DSLR camera. Nikon or Cannon?

[skinney_7]

IMHO Canon has the best glass, I've ran their 5D MKIII, and MKIV, with the Rokinon Prime 24mm 1.4, EF F4 24-105, EF USM III 2.8 70-200. Canon is really true to color. I also run the Sony A7SII (mirrorless), with a few junk lenses, and the Metabones EF - E mount for the Rokinon, I primarily use the Sony for videography, lowlight in particular. I'm going to be investing in the new (hot) Canon R5 with RF Lenses as well as the Sony A7SIII with some good G lenses. Won't be until my pre-orders are in.

 

[Aries256]

I want a nice DSLR. I want a legacy camera. Not a 1 year pos. Package deal type. Couple lenses but with good glass and aftermarket support? @gr8fuldoug you offer packages? I don’t need a $2500 body minus lenses nor do I want a $200 cheapo.

what do you dorks use? Or recommend?

Nikon, hands down. Got a d3400 that came with a standard and a zoom lens, plus a case and extra battery for 500$ at costco. The new pentax cameras are looking good also.

 

[plong]

So ... Now that we’re talking Fuji Xe, what lens for architectural photos? Particularly interior, if that matters...?

 

[Herb Stoner]

Canon

take a good look at the glass you want to use or will be buying first. Glass is by far the biggest investment.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

Hi gayguns,



Could you please elaborate? I, too, am thinking about getting into digital. I am actually thinking about the APS-C format for the following reasons:
1. Given the crop factor, e.g., 1.5, for Nikon, a nice fill frame lens, e.g., Nikon 55/1.2 will be equivalent to about 85. The cost savings is significant. The downside is, of course, on the low side of focal lenses, i.e. I will need 18/XX for 28/XX. However, I can solve this by buying a dedicated APS-C lens. (I do have a Nikon FE body and would therefor like to stay with Nikon.)
2. Full frame lenses will be sharper due to the sensor being closer t the optical axes.
3. The larger sensor (considering the same resolution) will have better low light performance. Coming from film cameras with limited ISO films available, I am not sure that I care.
4. The quality of pictures at about 20x30 inch will be for all practical purposes indistinguishable.
5. The body will be smaller, lighter.

Without any intent on offense, I also find rather contra-intuitive that you advocate for a full frame while lot of your "work can be done with a mobile phone."

Please correct any of my misconceptions.

Kindest regards,

M

When taking professional photographs I only use the full frame / raw. Nothing less would suffice. The depth of editing one has in post production with raw images is staggering --if you know what you're doing.

However... w hen I say a lot of my work can be done on a mobile phone I mean that I'm simply taking mass amount of images for website catalogs. These are images that will never be printed in a professional manner and they're only to give clients an idea of what the product looks like --hack n' slapped up on a web page as thumbnail / enlarged.

The exception to that is if I am taking images of product for a catalog or a advertisement. There it's all about nuance and lighting, weights of negative space / positive space, balance and... well... artistic.

But really that's dictated by what the client wants. While I prefer making artistic images of course... spending time and really getting the glamour shot..... Most clients these days do not want artistic shots, they're looking to get their crap on the web as fast and cheap as possible.

But again -- DO. NOT. GET. LESS. THAN. FULL. FRAME. Even if you think I'm full of shit. Do it anyways. If you have to borrow the money do it... sell something to come up with the extra money, get a second job for a month, make ur kids mow lawns. (lol).... You can make it happen.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

Nikon, hands down. Got a d3400 that came with a standard and a zoom lens, plus a case and extra battery for 500$ at costco. The new pentax cameras are looking good also.

I had a Nikon once. But really Canon vs. Nikon --these are the industry leaders with Sony and Fuji not too far behind. Between those two tho there's virtually no diff. --they're both Stellar image quality, so it comes down to what camera computer operating system you like better and what features each presents in your price range. IMO Canon was easier. But I made the switch 10 years ago so things may have changed with Nikon. It's kind like the Mac/PC wars.

You couldn't pay me to use an Apple product... their operating system is anything BUT intuitive and extremely annoying to me... and some (especially in the creative world) look at me like I'm a retard from another planet... but I've been doing this shit for 25 years. I laugh at their stupidity, paying double and triple for 'status symbol' Apple products when I have twice as much power for easily a third the price (but then I also have built my own computers or these days know how to get them custom built).

