Nikon D90 or Pentax k20d or Cannon 50d

[Lynnzora]

Why do you all think that Nikkon jumps from a 12mp camera to a 24 mp??? I'm looking for something in between... but affordable. I would go for the 24 if it wasn't $7,000... if you get into the 15 or 14 mp get get into using like the Pentax k20d which seems like an off brand that I don't hear too many raving reviews about and the Cannon 50d which I often hear complaints about. Is it possible that a 12 mp camera is better than 14 or 15 mp camera? I was always told that the higher the mp the better. I'd love to hear from any of you. I'll definitely respond back.

[Ron Kruger]

I'm not on any camera company's payroll and don't automatically think that what I'm shooting is the best, just because I'm using it.
Even though I shot film Nikons for a couple of decades, when I finally decided to take the plung into digital, it seemed to me that Nikon had priced themselves out of the market share and that Canon had taken over. So my choice was between Pentax and Canon.
I went with Pentax, because it seemed to be the best deal for the money. I shoot a K20D (14.6 mp), and I'm pretty happy with it, and expecially with Pentax DA* and Limited glass. But sensor size also factors into it.
I'm not sure about Nikon, but I believe theirs is a full frame sensor, like Canon, while mine is a bit smaller, and the way I've come to understand it, the larger size sensor makes better use of the megapixels, just as a medium format made better use of film than did 35mm. That may not be a good comparison, but in principle, I believe it is correct.
So, the way I understand it, that would make Nikon's 12 mp camera with a full range sensor very near the image capturing quality of my Pentax 14.6.
What is seldom considered in these type of camera discussions is the quality of the glass you put in front of the sensor. All the talk is about bodies. But a cheap lens in front of 24 mp probably would not give one better results than a great lens in front of a 12 mp camera.
There were a few reasons I went with Pentax, but one of the biggest was that Pentax, I think, offers prime lenses with a quality unsurpassed this side of Zeiss. For picture quality, I think the glass the image passes through is more important than all the bells and whistles that control it, and maybe even the megapixels it lands upon.

[Ron Kruger]

By the way, I'm not trying to sell you a K20D, because while I'm pleased with the equipment, I have reservations about the company.
Nor am I trying to say that Pentax's glass is far superior to the best that Canon or Nikon offers. It's apples and oranges.
What I am trying to impress upon you, is the importance of glass, and while you are considering the prices of various bodies, also factor in what their top line of lenses will cost to complete your package. Here, again, I think Nikon has priced themselves out of market share.
Also, if you are already shooting Nikon digital, lens compatibility is also a price consideration. Another reason I chose Pentax was that instead of requiring a whole new line of lenses with each major upgrade, the K20D is compatable with all K-mount lenses ever made.
One of my thoughts was that I might be able to pick up some really good used lenses at very cheap prices, but what I've found out is nobody sells their old Pentax lenses, because they don't go "out of style."

[Anbesol]

Well, megapixels aren't everything. Keep in mind Nikon/Sony's 24 megapixel sensors are full frame (vs APS on all other ones you mentioned). The 50D still has a greater pixel density at 15 on an APS. They do some impressive things with noise performance on the 50D, utilizing that pixel pitch very well, other then that, performance differences between it and 10-14 Megapixel APS sensors is minuscule. On its own, 10 megapixels is plenty to work with, also consider - the higher the megapixel, the slower the work flow on your pc, and 12 Megapixels even take quite a bit. Processing one of those 24 megapixel Raw files and pulling it through a multi-layered 16 bit workflow will *require* quad core cpu and copious amounts of memory (vary by OS). That is one thing I miss about my 6 MPix DSLR – very very fast and easy workflow, even the 16-bit layered raws.

I can't just suggest one camera though - all manufacturers make great options, and each has their own nook in the market where they perform particularly well. If you tell us more about what kind of shooting you do, we could give you a better suggestion on a DSLR system.

'This side of Zeiss' - you know there is a DSLR manufacturer that actually uses newly designed, autofocus Zeiss glass?

