Nikon vs Canon--what's your preference and WHY?

[kbnovak]

I'm a Nikon guy.

My film gear was Minolta and years ago, when I wanted to switch to digital, Minolta had nothing to offer in the DSLR realm. The choice then was between Nikon and Canon. Nikon was offering the D100 and Canon offered--I think--the D30 at the time, in my price range. I researched and explored and tried out both. For me, and my needs, Nikon was the clear choice. I bought into the brand and have upgraded considerably since then.

I agree with many that either choice is fine. They both make outstanding tools that, in the hands of skilled people, are capable of making outstanding images.

The debate can go on and on, but in the end, it's the image that matters.

 

[alan]

I' on Canon because... well, I always have been and thought that the 350D would be a vast improvement over my PowerShot Pro1.

I have been sorely disappointed and am now very, very ambivalent about that 350D (Digital Rebel).

Probably, it was because I bought a lousy Sigma 18-200mm zoom lens when I should have kept my money for a 70-200mm L. But the latter is no use as a walkaround lens. I wanted something to compare with the 28-200mm (35mm equiv) in the Pro1. Boy, it fell short of that.

Were I choosing again, with no stock of Canon-compatible equipment to sway me, I think I'd go for the Nikon, if only because of its highly-regarded 18-200mm VR lens.

regards,
/alan

 

[Steve's Girl]

Were I choosing again, with no stock of Canon-compatible equipment to sway me, I think I'd go for the Nikon, if only because of its highly-regarded 18-200mm VR lens.

regards,
/alan

This lens was definitely a factor that helped sway me to the Nikon camp. I have only had it for about a month, but have been quite impressed so far. It focuses fast and is very sharp considering what a large range it covers.

 

[jann1033]

I' on Canon because... well, I always have been and thought that the 350D would be a vast improvement over my PowerShot Pro1.

I have been sorely disappointed and am now very, very ambivalent about that 350D (Digital Rebel).

Probably, it was because I bought a lousy Sigma 18-200mm zoom lens when I should have kept my money for a 70-200mm L. But the latter is no use as a walkaround lens. I wanted something to compare with the 28-200mm (35mm equiv) in the Pro1. Boy, it fell short of that.

Were I choosing again, with no stock of Canon-compatible equipment to sway me, I think I'd go for the Nikon, if only because of its highly-regarded 18-200mm VR lens.

regards,
/alan

the 18-200 sigma was reviewed as pretty stinko...maybe you should get rid of it and buy a decent lens and i bet you'd like your camera more..i had a sigma film lens rechipped ( think it was 18-80????something like that) that was horrible and i was really disappointed in my camera due to it..but now that i have a couple nicer lenses i like it much better...you could get the 70-200 l f4 for about $550, that and the 70-300 IS are both rated as really nice lenses and about the same cost. i have a 28-135 IS that is pretty sharp as a walk around lens but i have been using my 100mm and 50mm more just to mix it up some

 

[alan]

the 18-200 sigma was reviewed as pretty stinko...you could get the 70-200 l f4 for about $550, that and the 70-300 IS are both rated as really nice lenses and about the same cost

Thanks for the suggestions. I in fact screwed up really badly, buying a new SLR about two days before going to Disneyworld, taking it with me (and not my trusty Pro1), and buying an 18-200 from a shop on International Drive.

I do have the Canon "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8 lens, and it's very nice indeed. And as and when pocket money permits, I'll be going for the 70-200mm L. But for a carry-around camera with great image quality in good light, it'll be the Pro1 for me for a while to come.

It's really a shame that I want to do stage photography!

regards,
/alan