Nikon or Canon

I'm looking to buy a DSLR. I having a hard time making a decision on what to purchase. I looked at both the Canon XSI and the Nikon D80. Both to me are very good cameras. While the Nikon is a bit cheaper in price I've always been more trusting to the Canon name. Should I even stick with the leaders or should I go to a different brand all together.

I have tried both and I was really feeling the Nikon. Why? While this may seem strange... the weight. And it felt better in my hand. However, I like the Canon because of the 12MP. If I could afford the Nikon D90 I would get it.

The Nikon does have some strong points however I would need the live view for what I am shooting. That's the only difference.

I have several websites that I run and I shoots models. I'll be doing some large prints and I will be doing action shots. Also will be shooting in various types of light. As far as using a DSLR I have used one for a day. That was a Canon. I can't really afford the Nikon D90 right now other wise that would be my only choice.

I don't know if this makes a difference or not (I'm sure it can) where I would be purchasing the Canon from is offering an extra lens 70-300 included in the price.
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...s=8〈=en-US

Actually Nikon is now the leader in DSLR sales. Canon had a clear lead when digital took over photography, but Canon has taken a very conservative approach to their upgrades, where Nikon and everyone else have been much more aggressive.

I think Canon has the best selection of lenses, Nikon has the best flash system, and the rest all have their places, in body IS, size, special sensors, etc.

I am a Canon user, but only because I have been using Canon since 1980.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EOSThree

Actually Nikon is now the leader in DSLR sales. Canon had a clear lead when digital took over photography, but Canon has taken a very conservative approach to their upgrades, where Nikon and everyone else have been much more aggressive.

I think Canon has the best selection of lenses, Nikon has the best flash system, and the rest all have their places, in body IS, size, special sensors, etc.

I am a Canon user, but only because I have been using Canon since 1980.

---

So your answer is... Canon?

Any Camera system will give you plenty of ability to produce for your potential clients, they all offer great quality. Which system matters much more to you than it does to your clientele. Cater the features and usability to your style, technique, and budget. The more important investment will be lens anyway. Stay away from the 70-300, you will find the 70-210 f4L will offer a lot more versatility and quality at a great price. I would even venture to say you'd be better off getting the XTi with the 70-210f4L than the XSi with the 70-300 f4-f6.3. It makes a lens incredibly more usable with a constant aperture, even at the sacrifice of a bit of range. 210 is not a weak telephoto though, by any means.

You may even want to check into Sony, as someone whos on a budget - the built in image stabilization saves you hundreds of dollars on lens.

No, and I was being evasive on purpose. My answer is whatever system you feel meets your needs. Canikon will fill you needs quite well. Pentax Olympus, gasp Sony, etc will also probably work for you. I actually though Nikon would be the best choice because of your indoor model shots using flash. Canon is my choice only because it's what I have been shooting for so long.

Is it possible to connect the D80 to my laptop like I could with the XSi for viewing "Live"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Stay away from the 70-300, you will find the 70-210 f4L will offer a lot more versatility and quality at a great price. I would even venture to say you'd be better off getting the XTi with the 70-210f4L than the XSi with the 70-300 f4-f6.3. It makes a lens incredibly more usable with a constant aperture, even at the sacrifice of a bit of range. 210 is not a weak telephoto though, by any means.

You may even want to check into Sony, as someone whos on a budget - the built in image stabilization saves you hundreds of dollars on lens.

---

It's a 70-200 f/4L.

If you look at the price of decent Sony glass without IS(they don't have it in any lens) and make a direct comparison to a Canon lens with IS the Canon lenses with IS are actually cheaper than the Sony glass is. The only way to realize a savings is to buy mid grade Sony lenses.

Well, Zeiss glass and Minolta G glass aren't cheap or even 'budget priced' by any means. I was thinking more their superb vintage line of 35mm 'Minolta' lens. Ex: the beercan, 70-210f4, no reason to upgrade because IS is included in camera body, it competes with similar nikon/canon glass of much higher prices. Granted, its not APS specific glass (pros and cons), and the AF tends to be slightly slower.

My experience with the canon 70-200 was actually with the 2.8, not the 4. I've only looked at spec sheets and sample photos and from my judgment the f4 does just as well as the f2.8, lighter and half the price (less then half without IS). Was it 200? Excuse my misquoting. As from everything I've heard, the f4 performs just as well as the 2.8, and that 2.8 is absolutely wonderful. I'd be interested to see its performance next to the Minolta 70-210 G lens, course that would end up in a lot of hair splitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Well, Zeiss glass and Minolta G glass aren't cheap or even 'budget priced' by any means. I was thinking more their superb vintage line of 35mm 'Minolta' lens. Ex: the beercan, 70-210f4, no reason to upgrade because IS is included in camera body, it competes with similar nikon/canon glass of much higher prices. Granted, its not APS specific glass (pros and cons), and the AF tends to be slightly slower.

My experience with the canon 70-200 was actually with the 2.8, not the 4. I've only looked at spec sheets and sample photos and from my judgment the f4 does just as well as the f2.8, lighter and half the price (less then half without IS). Was it 200? Excuse my misquoting. As from everything I've heard, the f4 performs just as well as the 2.8, and that 2.8 is absolutely wonderful. I'd be interested to see its performance next to the Minolta 70-210 G lens, course that would end up in a lot of hair splitting.

---

I guess I would qualify the older Minolta glass as mid priced. Look for the price of the "cheap" high quality Minolta glass to rise as Sony gains in popularity. I still stand that the "savings" of a Sony because of the built in IS is more fallacy than reality when comparing the same systems with the same quality of glass today. Canon also used to have some older lenses that became instant classics and their price went up very quickly with the rise of digital.