 

[Snuby642]

I was thinking a Cannon EOS Rebel T6 looks about right? But I’m a newb. So.... I was in photography back in the film days. Still have my Pentax ME super I had professionally rebuilt. But who uses film? Lol

You should get a cannon eos
My wife covers her club events and national events with this for years.

One of the best things I ever got her.

Rock solid and used 1-2 days a week year round.

 

[Bender]

I’m not going to lie, it came down to the Fuji because I liked how the camera looked. I wanted something with timeless asthesetic. I’m low end hobbiest. My last digital camera is 13 years old. Still working great!

 

[Rocketvapor]

DSLR? Image mostly depends on the glass you can afford.
You know the 'Buy Once, Cry Once' logic
Buying better glass, over the kit lenses you usually get can be seen in image quality.
I happen to use a Pentax K-r. Bought one new several years back and have a bunch of Pentax Glass.

Then I bought 5 broken ? ones off ebay. Paid from $5 to $15 dollars each plus some shipping. Each has a problem, some easily fixable or don't care type of problems. One doesn't record sound, one the flash doesn't work, etc.

 

[Bender]

So ... Now that we’re talking Fuji Xe, what lens for architectural photos? Particularly interior, if that matters...?

I would guess a 35mm would be a perfect all round lens for interior stuff.

 

[Snuby642]

Might consider a 70 ish to go with that for large rooms / events.

 

[Highbrass]

Nikon is currently in serious financial trouble. They have shuttered the sporting optics division and done the same with the medical optics. Nikon has made some pretty big blunders over the past few years. Their management had some long held ideas that didn't work and caused photographers to jump ship and move to Sony and Canon. I personally saw the trainwreck coming and sold all my Nikon equipment while it still had some value. Sony is winning the game but Canon has many loyal fans. I really like some of the compact mirrorless offerings but may wait and see who wins the war.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

The comments are especially apt.

Sony Now #2 in Digital Camera Sales as Nikon Falls to #3

There's a changing of the guard at the top of the camera market. Sony has reportedly become the #2 brand in overall digital camera sales behind Canon,

petapixel.com

Awww sheesh!!!!

Now look what you guys started.... After a lot of looking --I might even jump the Canon ship now. The Sony Alpha a7R IV Mirrorless is calling me with that crazy resolution of 9600 x 6376 and a sensor rating of 99! I'll keep my slew of lenses and get an adapter. Easy.

Anyone wanna buy a nice 5DIII?

 

[pmclaine]

My current digital junker is having a lens issue. Wont allow me to zoom in.

Ive been thinking about a new camera.

Being one that misses the days of 35mm I want something retro.

I was going to suggest this to the op.....

FUJIFILM X100V | Cameras | FUJIFILM X Series & GFX - Global

O

fujifilm-x.com

Looks like he went that way.

 

[W54/XM-388]

I would guess a 35mm would be a perfect all round lens for interior stuff.

If you are doing a lot of interior stuff, I'd recommend a full frame camera and something like the EF 16–35mm f/2.8L
That's one of my favourite all around use lenses and then pair that with a really good zoom and you are all set for most things.

You can get some really great shots if you have a sharp lens with a wide angle and great low light performance.

What I like to do is be able to walk around indoor/outdoor events at night, taking candid pictures without the need for a flash.

That being said, if you are going to do a lot of exterior outdoor building shots from up close, you'll soon want the dedicated tilt-shift lenses

 

[Rocketvapor]

A DSLR with interchangable lenses has it's place.
I use adapters to use my 6x7 lenses on a crop sensor K-r but my favorite is my Panasonic FZ-80 (or my FZ-70).
Not the same image quality but the zoom range is fantastic. Doesn't have the low light capability of a larger sensor but carrying one full range lens system sure is convenient. I can step out the door with a decent macro capability (not great) or zoom up into the pine trees to capture a bird, or snap pics of my 100/200 yard holes in targets.
A super zoom point and shoot costs LESS than ONE good lens. A small fraction of a good rifle scope

 

[W54/XM-388]

Where Canon I think is going to eventually paint themselves into a corner is their insistence on hobbling the video performance of their cameras to try to protect their super high end "film maker series". That is what's going to let everyone else come in to eat their lunch.

