the Tamron everyone here seems to like.

We can't read your mind, you know...
>> Anonymous
>>75603
No LCD on top. Doesn't take all lenses, only a limited and expensive range. Slow fps count. Feels like a toy. Shit autofocus.

You get what you pay for
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Did you look at the A100 which is now stupidly cheap or the A300? Both of which are similar to the D80 but come with the best kit lense avalible.

If you are lucky you can get the A100 + 18-200 set instead for about the same price.
>> Anonymous
>>75609
Sony bought Konikia didn't they?
>> Anonymous
>>75609
OP here, I am considering the A100, it is an impressive camera. I'm just disappointed that it doesn't have a top LCD readout though.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>75612
Minolta Konika, yes the A100,300 and 700 all have the dynax mount on them giving you instant access to hundreds of minolta lenses.

A100 / 300 = Minolta 5D
A700 = Minolta 7D
>> Anonymous
>>75606
Well, D80 is a kinda half-assed solution in this case. It isn't built that much better, it shoots at just 3 fps and it still doesn't meter with AI lenses.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>75613
what do you need the top lcd readout to tell you? The back screen gives out all the info i need.
>> Anonymous
>>75620
True, but it does help when you're out and about, in glarish sunlight etc.

Seems like something they should have put on considering every other camera in the market they were trying to break into has one.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>75622
I guess, ive not used one so I dont know what im missing. I almost always have the back screen turned off so all I look at is the viewfinder display, which has all I need on it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>75622
I have never experienced sun bright enough to wash out the LCD on the back of my Rebel XTi, at least for the informational display. I've certainly been in sun that made it a bit iffy to tell if I'd gotten the exposure right on the back, but the informational display is all black and white, high-contrast, bold lines. Very easy to read in any and all lighting conditions.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>75626
yep, can still see it perfectly
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>75628
Top LCD won't help in the event of a nuclear explosion. Pic related.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>75628
>> Anonymous
yet another conclusive "what should I buy" thread
>> Anonymous
>>75602
You dont seem to realize that the D40 is marketted towards people who DONT HAVE EXISTING LENSES and are ENTRY-LEVEL shooters upgrading from a crappy P&S camera to something that will actually have no shutter lag and capture their kids playing sports, pets, ect ect. NOT for the wedding photographer or the news reporter who have been in the buisness for years and have hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Quit being a dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>75582
Canon cameras are like licensed Bleach and Naruto in the anime community while Nikon is like the fansubs
>> Anonymous
I personally love the Canon USM lenses - they focus literally in the blink of an eye.
>> Anonymous
>>75645

this is a borderline incomprehensible analogy. seriously, i've heard the canon v. nikon thing called a bunch of different stuff, but what the fuck are you talking about?
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>75645
What the fuck? So which is supposed to be better?
>> Anonymous
>>75653
>>75657
I think what he means is that canon(bleach/naruto) is mainstream shit that only poseurs use to be able to say they have an ADVANCED camera(in the animu analogy: watch animu because it's cool and japonaise and indie, and everyone else is doing it), while nikon(some random animu unknown to the general public) is hXc because hardly anyone knows about it. Kinda like canikon/leica is in the photography community.
>> Anonymous
>>75660
People use canons because they're indie and people use nikons because they're obscure? Lol wut :D

That analogy is so flawed I don't even know where to start. How is consumer technology produced by big corporations even remotely obscure?

Good grief, fanboyisms.
>> Anonymous
>>75644
No you, you fucking moron. I understand it's a basic camera, hence I'm looking to buy something better now that I've learned the skills and have more money. Jesus Christ. Get off your fucking soapbox and read the thread.
>> Anonymous
>>75822
With the release of the D300, the D200's price ought to plummet (especially on the second hand market). The D200 is probably the closest thing you're going to get to a pro, without actually going full frame. As a bonus, you can use your current D40 lens as a backup. Worth considering? [y/n]
>> Anonymous
>>75864
U, I wouldn't count on that. D200 is already some $500 cheaper than the announced price of D300, so Nikon has little incentive for big price cuts.
>> Anonymous
>>75864
Indeed, it's just a bit expensive at the moment ($1400-1600) just for the body). If the price plummets as you say, I'd be keen but I'm not sure how dramatic this will be.

