Beginner - D40 or XTI

[DiploStrat]

Canon faster?

Hmmmm. Shutter speed is shutter speed. In camera processing speed can affect the cycle time between shots, but when you are up over 5 FPS, it really doesn't matter.

If you shoot JPEG (as opposed to RAW) there can be tremendous differences in the in camera processing - choose the right settings and your Nikon will give you Canon metallic colors and your Canon will give you Nikon pastels. Typical parameters include:

-- Saturation
-- Sharpening
-- Noise reduction

And the list goes on. So much that if you don't like the results your camera gives you, you probably just need to change something. It is NOT like shooting film, or it is - like the difference between Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji.

This, of course, is the other good reason to shoot RAW - all of these parameters can be changed later in your computer.

Don't be a brand bigot - buy the camera that feels right to you. Perhaps the only exception to that rule might be that if you need the widest range of lenses and accessories, then you are stuck with Nikon or Canon. (But keep your eye on Sony.)

 

[Lost Canadian]

Actually the trend that I've seen, if there is a trend, is a lot more people use Canon for landscape. The 5D for example was/is a favorite of back country photogs. Also until recently Canon was the only maker of fullframe 35mm digital cameras and they typically have higher resolution numbers than that of Nikon or others, resolution matters to landscape. Now if Nikon has any advantage over Canon it's in the ergonomics department. I've read that a lot of women photojournalists will choose Nikon over Canon simply because of this. Karen Kasmauski comes to mind. She had said in an older interview that she actually preferred her D200 over the pro body D2x because it was lighter and more comfortable to use when she was out shooting a story day after day.

At current, Canon's zoom tele lenses are pretty much considered the standard that everyone else is striving for, but Nikon has some killer wide, ultra wide, PC, and macro lenses. If you're looking for honest reviews check Fred Miranda. Stay away from Ken Rockwell, the guy reviews things he's never used, and is widely considered a photo quack amongst other photographers.

 

[bajasurf]

Ken Rockwell

I know Ken Rockwell as he also is from La Jolla. A couple of years back Ken was at our annual WindanSea Historical Surf Riding Luau. One of surfing's premier photographers that I have know for over 40 years and met at Waimea Bay during the winter of 1961/1962 was also at WindanSea. I introduced him to Ken and at that time Ken had his DSLR Nikon and Tom had his latest Canon DSLR. Well, to make a long story short the two of them started talking and about an hour later I happened to run into Tom once again and he thanked me for introducing him to Ken and said it was the most informative meeting he had ever had and learned more about using a DSLR in 30 minutes than he had in years of shooting with them. Of course Tom has a quiver of Canon lens that would make most of us envious. When you have for over 40 years made your living taking Surfing photos you need to go long and go fast and he certainly has done that. But I can understand where other photographers don't have a high regard for Ken but I find Ken to be a very nice guy and will stop taking photos to help anyone.

 

[DiploStrat]

Trevor,

Not to argue one brand against another, but the Canon clan over at the Luminious Landscape all all lamenting that Canon has nothing like the Nikon 200-400VR. Way too rich for my blood (sadly), but I don't think that it is fair imply that Nikon is deficient in the long glass department. The pendulum swings back and forth between the two companies - in the end, your talent is what matters.

You could have taken all of your pictures with a Nikon and no one would be able to tell the difference. Why? Because it is your talent that makes your pictures worth looking at, not your camera or glass. (All that said, I still want a 200-400!)

All the best!

 

[goodtimes]

Another consideration, which may or may not be applicable to anyone....consider what your friends are using. Why? Chances are, they have lenses that you do not. For lenses that you won't use often, borrowing is cheaper than buying or renting.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Trevor,

Not to argue one brand against another, but the Canon clan over at the Luminious Landscape all all lamenting that Canon has nothing like the Nikon 200-400VR. Way too rich for my blood (sadly), but I don't think that it is fair imply that Nikon is deficient in the long glass department. The pendulum swings back and forth between the two companies - in the end, your talent is what matters.

You could have taken all of your pictures with a Nikon and no one would be able to tell the difference. Why? Because it is your talent that makes your pictures worth looking at, not your camera or glass. (All that said, I still want a 200-400!)

All the best!

Oh I'm not saying Nikon doesn't have game in the tele market, they certainly do, I'm only saying that for some time Canon, in many respects, has lead the way with their teles. Example, you don't have to turn off IS on a Canon lens when you mount your camera on a tripod, it seemingly knows. This is not true though for Nikons with VR, and I say this as I am someone who, many times, has forgotten and been annoyed with the results when I've viewed the image at 100%.

I'm a fan of both companies, I use Nikon, but wouldn't hesitate to use Canon....and I agree it's the photographer who creates interesting photos not the camera or lens.