Yea, kinda like the PC/Mac debate. I hate peeps that try to tell other there cameras are better than the next person's unless I know for a fact that he is:

1. A Pro shooter
2. Using premium glass
3. I know based on my knowledge that he knows what he is talking about.

I hate going places and running into n00bs with the latest and greatest then seeing there shooting with crap glass, its like :wtf:

 

Saying forget Nikon shows your bias towards Canon which can be itself pretty narrow sighted. Nikon makes excellent cameras and also makes excellent glass. To say "forget Nikon" is possibly the single most ignorant statement I have heard in a while.

True Canon has great architecture and a well recognized name, but it doesn't make them the god of cameras and it doesn't always mean a better product. Canon has the tendency to put 8 new models out with none of them being any real major advancement over the model it is replacing...yeah an MP or two bigger, maybe a slight framerate increase (cough 20d cough) but then it lacks in other areas.

The 1d MKII is a great camera as is the 1Ds MKII but when you compare them to the Nikon D2H or the D1x They are nearly the same in every aspect, the difference is that Nikon took longer to bring out the same product on a different sensor setup.

I shoot Canon and have for a long time now, I also shoot for a mag using a 10d and do just fine on it. This includes fast action and slow action sports as well as art shooting, portraiture, lifestyle, and other types of shots. I have shot with several high end Nikon cameras and have been considering making the switch because of quality as well as the price point for their products.

BTW microdrives are ok but just wait until one fails on you due to a moving parts failure and you lose a couple grand in images. I have a 2 gig microdrive in my collection but I would not trust it as a primary memory card.

 

simsurfer: so you saying i should buy just the body and use the money i save to get a nicer lens?

well i never really took pics before (never could really afford a decent camera till now, just basic disposible point n shot, lol) but was always intrested in SLRs and "artsy" photo shotting.

i have basic photoshop/illustrator knowledge, most of the time i just mess around with the program till something i like come out. so to me it sound like thats what im gonna end up doing with the camera.

 

For stsrting out the kit lenses actually work just fine. The zoom lens that comes on the 350d kit is actually a pretty good piece of glass but it is a "slow lens" meaning the aperture is on the high side, but it does take quality images and is worth using and owning especially since it only adds $50-$100 to the price of the camera depending on the dealer.

The Nikon kit lenses are also very similiar in quality though I have not actually shot with their kit lenses. My boss on the other hand has several shots from one and sold a few to Toyo for an ad campaign using kit lens and a d70, the shot was great and anyone who tells you that you can't blow a 6mp image up to poster size without degrdation in image quality is full of shit.

 

Yep I fully agree. I've blown up 3 of my shots taken with the old DR and 1 with d70 and there is no degradation of image quality. All were 20x30.

In fact I posted one of them here, of the white sail boat in Santa Cruz. I gave one copy to a friend of mine who surfs and sails. He took it with him to Oregon when he moved and several people have asked to buy a copy. If the image was FUBAR then I doubt they would want to pay money for it. I gave them the image so they can have it printed. No complaints.

 

save up money for either an IS or VR lens depending on which company you go with.

both canon and nikon make kick ass 70-200 F2.8 VR/IS lenses and they both cost upwards of 1500 bucks.

for drifting shots or track shots that lens will make life much much easier.


for light life pics you'll need a tripod. there isn't 1 lens that will do everything you want, so you'll need to build up your lens collection based on what you want to do with the camera.

 

:thumbup: thanks for the great info!!

now just need to figure out which one and where to get it...

 

And have you seen the price of Nikon glass vs Canon glass?? and I thought "L" glass was $$$

I am not saying Nikon isnt good, they probably are but I have been shooting Canon since the EOS 630 came out. Owned the 10D and now traded up a few notches.

For what I do and see the Nikons CCD cannot produce the same quality that a CMOS can and now I see the newer Nikons are also CMOS. I also look at who is shooting with Canon vs Nikon at races, and pro sports games. We cant all be wrong

I have just always thought Nikon was overpriced for what you were getting as compared to Canon. I also look at compatability, I like the fact that with a Canon EOS lens bought 15 years ago is fully compatable with all the latest features of the newer bodies.

As far as Micro drives are concernerd, been using them with no problems now for three years...heavily, no problems yet. I dont baby them but I dont drop them either. I suppose if you have to be rough, forgetfull, careless then yes the better alternative would be to go with flash, but for the price I find MD's to be better.

 

I'm saying dont go off brand with your glass. I am not a fan of Ritz Camera glass, Sigma, Tokina or Tamron glass.

One of the greatest things about Canon lenses is USM and you dont get that with off brand, you also dont get "IS" either. Two Major reasons for going with Canon, there are other reasons but thes two are big.

Stick with the kit lens for sure, it is a good wide angle/short zoom but when you need more and better stick to the brand and you cant go wrong. The EF 80-210 f/2.8 IS L lens is one of the best lenses out there.

Glass is very important with todays digitals and that is because the CMOS sensors resolve so much more than film did (typically). For example back when we were shooting 35mm you had your prints back and they were 4x6 in size. With digital you see your images on a monitor a lot bigger than 4x6, more to the tune of 11x14 ( at least I do) so more often than not you see a lot more imperfections in the glass than you did before. Things such as flare, ghosting, croma aberations and other nasty things that we never used to see normally unless we were enlarging to 11x14 or bigger.

Another reason to sticking with the brand is compatability. I can stick a EOS lens I bought 15 years ago on my 1d mkII and be assured it will work with the camera 100%, no chip upgrades needed.

 

Why in the world would anyone need the IS at a focal range of under 200? Seriously unless you are epileptic there is no way in hell you can't keep a lens smaller than 300 stable handheld, 300 and up I can understand. I shoot my 70-200 2.8 L handheld all the time and have shot several thousand shots in varying conditions and can hold stable down to 1/20 shutter speed at 200.

Not ripping on your suggestion but the best possible bang for the buck says that up to a 200 IS is just for bling factor, 300+ it is useful. I pan handheld and carry that sucker across the rocks shooting and have yet to need IS unless I am severly hungover or drunk while shooting.