There has been no drop whatsoever with the EOS 30D since the 40 came out so the jury is out as to whether the D200 will fall significantly in the coming months.
>> Anonymous
I had an Nikon N60 SLR, went to "Crappy P&S" digital cameras so I could carry them around with me easily, then got a D80 becuase I missed the Nikon (and had Nikon lenses already).

Atleast from the P&S, I see an improvement, and its quite nice imo. I got the stock 18-135 and love its range. Saddened by the distortions at the short end, but any zoom will have those, even those that diss the 18-135 but rave on the 18-200 (same distortions!). However, I may consider a 55mm Prime lens, that seems like teh next logical step for a lens.

I can't really compare coming from the SLR to the DSLR, because one is digital, the other I'd still have to scan, so I don't think you CAN compare them.
I dunno even how you could compate the P&S to the DSLR, they're different ranges. While nice, a Casio, a Fujifilm, they are a different level than teh DSLR. The DSLR is nicer overall. But its njot like going from a D40 to a D80.

Can't compare the Canon either, cuse I'm a Nikonfag. :p

However, the stock lens with the Nikon seems better (and if you keep the stock D40 lens, you should have a good lens for the short end.

Or save up some money, sell the D40 even, and grab the D200... Or sell a Kidney and get the D300.

tl;dr-Go for nikon! :P
>> Anonymous
Surprised no one mentioned lens mounts yet. I like Nikon because of Canon's heavy use of planned obsolescence. Nikon hasn't really changed their lens mount since 1959. Canon, on the other hand, has released 4 lens mounts in the same period of time. Knowing that I can buy an older lens for my Nikon to get the effect I want than later when I save up the money to buy a nice new digital specific lens I can do so. Nikon may change that particular play in their book, but
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>75904
Have you ever actually looked at a Nikon lens compatibility chart? They haven't made any big, sweeping, incompatible changes to their lenses, but they make little changes that add annoying little incompatibilities all the time. Just this year, for instance, they released a pair of cameras which won't autofocus with any but the very newest lenses.

Canon's switch from FD to EOS worked because nobody worth speaking of (lol minolta) had autofocus when they came out with their new system. It was an extremely risky move, and cost them a lot of ill will amongst their users, so I doubt that they'd try it again. They're not going to do it again unless there's some *really* compelling technology that comes along that they can't shoehorn into EF, and I can't think of anything that would fit that description.
>> Anonymous
Actually, D200's suck. They buck the traditions set by every digital SLR ever, to the point where if you've used an SLR at all it'll be a $1000 brick with a big nice screen on the back. Get yourself either a D70 or a D80.
>> Vincent
>>75926
This statement confuses me...

Are you saying because the D200 has a different physical interface no-one can re-learn it?
>> Anonymous
>>75822
My point is that the D40 shouldnt even be mentioned in this thread AT ALL, we're discussing the D80 and 30D you moron. D40 isnt a peice of shit for someone who wants to take good pictures with little effort as I've stated earlier, read the fucking thread yourself, dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>75953
you actually never said the D40 isnt a piece of shit. you only agreed it was a basic camera that you didnt want anymore because youre above that now apparently.

seriously, get lenses first then a body later. AF-S lenses are sexy anyway. the autofocus is smooth like butter and quick. the only thing you wouldnt be able to autofocus with would be a prime.
>> Anonymous
>>75915Just this year, for instance, they released a pair of cameras which won't autofocus with any but the very newest lenses.

Are you saying that Nikon should've stuck with in-body AF motors forever and ever when Canon's been rid of them for years? Besides, the D40 line is for people moving up from P&S digitals and films, not for those with all sorts of lenses and experience with film SLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>75953
Mate, I'm the OP and people were asking what I was upgrading from (D40).
>> Anonymous
>>76049
>you can't use your light meter on a Nikon with a non-AF lens unless you have a pro-level body.

