Equipment New gear advice needed

My brother in law shoots portraits and does Architectural imaging. He told me that Nikon were way better than Canon, can't remember his reasons, but he went into great lengths to explain why. I've read the same myself. But I have to take it on face value. Its hard to know what to believe, seems its a bit like the Audi vs BMW argument or Mac vs PC.

I think he has a D3. Lovely camera.

 

It ultimately depends on the photographers' preference for the final image, as I mentioned earlier. I've used a variety of Canons and Nikons, including the D3S and 1D Mark IV (which are both stunning in their own right, but beyond what I'd ever need).

Both Canon and Nikon cameras produce fantastic images in their own right, but as for which is right, it'll depend on what you're looking for in the final image.

 

This sounds suspiciously like a troll post but I'll respond anyway. For architecture, portraiture and landscape both systems offer great options, each with their own advantages. Nikon offers the best UWA zoom ever made (14-24), along with some very impressive bodies and a very nice 24 PC-E. Canon offers the widest TS-E ever produced (17 TS-E), which is outstanding for architectural work, especially in tight spaces. They also offer a great 24 TS-E as well as a couple bodies with high density sensors (5DII, 1DsIII)--great for very large, highly detailed prints with room for cropping as well. In terms or portraiture, again, both brands have a lot to offer. Canon offers a better prime lineup overall but Nikon has a few excellent primes as well. That said, even though there are differences, its hard to go wrong with either. Companies like Oly, Pentax, Sony etc etc simply cannot compete in the same arena at present time.

 

Thanks for your info again. However, if anyone has made Troll posts in this thread, it has been yourself. 'Urghhh Olympus'. Just remember that people disagreeing with your own ideas are just as correct or incorrect as yourself.

I don't use Olympus, I don't use any kind of camera, save for a compact, at this moment. It is Fuji anyhow.

 

Rather than making unsupported blanket statements, what I posted is backed up by actual data. If you decide to disregard that info, by all means, you are free to do so.

 

Hey Vers, good old brand war going on here again (I've kind of missed that ).

The life is all about choices and this is what this all boils down to.

I'm with you on this one though, Canon and Nikon are undoubtedly the two big players here. Canon has a better collection of lenses and better implementation of DSLR video where Nikon has a slight edge on a couple of other things.

What they both have in common is better ISO performance and a "safe" future for the system and lens mounts to be around. I could say also IQ here, but after seeing a few photos taken with the Sony A900 with Zeiss lenses, I'm not so certain about that (okay, that is a bit extreme example, so maybe in cheaper setups they have an edge here also).

For some reason though, neither of them can make a camera that feels good in my hands. I was visiting my local camera shop today and once I was there, I tested the following cameras:

-Nikon D700 - pretty good, but somehow awkward in my hands, may be better with a battery handle.
-Nikon D300s - not much different from the D700, a bit smaller, which isn't a good thing in my hands.
-Canon 1D MkIV - normal shooting position is pretty good, but why does the portrait mode have so "thin" grip?
-Canon 5D MkII - without the grip it's not good at all, with grip a bit better, but the grip is still too "mild" for my hands.
-Canon 7D - with and without the grip it felt better than the rest of them. I could get used to it in a while.
-Olympus E-30 - pretty good, but not quite large enough for me.
-Olympus E-3 - (my own camera with a battery handle) still feels the best for my hands. With the grip I can get a really good grip of the camera in landscape mode, in portrait mode the grip is actually a bit too thick, but not bad.

Okay, that's ergonomics, which I think is a big deal and is often overlooked when buying a camera. If you don't want to keep it in your hands, then don't buy the damn thing.

So, there are clear advantages with Canon and Nikon, for me it would mainly be the huge amount of used lenses and accessories which Olympus definitely doesn't have.

There are a few things that I really don't like about the two big ones though:

-No body IS - why do I have to buy this technology every time with a new lens?
-No articulating LCD screens (mainly) - I don't use this too much, but when I do it comes in really handy.
-Weather sealing - Oly has done this right, don't know about new CaNikons, but in the past they have been worse.
-Sensor cleaning - if I'm right, Oly still has the best system for sensor cleaning of the bunch.

Those are the main reasons why I didn't go with Canon or Nikon when I started this hobby. That and the fact I somewhat liked the 2x crop factor since I'm shooting mostly wildlife.

I'm going to see what the E-3 successor looks like, but it might be time for me to change camps. Don't know yet, but hopefully Photokina will clear this thing up for me.

