Pitch Tent... Camp Canon or Camp Nikon?

[greghalliday]

Nikon D200 with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-200 mm f/3.5-2.6G DX ED VR
Or
Canon 30D with Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR DI

Both cameras are fine. I use Canon stuff, but that doesn't mean Nikon is bad. (They are, but I'm trying to be diplomatic here )

One suggestion though. I think that having a primary lens of 28mm on a 1.6x chip is a bad idea. Unless you don't mind not having wide angle capability. 28mm=45mm on a 30D. Also, and this is my own strange habit, I think it is preferable to stick with Canon or Nikon lenses for your primary ones. The main reasons for me are their image quality, you aren't likely to get crazy error messages, and (big one) hypersonic focus motors. Most off-brand manufacturers still use micro-motors for focusing. Not bad, but once you get used to silent focus and full-time manual focus, it is hard not to have. When I take my 17-40L off and put my Tamron 70-300 on, the thing sound like a chainsaw in comparison.

Just some things to consider. But the points below should be well taken. Any camera you have is capable. If you are.

[JSPhoto]

ejlatstl wrote:
1) Canon has a slight edge at higher ISO settings 800+ (Less Noise… etc)
2) Nikon has the best ‘constructed’ body in the D200
3) Nikon generally has better mid-range priced lenses
4) Canon has been the camera of choice for sports photography
5) Some Canon lenses are actually built by Sigma
6) Tamron lenses are generally a step up in quality from Sigma

#1: Canon has a three year advance over Nikon's sensor supplier - IE: Nikon can't even produce their own sensors - Sony supplies Nikon - I wouldn't buy from a company that can't produce the product.

#2: WHAT? I hope you are joking - No body is better than the Canon 1D series and no Nikon comes close. The weather and dust sealing is unmatched, and even lower class bodies are better sealed.

#3: I don't see this either, not that Nikon doesn't have nice glass, I don't see it better, but equal on midrange glass. - the advantage though is in AF speed, which goes to Canon.

#4: No doubt here - faster frame rates, bigger buffers, and faster AF

#5: and #6: Not sure where you got your information, Tamron is a huge leap down from Sigma. Sigma only makes the glass for a very select few cheaper Canon lenses and assembles them. The electronics are ALL Canon built and designed. The only Sigma lens I would suggest using is the 70-200 f2.8, but for real quality and speed I'd go with the Canon lens over it.
I had a couple Tamron lenses, but they wound up in the trash, they didn't come close to the worst Sigma lens. The $79 Canon 50mm f1.8 is a better lens than the $600 Tamron I had. Tamron has one lens that is worth using (I forget which one) but I won't use anything BUT Canon lenses as the off brand stuff does damage the Canon AF after time. I know, I had to get a body repaired because of a non Canon lens. $248 repair plus shipping each way.

JS

[lidarman]

1) Canon has a slight edge at higher ISO settings 800+ (Less Noise… etc)
- The photosites on the 30D are bigger because there are less of them (8Mpix vs 10MPix). Apparently you will only see the difference if you often do giant enlargements at 1600 ISO or more..

This is getting harder to compare because the photosites on a CCD are larger than a photosite on a CMOS sensor because the CMOS uses real estate for procession electronics. Thus a 8 micron pixel in a CCD has more collection area than a 8 micron pixel on a CMOS...but then there is added noise on a CCD when the chip is read that CMOS doesn't have. That said, Canon does have better performance on the high ISO range.

[Franglais]

This is getting harder to compare because the photosites on a CCD are larger than a photosite on a CMOS sensor because the CMOS uses real estate for procession electronics. Thus a 8 micron pixel in a CCD has more collection area than a 8 micron pixel on a CMOS...but then there is added noise on a CCD when the chip is read that CMOS doesn't have. That said, Canon does have better performance on the high ISO range.

It's difficult to compare the technology becase Nikon and Canon no longer release products that are directly comparable. Nikon sensors go 6Mpix - 10 Mpix - 12Mpix and Canon go 8Mpix (1.3x & 1.6x) 12Mpix (full-frame) and 16Mpix (full-frame).

How much you need high ISO depends on what you shoot. I was going to write that I rarely use high ISO (1600 & above) because I always have a big flash with my DSLR - but then I rembered my point and shoot Fuji F10 which is often at 1600ISO. The flash is just as bad as any point & shoot but the high ISO performance is incredible - from a 1/7 inch CCD..

Charles

[JSPhoto]

Franglais wrote:

2) Nikon has the best ‘constructed’ body in the D200
- The D200 is starting to come close to the 1D and that's why Canon are worried. It is better built than the 20D and reports say it has better autofocus, flash, exposure, etc.


Canon worried? Not, and after seeing and holding a D200 it doesn't compare in any way shape or form body wise to the 1D series, and electronically the D200 isn't close either. The D200 may have better AF than the 20D, a P&S can have better AF than a 20D, but it certainly isn't better than the 1D. And the failures of the original 1D flash exposures was fixted when Canon came out with the 580EX and then built the 1D MKII & MKII N etc. to work with the flash.
In fact, the only advanatage the Nikon MAY have had fro the past few years was with flash and Canon finally got to work on the problem.
Canon is not in fear of Nikon competing in anything close to the 1D, and they won't replace the 1D family anytime soon, they will come out with newer versions etc. Remember the 1D is the digital twin to he 1N film camera. All accessories are the same except for a few rare exceptions. The 1D is a system as much as it is a family, they will not drop the line, that would be suicide when it leads the sports and journalism world.


as for Sigma, they(used to at least) make the glass and assembled two cheap Canon lenses. I am not certain if they still do though, since going to USM I believe Canon does everything in house to keep technology out of the competitions hands. In fact, Nikon has a number of lenses built and asembled by other companies so it's not new for either company to outsource. But Canon does it's own electronics and sensors which makes parts and repair much easier, one of the reasons Nikon service is so poor is they have zero control on the supply chain for parts. If they need a replacement sensor they have to depend on Sony to have it in stock...not good business sense when dealing with customers.

JS