 Eric H. Pait |
Canon vs. Nikon Ok so I'm currently shooting with a nikon d40 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lens that came in the bundle I got from Ritz camera. My question is that I am going to start getting into a lot of wildlife and sports photography and looking at getting a nice r DSRL, but I was wondering if anyone has any input on whether or not I should stick with nikon or switch to canon as most sports and wildlife photographers ive seen use canon and I've heard their super telephotos and telephoto zooms are better than those of nikon...and switching loyalty at this point won't be too big of a deal as I have a minimal investment in lenses.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
Can you tell us why you don't think your current camera can do what you need? I am Canon owner, myself, and I upgraded from a Digital Rebel XT (I believe somewhat comparable to a Nikon D40) to a Canon 30D wanting to capture better images. What I found along the way is that the glass makes the bigger difference. I recently replaced several of my lenses with much better quality and faster glass. Now if I put the better glass on my old Rebel XT I get images that are very equal. From a standpoint of wildlife and sports photography I can speak only on Canon. Not becuase they make a better camera body, but because it is what I own and have researched extensively. For nature and sports my 30D is probably the better choice over my Rebel because it can shoot 5fps vs 3fps. But, it also depends on how much money you want to spend. The next step up takes you to the Mark series cameras with an investment of at least $3,000 for the just the camera body. ($4,500 for the new Mark III). If you are really serious about wildlife and nature photography and can justify the cost this to me is the ultimate. You get 8fps and a focusing system superior to that of the Rebel XT, XTi or 30D. You only truly benefit from the superior focusing system when you choose f/2.8 or faster lenses. The Mark series cameras have at least 45 focusing points, of which 9 are high precision. They are high precision, though, only with f/2.8 or faster lenses. I believe only the center focusing point is accurate with f/5.6 or faster lenses. The next step down, the 30D, XT and XTi and the soon to be released 40D has only one high precision focusing point in the center and only high precision with f/2.8 or faster lenses. Plus these models have only 9 focusing points in total. You do make a good point though about possibly switching now since you don't have a whole lot invested. I hope the information on the Canon equipment helps some. I am sure there are very knowledgeable Nikon users out there that can share some Nikon info that will help as well. Good luck!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric H. Pait |
Yeah well the biggest thing I'm looking for isn't more megapixels or anything...it's just the faster shutter speed and so id be looking at I guess either the Canon 1D Mark III or the Nikon D2Hs but the d2h is only 4.something mp and i've heard that the Mark III had some autofocusing problems...anyone know if the guys at canon have fixed the kinks with the mark III?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
There has been 1 firmware upgrade to the Mark III, but the autofocus problem is not entirely solved, plus on top of everything else there is the ERR99 which equates to the camera saying something is wrong, but we aren't going to be more specific; send it to Canon.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric H. Pait |
so basically...if I decide to go with the mark III probly wait a few months atleast for them to try and fix all the problems with it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Suzanne Colson |
I think you will be waiting anyway because they are still not readily available. When one does become available you have to be 'standing in line'. I guess there are those that want one bad enough and are willing to deal with the problems. For $4,500 I am waiting until next year. Either a really good used Mark IIn or a new Mark III. I would hope they have figured out all the problems by then.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric H. Pait |
yeah thats what im thinking of doing...cuz for that much money I dont want anything to be wrong with it lol...and by then I should be able to have enough money for the body and a nice piece of glass to go along with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
The Nikon D2X is a 12.4 mp camera. The D2H was designed more for news journalist. Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric H. Pait |
ray...I do realize the D2X is higher resolution, but it also lacks the high end fps...If I stuck with nikon and didnt get a d2h I would likely just get a d200 and a nicer piece of glass
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
That is exactly what I did! I had a D2x on order then Nikon announced the release of the D200. I was amazed at the D200's specs which were similar to the D2X. I had already had great results with my D100 bouncing around in the back of ambulances and accident scenes and the D200 was better built than the D100. So I cancelled the D2X and purchased a D200 and Nikon 70-200 2.8 ED VR glass all for the price of a D2X! Works for me! Ray
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric H. Pait |
yeah...i have a feeling it's all gonna come down to how much money ill end up bein able to make in the next year or so...and how much I end up spending to buy my car next summer...cuz if I dont get like 6,000 id probly be better off just gettin a d200, 70-200mm 2.8 ED VR lens and 12-22mm lens for less than id get the Mark III for...and I do love my d40, and you know what...unless nikon comes out with another camera in the next year or so which I doubt would happen, im probly just gonna go with the d200 cuz even if I could get enough for the mark III and a nice piece of glass...i could get another lens for special shots...like a nice fisheye or something
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||