[Frog]

The d90 isn't does not have full frame sensor.
As mentioned, megapixel count is mostly a manufacturer way of thinking theirs is better than yours. 8 to 10 is plenty for just about everything and there's a lot of beautiful large prints out there using only 6.
The factors you really need to look at are the systems that you'll be buying into, the type of photography you are doing.

[Lynnzora]

I'm going to be doing a lot of work with people... doing portraits, head shots, modeling portfolios. I actually wrote a thread with the details above... Mostly those type of thing and some events like weddings, parties, etc...

I want my portraits to be Magazine quality... beautiful resolution... I'm learning more every day (constantly training as a photographer) but I want to be working with something that will be ABLE to deliver what I'm trying to do... prints that models and actors will be proud to use in their portfolios. Sooo what do you think?

Pentax K20d
Cannon 50d
or Nikon d90

I understand that it also matters what quality lens you use. What do you think is more important? The lens or the megapixels? You guys are AWESOME for replying!!! Thanks so much. I look forward to hearing from anyone with an opinion on the subject.

Lynn :thumbsup:

[Ron Kruger]

Anbesol actually mentions another factor that is supposed to make a difference also, which is sensor type. My Pentax has a CMOS sensor, and I've seen this recommended on the guidelines of the top international stock photo agencies and other places, but I don't know what it means or what the difference is between other sensors?
Anyone?

[Anbesol]

CMOS - Complimentary Metal Oxide Semi-Conductor, as opposed to the alternative - CCD - Charged Coupled Device.

CCD's require much more power, and generally don't produce as wide dynamic range, and comparatively speaking produce a lot more in-camera electrical noise (largely created by much higher voltage input). CMOS runs off of much less power, thus extending the shutter-cycle life of the camera, produces better image performance on noise and color, etc.

I've been saying it for years, CMOS is the future, CCD is just biding its time until its history. Probably something like APS-sensors ;).

All the cameras you mentioned have CMOS, another Camera you might find worth looking at is the Sony A700, its an APS CMOS as well, its what I shoot with, I am thrilled with its performance, and its right at that price point you are looking at. But ultimately, you know you are not only just buying a camera, you are buying into a system, there are a lot of variables worth considering. Keep in mind that what camera you are shooting with makes *no* difference to any client, *any* DSLR system can produce great results that even the pickiest of clients would love - the difference it makes is exclusively for the photographer. When someone gets a painting, they don't care what brand the brush was, the type of brush matters only to the painter.

[Lynnzora]

Ok I'm THINKING about the Nikon D90... I've seen deals on a site where the following lenses are included with the purchase of the camera... What do you guys think? Do these lenses suck??? Is that why they're free...

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction)
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor
Titanium .45x Wide Angle Lens
Titanium 2X Telephoto Lens

**You mentioned for the portraits, head-shots, and event photography that I should also invest in a
30-100 (18-70 APS equiv) and
50mm

***what do you think... any other lenses that I should look at for what I'm trying to do?"

-------------------------------------------------------------
It also includes the following... What do you think about the type of flash? Good/bad?

3 Piece HIGH Resolution Filter Kit

Bower SFD728N TTL Zoom Shoe Mount Flash for Proffesional SLR Cameras

You all are grrrreat by the way!

[Lynnzora]

Another D90 package offered these lenses... a better choice?

Nikon 18-55mm AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor f/3.5-5.6G Lens
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor AF Prime Lens
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom - Nikkor Lens
2X Telephoto Autofocus Lens
Wide Angle Autofocus Lens

& Power Auto Digital Flash Clip-On and Slave
hummm what about this flash???

[Lynnzora]

The Canon 50d is a tad more expensive... but if it's the better choice, I'll definitely get it. The camera comes with:

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer Autofocus Lens

Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

Wide Angle Autofocus Lens

2x Telephoto Lens

& Bower SFD728N TTL Zoom Shoe Mount Flash for Proffesional SLR Cameras

*what do you guys think about this package*
Anyone with experience dealing with this camera. I've heard that despite the 15.1 mp that the resolution isn't good. They said that it was no different than dealing with a 10 or 12 mp camera.... humm... decisions, decisions....

