 BetterPhoto Member |
N65 or Rebel 2000 I've recently started being interested in photography and bought (later returned) my Nikon N65. I'm planning to get some stuff soon, and I really tried to do research in Internet to help deciding. Naturally, I got so confused... I am not going to turn into a pro (though you never know), and basically love taking pictures when travelling, so I don't need something more expensive. My question is, first of all, is N65 better than Canon Rebel 2000. What I like more about Nikon is that it feels better in hands, I mean, especially right thumb, it kinda locks in place, which I think is awesome feature. But what about the picture quality??? Next, if I do decide to get N65, should I get regular lens (Nikkor 28-80), which I've already tried, or would 28-100 (or 28-105, not sure)be better. I'm ready to spend some more bucks to get a longer lens, but won't I loose the quality? And concerning filters, which ones are most often used and would fit best? It may sound stupid, but really, I don't have a lot of time to read all the stuff in internet, and I'd love to decide as soon as possible. Thanks to all of you in advance and good luck. Tomas
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Hurst |
Well I have been useing the Cannon Rebel 2000 for over a year now. I am a Photo lab manager. There for I see tons of prints every day and have several interactions with customers and the type of camera that they are useing. Of the customers that I have talked to, Three of them have this camera and I have heard no complaints. Three is a good number considering the cost of the camera and most of my customers just want something you can point and shoot type of camera. This camera has given me sharp images with naturistic and people pictures. I have several examples of my pictures that I have taken with that camera. (email for more info- jhurst@elp.rr.com) It is just my opinion on the camera but so far I have been satisfied with the shots that I have taken. I have a 28-80mm lens and a 80-200mm so far. Email me with any questions. Good luck in your choice and I hope that my experiance has given you more information. John
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Canon and Nikon are major brands because of their quality and consistency. You won't see a nickle's worth of image quality difference between the two. However, I wouldn't settle for ANY maker's bottom of the line. Look at Herbert Keppler's article on entry-level SLR's in a recent (Jan ?)Popular Photography. If the Nikon feels better to you, I see no reason not to go for it (I'm a satisfied 30-yr Canon user). For situations in which you MUST have sharpness (somebody's wedding) I'd get a 45, or 50, as those lenses tend to be among the sharpest (and cheapest) in all line-ups. Check out zooms at photodo.com before you buy. 80-200's or 100-300's seem to be pretty safe buys. Advice from friends (above) should be weighed, too.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||