Well that's a question to get the fan boys out! I have Nikon, but would recommend you do your own research and go to a shop and hold them in your hand before deciding...
Had the Nikon D90--loved it. Got some beautiful pictures from it. Top ISO was about 640 though, needed a better low-light performer so moved up to the D700. I've sold it now though, I have to say I do miss it
Had the Nikon D90--loved it. Got some beautiful pictures from it. Top ISO was about 640 though, needed a better low-light performer so moved up to the D700. I've sold it now though, I have to say I do miss it
thing is, canon felt a little light when i played on it. But nikon felt large ish when i held that. its hard to tell pic quality in a shop while assitant breathing down my kneck.
have you got any pics with regards to iso640, i will be wanting to light trails etc as well as bright sunny days (in a diff country of course as they are all dull in the UK lol)
thing is, canon felt a little light when i played on it. But nikon felt large ish when i held that. its hard to tell pic quality in a shop while assitant breathing down my kneck.
have you got any pics with regards to iso640, i will be wanting to light trails etc as well as bright sunny days (in a diff country of course as they are all dull in the UK lol)
another couple at 1600 for you. I wouldn't worry about the ISO performance if I was honest... Its on a par with with D300 and you don't hear too many people complaining about that. Admittedly the bar does seem to have been raised in the Pro area at the minute with the D700 but all other camera don't suddenly turn rubbish.
I didn't say it was unusable, just not really what I wanted. Moved up from a D80 and it's certainly better than that for low-light performance but the D700 is in a different league.
ByThom sums it up nicely in the Pros section of his review:
DXO Mark Sensor for low-light (RAW, on a scale of 0 to 2527):
D300: 679
D90: 977
D700: 2303
I've had some cracking prints from my D90 (printed up to 60 x 40 - so just over a five foot print) and the detail and quality has been stunning. Got the D700 purely for some exceptional low-light work.
I've owned both brands and would happily take either and have no issues of any kind using them. I shot both together for a while. At this point in time price/performance and range on lenses goes to Canon overall. However, it really depends what you want to shoot, under what conditions and whether you're happy to pick and choose amongst the various lens brands. I've had no real problems with getting the lenses I need. I currently shoot Nikon because I prefer the handling over Canon, but I'm not dumb enough to think I couldn't get the same crummy results with any other brand!
So what's the overall budget and what do you expect to shoot mainly? I think any issues with the D90 have to be considered in context of price. I have one now as a back-up to my D700 and it replaced a D300. I wasn't getting much use from the D300 so sold it before the replacement was released. I got the D90 as a stop gap and it's definitely a step down, but for the price it's very good. AF isn't as good as the D700 for sure. Feels better than the cheaper Canon bodies. I have no issues with ISO performance and I doubt most people would.
I bought D90 over canon as the 450 felt very Fisher Price even in comparison to the D60 (which I also have) The D90 may be a step down from the D300/700 BUT it is a big step up from the D60, in terms of high ISO performance and in particular speed and reliability in focusing. For me the Live view and video have no real value, in fact I wish Nikon hadnt put the video on, it detracts from it being a "serious amatuers" camera (all IMHO of course!)
Whatever you buy will give you good results, but I have not regretted for one moment getting the D90, itsa great camera.
I am delighted with my choice, even though it cost me quite a bit more than the Canon
Just to add, I lent the D90 to a friend of mine who has a D70s. I got an email saying he was going to be up all night playing with the camera as it was at least 10 times better than his in every respect!!! After taking around 700 shots over the week end (mainly show jumping) he was blown away with it in very respect, but especially the speed of focussing, motor drive, ability to set min shutter speed linked to the ISO etc.
He's now thinking of getting one instead of a d300.....
thanks much appreciated evan the D5000 seems to score high although no optional grip which did put me off as i want to do some portrait piccys too. further to a few tube video reviews and reading. i am swaying the nikon route.
I've had a D90 for 3 months (had a D70s for 2 years) and I can't recomend it enough. Superb image quality and relative ease of use make it a fine DSLR.
a canon 40d or 50d might be bigger size wise if you fnid the 500d too small (I'm not sue of the sieze of that but the 40 and 50 are both a fair bit bigger than the 400 and 450.
After researching my first DSLR for months I effectively concluded that the contenders in a given price range differed relatively little in capability -- certainly in terms of the basics.
I ended up mostly deciding on usability/comfort. For me the D90 just felt well balanced, solid, and like a "real" camera. The grip was just right. I've not regretted the choice in 2 months of ownership, but then a colleague purchased a Canon 500D and has been equally happy
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