[Dougjgreen]

Ok I'm THINKING about the Nikon D90... I've seen deals on a site where the following lenses are included with the purchase of the camera... What do you guys think? Do these lenses suck??? Is that why they're free...

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction)
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor
Titanium .45x Wide Angle Lens
Titanium 2X Telephoto Lens

Nothing is wrong, per se with the first 2 lenses, except that Nikon has replaced the 70-300 with a VR version, and for a lens that length, which is fairly slow, VR would be a very desirable feature. The 2 Titanium front converters are probably complete junk. The package with the 50mm f1.8 added is much more desirable. That lens is quite good, and you'll learn a lot of very useful stuff using a lens with a fast maximum aperture like that.

BTW, I wouldn't let the Megapixel issue concern me at all. 12 MP is plenty, even for most professional applications - In fact, 10 MP is plenty. A highly sensitive 12 MP sensor is more worthwhile than a 15 MP sensor that is noisy at high ISOs. In fact, quite a few folks believe that the less expensive Canon 40D and it's extremely sensitive 10 MP sensor, is a better camera for most applications than the Canon 50D and it's noisier at high ISOs 15 MP sensor.

The fact is, all of the cameras you are looking at are more than sufficient. But you need, I feel, to give more weight to the SYSTEM you are buying into than to the camera itself at that level, as all of those cameras are excellent tools. At the system level - and when one looks at the long term ability of the company to compete, I think Pentax drops off considerably compared to Nikon and Canon (Same issue with Olympus - and one reason I personally just switched from Olympus back to Nikon).

If you're seriously looking at the Canon 50D, you probably should also look seriously at the Nikon D300 which is the apples to apples competitor for it. But frankly, I think both of those cameras are overkill for you. You'd be much better off with either a Nikon D90 or a Canon 40D, and getting better lenses, not just kit-level lenses. Again, it's foolish to get carried away with Megapixels. Once you're looking at 10 MP or more, it's more than enough even for professionals. Nikon makes a $5K pro camera (the D3 - but trust me, you DON'T need it) that blows away all the ones you are looking at, and it's only 12 Megapixels. But it happens to be the most sensitive 12 MP camera in the world.

If I were you, I'd put my hands on the Nikon D90, and the Canon 40D, and decide which one I felt most comfortable with, and then I'd buy a couple of GOOD lenses for the one I picked, not the kit lenses. All of the brands make lenses that are better by a long ways than the lenses you're mainly looking at.

[Anbesol]

Yes you say you want hte magazine cover type of look, but all those lenses you mentioned are quite entry level performers (with the exception of the 50mm primes). If its between those 3 I would personally probably lean a bit towards the Canon 50D, but really for that great look the lens will matter more than which of these camera bodies you pick.

Like Doug mentioned, maybe you should stick with a lower dollar body and spend that extra cash on the lens.

[Frog]

I see you've listed packages so I will say to be sure to look at the camera dealer feedback forum and if you are looking on ebay where a lot of packages are offered, be sure the dealer is an authorized Nikon dealer or Canon or whichever way you choose. You won't have a manufacturers warranty if they aren't.
The teleconverter and wide angle are, as Doug says, are probably junk.

[Lynnzora]

Ok thanks, this has been extremely enlightening! I've talked to many people in the last couple of days and realize that it's all in the lens... (mostly)... What type of lens would you suggest for a nikon D90 and/or Cannon 50d..? Again this would be for portraits, modeling portfolios, head-shots for actors, and on some occasions events like weddings and parties... Thanks again everyone... Anbesol, DougjGreen, Ron, Sushigaijin, Frog, etc...

So what lenses should I invest in for what I'm trying to do?