Fixed. Cheaper Nikon DSLRs don't work properly even with AI lenses - a really really stupid situation when you're better off buying a Canon or Olympus body for your collection of old Nikon lenses.
>> des
>>76052
This also means you can't meter with bellows, extention tubes, reversing rings, lens mount adaptors... While you're usually going to use an external meter with bellows and rings anyway, I always keep a short (12mm) tube with me Just In Case(tm) and it'd be handy to double check my eyeballin' before exposure. Same thing with an M42 adaptor, it'd be nice.
I'm primarily a nikon user but I can't understand what they were thinking. Even giving us a spot would be better than the nothing we have.
>> Anonymous
>>76061
M42-Nikon adapters kinda fail anyway - they fuck up either infinity focus or image quality.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>76059
True

(Dammit. I was hoping nobody would bring that up. Hurts my argument :-P)

The reason EF-S lenses don't work on full-frame is because the lens extends physically further back than a full-frame mirror could accommodate, which makes it a bit easier for them to get wider angles and gets the glass a bit closer to the film plane for a potential quality bump. Nikon chose to eschew those bonuses with its DX lenses but with the advantage that FX Nikons can use DX lenses in a crop mode.

And all EF-S Canons can use EF lenses, and Canon still makes a lot of EF lenses. So it's not really planned obsolescence as such.

tl;dr: I think EF-S isn't as bad because I'm a fanboy.
>> Anonymous
>>76063
EF-S isn't bad, only Canon should've invented it a bit sooner in order not to limit D30/D60 owners to EF for no reason.
>> Anonymous
EF-S is an anti-stupid system that was made so that people would be able to figure their mistakes before developing a roll of film shot with a reduced image circle lens :P so I wouldn't say it's THAT bad.
>> Anonymous
http://www.fredmiranda.com/

I like this website here a lot. Read through user reviews and I think there's even an objective article comparing the 2 cameras in question
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>76088
It wouldn't just be a vignetted image. The rear-element of an EF-S lens is further back than is allowed by the EF standard. If you mount an EF-S lens on a full-frame camera, you'll also end up with the mirror smacking into the back of the lens every time you try to take a shot, which will (a) Not work, (b) Possibly break your mirror and (c) Possibly break your lens.

It's theoretically possible that a future full-frame camera could have a special mode wherein it locks up the mirror, removes an EF-S block on the mount, and lets you take shots on a cropped portion of the sensor in live-view mode with an EF-S lens, but I don't really expect Canon's likely to go to all that trouble.

(The digital-only lenses from third parties like Sigma and Tamron do just project a reduced image circle, so they can be used on full-frame cameras with vignetting if you really want to)
>> Anonymous
>>76101
mmm, theres too much fanboyism on that site.

I read the forum threads about it and everyone who favoured the canon owns a canon and vice versa
>> Davis
I just switched from Canon to Nikon. The canon lenses, not including the L series, are all cheap and plastic. The bodies on all but the pro canon cameras are all cheap feeling as well. I just got a d2x and love it. Love love love
>> Savid
I just switched from Nikon to Canon. The nikon lenses, not including the f/2.8D ED-IF series, are all cheap and plastic. The bodies on all but the pro nikon cameras are all cheap feeling as well. I just got a 1d mk II and love it. Love love love
>> Anonymous
>>76229
Well if I could afford the creme de la creme of Nikon cameras, I'd love it too.
>> Anonymous
The D80 isnt a semi-pro.

Why get a 30D when you can get a 40D new for $1300?
>> Jen
>>76229
>>76240

I c wat u did thar. Har har har.
>> Anonymous
Get the D80 with the Nikkor 28-105. It doesn't go as wide as the 18 but it does macro from 50 mm for really close up stuff (practically touching the lens!) It's also a film lens in case you want to go back to a Nikon film SLR. It's cheap too.

Also got the f/1.8 50 mm prime lens. A little too zoomy on the digital, but it's nice to have such a fast lens.
>> Anonymous
>>76252
Not in my country. A 40D is about 1600.
Also, labels like semi-pro and entry level are partly designed to make consumers feel bad for owning their cameras