The early 5D versions had amazing video capabilities for their time in a full frame camera and quick became sought after.

Then Canon got greedy and figured if they hobbled things they could try to force folks to buy a more expensive dedicated video line.

Meanwhile Sony realized that people wanted a great top of the line DSLR that could also double as an excellent video camera and decided to push forward with that.

 

[Bender]

When I get deeper into these waters, I will look at a Fuji full frame or Sony. After my autistic-level reading the past few days on the subject, it seems mirrorless is the place to be. The DSLR has its place, but not what I’m after.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

Where Canon I think is going to eventually paint themselves into a corner is their insistence on hobbling the video performance of their cameras to try to protect their super high end "film maker series". That is what's going to let everyone else come in to eat their lunch.

The early 5D versions had amazing video capabilities for their time in a full frame camera and quick became sought after.

Then Canon got greedy and figured if they hobbled things they could try to force folks to buy a more expensive dedicated video line.

Meanwhile Sony realized that people wanted a great top of the line DSLR that could also double as an excellent video camera and decided to push forward with that.

Nailed it

 

[W54/XM-388]

When I get deeper into these waters, I will look at a Fuji full frame or Sony. After my autistic-level reading the past few days on the subject, it seems mirrorless is the place to be. The DSLR has its place, but not what I’m after.

I'm in between bodies right now myself and have been giving serious thought to something like the Canon R5 being my next body.
All the pros of the mirrorless but with the ring adapter, I can use my current lenses.

I'm still waiting to see how it all shakes out as I don't need a body right now.
Bodies come and go, lenses stay.

 

[Bender]

GUESS WHAT!!!!!!!

just messing around! Zero editing!

 

[Redmanss]

That's one of the best parts of modern day cameras, unless you really want to nitpick (or sell them), you don't need to edit at all.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

That's one of the best parts of modern day cameras, unless you really want to nitpick (or sell them), you don't need to edit at all.

But when one gets good at editing too... images EXPLODE with possibilites. For example...

TIP: 90% of images that look great can always look better with a simple Photoshop levels enhance ("Cntl L") and by collapse the left and right arrows inward. Poof. Instantly adds more depth and pop.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

I put a few pics up here, a few years ago, of when we were on the river in our boat, and My Lady was playing with the buttons on her camera. It was incredible (for us great-unwashed) the HUGE differences that were made in just a few 'tweaks'.

That being said, if someone understood/comprehended what-all the tweaks were, and where they were, and what they did, so-as-to actually go out with a pre-meditated plan to actually do something on purpose, (like take a picture with fore-thought) then yeah, the possibilities are nearly endless.

And that's before you even download the pictures to your computer, where you can then 'enhance' what you're lacking, and whatnot. But I myself am not a photo-ologist and the vast majority of that stuff is beyond me. Mostly because I can't remember what-all was done, and then next time I go to do something I have a half-a-memory of tweaking-this-and-adjusting-that then "whaaa-bang", there's your great photo.

Now, where did I leave that lens?

 

[Redmanss]

But when one gets good at editing too... images EXPLODE with possibilites. For example...

TIP: 90% of images that look great can always look better with a simple Photoshop levels enhance ("Cntl L") and by collapse the left and right arrows inward. Poof. Instantly adds more depth and pop.

I completely agree, and everything I shoot for others goes through a quick touch-up with Capture One before it leaves the house (I shoot in RAW/JPEG), but the straight out of camera JPEGs are more than sufficient for most folks. I nitpick a lot of shit like horizon level (my OCD from years of looking through a riflescope necessitates this), and I will bring out the dark areas to shed some light on the shadows, but the majority of the shot is perfectly acceptable out of the camera and ready for conversion to TIFF.

Photoshop? Fuck Adobe and every single one of their products.

 

[Daannyy]

CANNON or NIKON
The answer is YES! Definitely
Reality is just that - you won't make a bad choice. Really! Either one - which "speaks to you"?
I bought my Nikon Kit at Costco.

 

[Redmanss]

warezstore

Has nothing to do with the cost, has everything to do with Adobe and their long time malicious business practices, as well as their products' security having the hardiness of Swiss cheese. Microsoft has higher security and business ethics.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

Couldnt agree more but if one works in the industry we're forced to play the game.. I however opted out the day those fucks started their little subscription game. I still use CS6 paid for in full once... no need to upgrade.