Also good quality, yet affordable... I can't afford that $1000 lens quite yet

[Anbesol]

Well I don't know what lens I would say for the Nikon, definitely get a 50 prime. For the Canon the 24-105 L, and the 50mm f1.8 (the prime will be for more dramatic DOF and individual/double portraits). That 24-105 would give you the *entire* needed coverage for portfolio/wedding shots, great quality packed into one lens. Its ~$1K with IS. If you want good quality affordable lens, Sony has a great legacy lens series (Minolta) and the in-body stabilizer renders them all IS equiv. If you could drop down to the 40D and then afford the 24-105 I would go for that, before the 50D with a crappy cheap lens. At the very least, get the 50mm f1.8 (~$100) and use that until you can get that 24-105. I also might look into some of Canon's legacy lens and look for some fast ones, go to the Canon forum for input on specific lens'.

[Dougjgreen]

I think that this would be easier if we combined the answers into 1 thread, rather than the 2 threads that have been going on simultaneously.

In any case, as you can see, Anbesol and I have each recommended that you get a 50mm f1.8 prime, and a high quality zoom ranging from 24mm into moderate telephoto range, that is noticeably better than the camera makers' kit lenses. The difference between 85mm and 105mm at the long end is not all that significant. I think that's the right starting point lens-wise, no matter which system you go with. The more significant differences between those zooms is that the Nikon is one stop faster at the wide end, while the Canon has built in image stabilization, and costs more as a result of that feature.

[Anbesol]

Yes should have combined the two threads. Anyway, with what hes saying and what he wants to afford he might want to save the $600 and get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, faster f-spot across the zoom and a full-frame on APS would make that lens work great.

[Dougjgreen]

Yes should have combined the two threads. Anyway, with what hes saying and what he wants to afford he might want to save the $600 and get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, faster f-spot across the zoom and a full-frame on APS would make that lens work great.

The Nikon lens only costs $600. In the Canon family, what he's really saving is mostly due to the lens having built in IS. And on a digital sensor, the difference between 24mm and 28mm at the wide end is significant, and he'll miss it if he's doing weddings.

[Lynnzora]

Ok what I'm understanding is that it would be cool to get a 50mm lens... That actually comes in most of the kits that I've looked at... Other ones that I seem to see in all of the kits I've seen online are the 18-55mm, and the 70-300mm. What should those be used for?

Anyway those 3 are included... IN ADDITION... I'll be probably investing in ONE ADDITIONAL one for now that will get me through at least a year of doing portraits, creating actor and modeling portfolios, and the occassional event (weddings, and parties)... Which ADDITIONAL ONE lens should I get that will produce excellent pictures? Thanks.

So far you've said the:

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 &

24-105mm

What do you think?

Also in regards to the comments about buying into the system... Is it true that all cannon lenses fit on each other? All nikon lenses fit on each other... So if I buy lenses for the canon 50d right now... Whenever I'm ready for the cannon Mark III... will I be able to put the lenses that I've used on my 50d onto my Mark III? Or if I choose the D90 now and get lenses for that and lets say in a couple of years I'm ready for the D3X... will I be able to use the same lenses?

I'm currently online trying to figure out which company's lenses are more affordable.

[Lynnzora]

Ok what I'm understanding is that it would be cool to get a 50mm lens... That actually comes in most of the kits that I've looked at... Other ones that I seem to see in all of the kits I've seen online are the 18-55mm, and the 70-300mm. What should those be used for?

Anyway those 3 are included... IN ADDITION... I'll be probably investing in ONE ADDITIONAL one for now that will get me through at least a year of doing portraits, creating actor and modeling portfolios, and the occassional event (weddings, and parties)... Which ADDITIONAL ONE lens should I get that will produce excellent pictures? Thanks.

So far you've said the:

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 &

24-105mm

What do you think?

Also in regards to the comments about buying into the system... Is it true that all cannon lenses fit on each other? All nikon lenses fit on each other... So if I buy lenses for the canon 50d right now... Whenever I'm ready for the cannon Mark III... will I be able to put the lenses that I've used on my 50d onto my Mark III?

[Dougjgreen]

The reason most "kits" come with a 18-50 and a 70-300 lens is that those 2 lenses together cover a long range, and they are reasonably cheap. The 18-50 is what is known as a general purpose walking around lens, and the 70-300 is a long telephoto, typically used for bringing far away objects closer. Often used for sports and wildlife, but the kit telephoto lens is too slow to really be good at that. Pros usually use lenses like a fast f2.8 70-200 or 80-200 for those applications, or even longer specialty telephotos that cost a fortune (like $5-10K each).

