08-20-2010, 10:33 AM
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
you should ask yourself some questions...
- "which size I'm going to print, at maximum?" This is actually what makes you choose between a high pixel count body and a medium pixel count body (aka: FF or DX).
- "I'm going to need high iso shooting?". If yes, go with a FF D700.
- "how much Depth of field handling is crucial to me? (portraits, for example)". If it is, go FF, otherwise DX is more than enough.
And now for the brands: as Edge said, feel a body in your hand, to decide the brand. Nikon has better ergonomics, but that doesn't mean Canon has something wrong.
[/quote]
Nikon does not have better ergonomics. One could actually argue the opposite. Internet myth 313.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
Nikon makes some better lens, as the micro series and the wide angle zooms (14-24 at the top), but they are expensive.
[/quote]
That is not true either. The Canon macro lenses are BETTER than the Nikon micro lenses. The 60mm from Nikon has worse CA than just about any other macro lens (even other normal prime lenses). For the rest it has nothing that distinguishes it.
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is remarkably not contrasty for a macro lens, and is not any sharper than the competition either, more to the contrary. The 85mm VR DX is not in any way special either. And the out of production 200mm f4... Not exceptional either, and dog slow to focus (especially troublesome at MFD, where its max. aperture starts to be a problem).
On the other hand, the old Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM already was a great macro lens, and the 100m f2.8 L IS USM improves on it in certain areas. Both are very good. The Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM macro also is a very good lens, without the CA problems of the Nikon. The Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM is a very good lens too, and a fast focuser for its class.
Internet myth 422: Nikon makes better wide angle zooms. That is not true. The Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is NOT better than the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM. Bigger and heavier, yes. The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II is NOT worse than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 either.
That just leaves the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is in areas a very good lens. Canon does not have an equivalent. The Nikon is not for everyone, though, with its weight, its protruding front element (with its flare catching ability) and its relatively high barrel distortion.
In macro lenses, Canon has the edge. In wide angle, both makers are very comparable.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
Canon makes very good lenses too, and not necessarily cheaper.
[/quote]
In MOST cases Canon lenses actually ARE cheaper. Or rather, Nikon lenses more expensive. Yes, you can find a few exceptions.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
About other makers: trust Tokina, less so Sigma (quality control issues).
[/quote]
I have the opposite EXPERIENCE. Do not trust Tokina (optical problems, mainly the typical CA problem Tokina wide angle lenses have), my 12-24mm f4 has shown Tokina to be too crude AF wise, and its build quality to be not more than skin deep.
The only 3 lenses from Tokina I find more or less interesting still: 11-16mm f2.8 DX (with CA), 35mm f2.8 DX macro (nice... a 35mm macro on APS-C!) and the full frame 19-35mm (great super cheap wide angle for full frame on a budget, when you stop down to f8 at least).
Sigma on the other hand has a lot more gems in its line up.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
I'm a full time pro nature photographer, and I am totally satisfied (up to 60x90 prints) with my D300 and D200. So, after all, what does matter is other than megapixel.
[/quote]
Of course, I make great 75x50 prints and bigger from my 450D (12mp APS-C, just like your D300) too. Does that mean higher resolutions make no sense? Of course not.
you should ask yourself some questions...
- "which size I'm going to print, at maximum?" This is actually what makes you choose between a high pixel count body and a medium pixel count body (aka: FF or DX).
- "I'm going to need high iso shooting?". If yes, go with a FF D700.
- "how much Depth of field handling is crucial to me? (portraits, for example)". If it is, go FF, otherwise DX is more than enough.
And now for the brands: as Edge said, feel a body in your hand, to decide the brand. Nikon has better ergonomics, but that doesn't mean Canon has something wrong.
[/quote]
Nikon does not have better ergonomics. One could actually argue the opposite. Internet myth 313.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
Nikon makes some better lens, as the micro series and the wide angle zooms (14-24 at the top), but they are expensive.
[/quote]
That is not true either. The Canon macro lenses are BETTER than the Nikon micro lenses. The 60mm from Nikon has worse CA than just about any other macro lens (even other normal prime lenses). For the rest it has nothing that distinguishes it.
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is remarkably not contrasty for a macro lens, and is not any sharper than the competition either, more to the contrary. The 85mm VR DX is not in any way special either. And the out of production 200mm f4... Not exceptional either, and dog slow to focus (especially troublesome at MFD, where its max. aperture starts to be a problem).
On the other hand, the old Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM already was a great macro lens, and the 100m f2.8 L IS USM improves on it in certain areas. Both are very good. The Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM macro also is a very good lens, without the CA problems of the Nikon. The Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM is a very good lens too, and a fast focuser for its class.
Internet myth 422: Nikon makes better wide angle zooms. That is not true. The Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is NOT better than the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM. Bigger and heavier, yes. The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II is NOT worse than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 either.
That just leaves the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, which is in areas a very good lens. Canon does not have an equivalent. The Nikon is not for everyone, though, with its weight, its protruding front element (with its flare catching ability) and its relatively high barrel distortion.
In macro lenses, Canon has the edge. In wide angle, both makers are very comparable.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
Canon makes very good lenses too, and not necessarily cheaper.
[/quote]
In MOST cases Canon lenses actually ARE cheaper. Or rather, Nikon lenses more expensive. Yes, you can find a few exceptions.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
About other makers: trust Tokina, less so Sigma (quality control issues).
[/quote]
I have the opposite EXPERIENCE. Do not trust Tokina (optical problems, mainly the typical CA problem Tokina wide angle lenses have), my 12-24mm f4 has shown Tokina to be too crude AF wise, and its build quality to be not more than skin deep.
The only 3 lenses from Tokina I find more or less interesting still: 11-16mm f2.8 DX (with CA), 35mm f2.8 DX macro (nice... a 35mm macro on APS-C!) and the full frame 19-35mm (great super cheap wide angle for full frame on a budget, when you stop down to f8 at least).
Sigma on the other hand has a lot more gems in its line up.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282296754' post='1946']
I'm a full time pro nature photographer, and I am totally satisfied (up to 60x90 prints) with my D300 and D200. So, after all, what does matter is other than megapixel.
[/quote]
Of course, I make great 75x50 prints and bigger from my 450D (12mp APS-C, just like your D300) too. Does that mean higher resolutions make no sense? Of course not.