All in all, Canon and Nikon are safe bets, but frankly, you should go with gear that you feel most comfortable with.

In my opinion we would be better off with more manufacturers, not less. That's almost always true, since competition isn't a bad thing for consumers.

And on a final note I'd like to add that if you go with Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony or almost any other brand, the cameras now are pretty good, so you'll get the job done with them no matter what.

There are features (high ISO capabilities, high resolution etc.) that you can pay for, but if you don't necessarily need them, you can get along with any modern DSLR.

But as some of the people in this thread have said, lenses should be your priority, since optics don't change like camera sensors. Put your money towards that whatever brand you are going with.

Mucho rambling going on there, but hopefully you all get something out of it.

Darkened

 

While ergonomics is a factor, it shouldn't be a deciding factor, IMO. Like a lot of things cameras are tools that sometimes take time to get used to. A lot of Cameras feel better than Canon's but some also fail miserably when it comes to control layout--Sony's bodies are a good example of this. They feel natural in hand but the layout is overly cluttered and clumsy. Nikon's bodies also feel good in hand, but having used them on several occasions I just can't wrap my head around the button layout and I really miss the rear wheel. If I used one for long enough, however, I would pick it up. The difference b/t Nikon's and Sony's bodies is a logical layout. What I'm getting at is even though Oly and Sony make bodies that may be more comfortable to hold, that is a relatively small picture compared to what you would be loosing by buying into that system. Lens selection, IQ, pricing, support etc etc are all much larger factors. Does that mean you can't make a good picture with a Sony or Olympus kit? Of course not--but you are also limited in ways you wouldn't be with a Canon or Nikon system.

 

That's a bit of a stupid thing to say, no offence

If you're shooting for 4 hours in a day you soon figure out that ergonomics are more important than other things. This is the whole reason I got rid of my D100. Nikons usually fit in my hand perfectly (I'd tested a D80 before I bought my D100, hence opting for that over a D90) hence I use them, Oly are very nice cameras but I just don't like the feel of them (exactly the same as the OP)

And as for lenses, that's bullcrap... Sigma and Tamron make good lenses that are cross-platform as well as the Olympus alternatives. You take a 50mm picture on a D80 and compare it to one on an E-3 and tell me that the £100 more for a lens doesn't justify the outcome

 

Which body of the nikon's were you holding that didn't have a rear wheel?

 

No Nikon bodies have a rear wheel. They use a large D-pad with a center click for menu and review, with completely separate main command dial for shutter and some soft comands. Canons have a rotating rear wheel, with a center click which serves both for menu, review and shutter control. And some models have a tiny "joystick" off in the upper right hand corner, IIRC.

TBF, there is a marked difference as to how your hands sits. I feel the Canon causes my hand to rock back during manual use more then the Nikons do, as the wheel is lower and the aperture control is above the shutter. Nikons have the sub command dial below the shutter and the main command dial is significantly higher in the rear.

It's really a personal preference. A subtle, but over time, large difference.

 

It's not stupid at all--perhaps I should have been more clear. If you have enough experience with a body you will adjust to shooting with it. Sure, if a body is too small or too large for your hands then that might prove to be an issue, but if your hand physically fits the on the body then you shouldn't have an issue down the road. For instance, a 1DIII or gripped body is within my comfort zone, if I were to pick up a D3s or a gripped D700/300s I could get used to shooting with them over time--as long as all my fingers fit on the body, and the control layout is logical, that's all that should matter. Am I going to choose Nikon just because I like the feel better than Canon? No, and I wouldn't expect any other experienced photographer to do that either. As I said, ergonomics is a factor, but it shouldn't be a deciding one, IMO. As for lenses, Yes third party manufacturers make lenses for Oly, BUT they don't make near as many AND Oly itself doesn't offer near as many. Again, Oly is extremely limited when compared to Canon and Nikon--there just is no arguing that.

 

Uhh, some heated debate started here.

My opinion is like that: I used Olympus many times and 1. I find their bodies too small for my hands and 2. It seems for me they have tendency for more noise at almost any ISO range (maybe it comes with a smaller sensor).