But, these two kit zoom lenses have some serious disadvantages. The Kit lenses typically have an f5.6 maximum aperture at all but their shortest focal length, which means that they are slow, and cannot blur the background as well as faster lenses can. They are also generally not well made enough to withstand the rigors of professional use. And finally, they are not particularly useful for wedding photography or portraiture, both for those 2 reasons, and because you would find yourself having to switch lenses too frequently, as when shooting a wedding, you would frequently need to move between a fiarly wide length of around 24-30mm, and a portrait length of 60-85mm. Both Anbesol and I recommended one better, faster zoom that spanned that range, because if you'll be shooting weddings, you'll need to cover that range quickly without changing lenses.

The 50mm f1.8 lens is a no brainer because it makes a fine portraiture lens, it has a great deal of speed to blur backgrounds and home in on the subject, and they are all inexpensive and high quality. But if you shoot weddings and parties, you'll need that fast moderate wide to moderate tele zoom.

The issue about lenses that span the whole product line is complex, because both Nikon and Canon make cameras with different sensor sizes. The ones that are what is called FX or Full Frame, are very expensive top of the line pro gear. Generally speaking, a good lens - especially at the wide angle end, that covers the whole frame will be very expensive. Those lenses work on smaller sensor cameras, but you will be paying a premium for them. The GOOD thing about using those lenses on small sensor cameras is that the small sensor only uses the sweet spot of the lens. Both of the expensive zooms that Anbesol and I recommended happen to be full frame zooms that could go with you to the full frame bodies. The cheaper kit zoom lenses do not span the larger frame size, and they won't work if you move up to full frame. The Nikon D90 and D300, and the Canon 40D and 50D are NOT full frame cameras. If you DO make a move to full frame eventually, you will find that your lenses all just either became wider-angles, or they became unusable, depending on whether the lens can span that bigger frame or not.

There is no general rule of thumb as to whether Nikon or Canon lenses are cheaper - they tend to be very similar - but, full frame zooms cost more (especially at the wide end), faster maximum apertures cost more, and built in image stabilization costs more. A true apples to comparison between the brands would show that they are generally similar. If one brand's lens costs noticeably more than the other, it's generally because it has one or more of these features that the other one lacks.

One thing I didn't mention, but Anbesol did, is the 3rd party brands, like Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron. They all make some very good lenses, and also some cheap junk. It's tough to give you any simple guidelines with them, other than they are generally not build to the same standard of ruggedness of the BEST, MOST COSTLY Nikon and Canon lenses. But, the better 3rd party brand lenses tend to be better than the Nikon and Canon cheap kit lenses. I don't have any experience with the Tamron lens Anbesol recommended, except that it has a good reputation as one of the better 3rd party zooms.

[Anbesol]

forget those 18-55's, save the money and apply them to a better lens.

Canon has 3 different types of lens, manual focus, of course those wont work on any DSLR. And EF and EF-S, the EF-S (short backfocus) is specifically built for aps sensors and will not work on the 1Ds Mk III (or any full frame), stick with EF. Same situation with Nikons DX. Sony makes all their stuff for full frame though ;)

[Anbesol]

But, the better 3rd party brand lenses tend to be better than the Nikon and Canon cheap kit lenses. I don't have any experience with the Tamron lens Anbesol recommended, except that it has a good reputation as one of the better 3rd party zooms.

For portraits and weddings, it will be more than built well enough. I dont own the 28-75 myself, but I've played around with it quite a bit and it is impressive, the perfect focal range for portraits, and the perfect f-stop.

And of course, it *blows away* any kit lens you throw at it.

[Lynnzora]

Ok so you're saying that if I buy the d90 or the 50d... since they aren't full-frame cameras... I need to stick with the EF lenses because those are the ones that will fit on the MIII or Dx later on. So for the portraits, modeling and acting portfolio, etc.. I should be cool with owning a 50mm and 28-75 for now?