I'd like to get some peoples view on what camera and lens I should get.
At the minute I'm thinking either
canon 30d with 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
or
nikon d200 with either Tokina 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm
I've been into several shops and tried both of them out.
I used to shoot on a canon 300d as it was cheap and my first venture into the world of digital photography (been shooting on 35mm and medium format for years before) but sold that a while ago cos I needed the money, now I want to get back in the saddle. The camera that I get will be mainly used for landscape photography.
At the minute in the UK (and europe) the canon has £100 knocked off if bought before the end of the year and also the canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM has £70 off.
Also my better half is a lifetime long nikon user so I can use her lenses, altho that isnt a major deciding factor.
So without opening up the decades old 'canon v nikon' debate I'd like someone to give me their 2 cents.
--------------
update
I've gone with the nikon d200 but now which lens??
Tokina 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm or nikon 12-24mm(is the nikon worth the extra $$$)
Well, I have the 30D, used to have the 300D and am well pleased with it. It is a big leap up from 300D.
I thought of the Nikons but have always been a Canon person and couldn't convince myself to change to Nikon. Reviews rate both cameras well, so it is down to personal choice at the end of the day.
Which ever you pick, I am sure you will be well pleased. Good luck and enjoy your photography.
What are you going to be shooting?
big game? Just kidding.
I think like cryan says which feels better to you?
Will you be doing general photography or will be doing snaps of family or will you be doing studio work?
I own a Nikon myself, but if you are looking at that specific range for a lens, I would go with Canon. The 10-20 by is the best of the bunch, no distoration what so ever and great sharpness. One of Canon's finest in my opinion (build quality maybe not so much).
Also my better half is a lifetime long nikon user so I can use her lenses, altho that isnt a major deciding factor.
Think it might be a major deciding factor for me!
The reason I stuck with Nikon when I went Digital was because I had Nikon lenses from my film camera (a Nikkormat FT3 anyone remember them?).
The more glass you've got the more flexible your photography can be.
Isn't the crop factor less on the Nikon? If you are truely looking to go wide, that might influnce the choice...
The crop factor is 1.5x on the Nikon and 1.6x on the Canon, on a 10mm that give you 15mm and 16mm. I doubt a 1mm difference is enough to make me choose one camera over another.
Isn't the crop factor less on the Nikon? If you are truely looking to go wide, that might influnce the choice...
The crop factor is 1.5x on the Nikon and 1.6x on the Canon, on a 10mm that give you 15mm and 16mm. I doubt a 1mm difference is enough to make me choose one camera over another.
One mm is a noticable difference when you start to go that wide, and the OP seems pretty dedicated to wide... It was just a thought...
You might also want to consider the Pentax K10D with 10-17mm fisheye. (The Sigma 10-20mm is also available in Pentax mount).
Just a thought. The K10D is very comparable to the 30D/D200 (if not better in a lot of respects, with built in Shake-Reduction and weather sealing), but quite a bit cheaper.
You could probably even add a good mid-distance zoom for the same cost.
I've got a 30D and the canon 10-22, used the tokina 12-24 too. Both are good lenses - I bought the canon as it's a bit wider and I want to upgrade to all L lenses in '07. (Donations are being accepted in case you want to know :D )
I chose Canon over Nikon 2 years ago and still feel it's the better way to go. Canon still is ahead of Nikon in the digital camera game (they did announce a couple of years back their goal was to put nikon out of business...). Canon offers lower noise, more body choices, more lens choices, more used stuff to choose from, less costly overall to purchase/own, and they seem to introduce more bodies and more lenses more often.
More pros shoot Canon. More wanna-be pros shoot Nikon.
More pros shoot Canon. More wanna-be pros shoot Nikon.
Might want to tell that to Kiwiness, Librodo, Ursula, Crabappl3... the list goes on and on. Nothing at all is gained by trying to make completely unfactual statements simply because you prefer a camera brand
Not true with the D200 and D80, the noise issues for Nikon have been fixed.
Sonce the noise is a non-issue, get the D200 and the Tokina 12-24, it's a better lens. The Nikon 12-24 is better still.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
More wanna-be pros shoot Nikon.
That was low and unneccesary. I've seen more Nikon Pro's running around here than Canon, maybe it's an area thing, or you just gravitate to what you think like anyways.
More pros shoot Canon. More wanna-be pros shoot Nikon.
Might want to tell that to Kiwiness, Librodo, Ursula, Crabappl3... the list goes on and on. Nothing at all is gained by trying to make completely unfactual statements simply because you prefer a camera brand
5 guys here have nothing on the fact canon outsells Nikon 2:1.
Go watch ANY sporting event - all those white lenses? Canon my friend.
More pros shoot Canon. More wanna-be pros shoot Nikon.
Might want to tell that to Kiwiness, Librodo, Ursula, Crabappl3... the list goes on and on. Nothing at all is gained by trying to make completely unfactual statements simply because you prefer a camera brand
5 guys here have nothing on the fact canon outsells Nikon 2:1.
Go watch ANY sporting event - all those white lenses? Canon my friend.
Which proves absolutely nothing. Human sheepness in consumerism is a fact, yes.. but the quality of a person's photographs have very little to do with the gear they choose.
Also, 5 guys were just the tip of the iceberg.. I just didn't feel like writing out more names. The *POINT* is, your elitism is a little pathetic, but by all means.. continue to think that just because something is the most popular and most used, makes it the utmost best and renders anything else useless.
The guy posting dark frames off his nikon that have big purple blotches along the top is the first convincing argument I've seen about goign with one brand or the other. If that is standard Nikon behavior, I think that would certainly sway me towards Canon.
Not true with the D200 and D80, the noise issues for Nikon have been fixed.
Sonce the noise is a non-issue, get the D200 and the Tokina 12-24, it's a better lens. The Nikon 12-24 is better still.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
More wanna-be pros shoot Nikon.
That was low and unneccesary. I've seen more Nikon Pro's running around here than Canon, maybe it's an area thing, or you just gravitate to what you think like anyways.
Go visit a PRO forum - not this place with all it's soccer moms and hobbists. Places where 90% of the posters make their living with their equipment - it's Canon by a wide margin.
20 years ago it was Nikon. Then canon's EOS lens system took hold and sports guys found out it's better than Nikons (at the time for sure, perhaps even now) and with digital Canon has taken the lead and is running away. Nikon seems to be countering with lower and less feature filled cameras in an effort to maintain market share. Not a good sign IMO.
The guy posting dark frames off his nikon that have big purple blotches along the top is the first convincing argument I've seen about goign with one brand or the other. If that is standard Nikon behavior, I think that would certainly sway me towards Canon.
The guy posting dark frames off his nikon that have big purple blotches along the top is the first convincing argument I've seen about goign with one brand or the other. If that is standard Nikon behavior, I think that would certainly sway me towards Canon.
*ALL* brands suffer from quality issues at times. One person posting about a bad camera is hardly indicative of anything.
My *Pete*.. what happened to common sense around this place?