Now as for the Image Stabilisation. There is a reason why both Nikon and Canon are not putting this technology within the body. It is the simple matter of that if the IS in in the body then it's the sensor that is shifted to compensate the movement. That has adverse effect on sharpness of the produced image. (I was on the Olympus own training some time ago and this is how I learned it). They accept this drawback as it makes for the cheaper lenses that don't require IS in them. I personally would prefer to have proper optical stabilisation as it's superior to sensor IS, even if it costs more. After reading all that you said my purchase is heading towards:

1. Canon 7D body
2. Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM Lens

The combo is right up my budged. Does anyone have any additional thoughts, suggestions or critics? Thank you for ones you already gave guys.

 

24mm on APS-C isn't all that wide (~38mm). I still think if you decide to go with the 7D you should stick to the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-70 or the 15-85 plus an 85/1.8 OR just pick up a 17-55IS and add a lens later. The 24-105 is a nice lens (I used to own it) but I found it better suited on FF. If landscape/portraiture is your thing, you're going to want something wider and faster--the lenses I listed will get you both of those things.

 

I use my rear dial to scroll photos (review)(D300), didn't realise the difference between the Canon and Nikon. Might ave to go play with a canon sometime.

 

It's what I miss most when shooting a Nikon--that and Canon's shutter button seems more naturally placed, but I'm sure if I started shooting Nikon my preference would likely be different.

 

Okay, I may have put a bit too much effort in writing about ergonomics of a camera body.

On the other hand, I do stand behind my words in that if you really have difficulties bending a finger to a button or your hand doesn't fit on the body, then don't buy it.

In Finland we have a saying that you can get used to anything except an icicle in your a$$hole

This doesn't mean that you should though. Vers makes a good point that you can get used to a camera rather quickly (I probably would too), but if there's no hope for fitting your hands on a camera, leave it at the store.

I've never considered a Canon body myself, but I've always known the limiting factors of other systems and the good things about Canon. Can't really put my finger on it why that is.

After trying the 7D out, I'd say that it would be the first Canon body I could get along with. If Oly goes to hell around Photokina time, that might be my new direction. That is of course, if Nikon doesn't bring something good to the table with D400.

Does anyone know about the weather sealing on the 7D? With Oly it's never been an issue for me even if the camera is soaking wet, so I'd like to have that with my future gear also.

If I would have to make a short list of what I'd need in a camera (body only), it would go like this:

-weather sealing (pooring down rain sealing please)
-decent ergonomics
-usable ISO 6400
-body IS (I know about the shortcomings of that system, but still)

I could bend on the last one, since I know that CaNikon isn't going that route.

FF would be nice on the other hand, but I do shoot wildlife, so I welcome the crop factor and fast burst rates.

I could also use some suggestions since I may have to switch camps soon.

Darkened

 

From what I understand the 7D shares the same weather resistance as Canon's 1N, which was always known to be a solid performer in bad weather. I don't know how effective it is compared to Nikon/Oly counterparts but I've heard from a lot of people that the camera performs flawlessly in extreme conditions--I'm talking rain/snow arctic type conditions. However the 7D does not have complete rubber weather seals, rather mostly tighter lap joints.
The green represents the high tolerance lap joints while the red represents actual seals.


If you are a wildlife photographer on a budget it's tough to go wrong with Canon's lineup. A 7D (high density sensor+great AF) plus a 100-400 or a 400/5.6 can go a long way at a much lower cost than the competition can offer. Hell, even Canon's super teles cost anywhere from 1-2K less than most others.

 

I would argue that olympus know a thing or two about making lenses. Perhaps more so than Canon or Nikon.

While the 4/3 line up is admittedly not as comprehensive as those from Canon or Nikon, how many lenses do you actually need?

The lenses offered by Olympus are pretty much unversally regarded as fantastic. Trying to deny that is kidding yourself. And remember that for a much smaller company to build up such a high performance range of lenses is remarkable in such a short period of time.

Allow me to select a few quotes from DPReview lens tests.

It's all very well having lots of lenses available, but you only need ONE good lens covering each focal length. Or am I wrong?

And regarding the comment about the Nikon 14-24. Is it indeed better than the Zuiko 7-14?

I will not argue with you on autofocus performance, but this is not new news, and the newer bodies are much improved.

The same improvements have been seen with ISO performance. The E620 was arguably a match for its peers and offered a compelling package for the money.

 

As with most things in photography, that all depends on what you're looking for in a lens. The all-in-one zoom lenses can't offer the speed (aperture values, nothing else) that the prime focal lenses have. A range of prime focal lenses won't be as cheap to buy as an all-in-one zoom, nor will they be as light as.

Image quality... well, some zoom lenses can now match the prime focal lenses... but you'll pay for that quality, in both weight and money.