- Messages
- 2,813
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- No
where is MPB mate?
Look at the top of this page
where is MPB mate?
seems we had this before...
remember whatshisname buying/selling/buying/returning/trading/dropping/buying/selling everything [but didn't]
ah heady days and nights on TP indeed...
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS ...Anthony....its Nikon all the way.....................
Look at the top of this page
vrapan said:hm ok K-5 definitely does not feel like a toy, didn't think the k-r felt much like one either, better weather sealing on it than D90 (and prob 40D too), better sensor, VR/IS/SR on the body some stunning lenses, about half the weight.
odd jim said:What you say is true, BUT, I think system wise if you're starting out, it's wise to go Canon or Nikon (IMO of course) for the long run.
That said, I do like the look of the K5...
I've owned and used the 50d, used the 40d and owned and used the D90.
In terms of IQ. There is very little between them. I couldn't get on with the canon ergonomics and when I use my friends 40d to try show her something, I still feel completely lost trying to find the right button even though I used a 50d for several months. I can pick up a nikon, new or old, budget or top end and just do what needs to be done. They are much more intuitive IMO.
The d90 also has video, albeit pretty poor if that is of interest.
Canon do have some lenses Nikon dont, but nikon have some great glass canon don't. I still maintain the canon 100mm L IS macro is the best lens I've ever used, and I've had a hell of a lot of lenses from both.
It really is a flip a coin job. Don't worry about the tales of the shutters failing. It can happen to any camera at any time.
vrapan said:I don't believe that anyone can credibly argue that for a photography amateur/hobbyist/enthusiast any single brand is significantly better than others. If anything the leading two brands lack certain user friendly features on budget models that other systems offer.
cam1986 said:I agree the 50D is a nice camera but very costly when you add on a lens
I think you missed my point about the 'system', not brand, though the two go hand in hand.
The fact is Canon and Nikon have more, cheaper used items than the others. An enthusiast or amateur (such as me) should be just as interested in that as a pro, and that's why I mentioned it as without a doubt, anyone starting up and buying into a system should consider this before parting with their hard earned cash!
You've been offered one for a very good deal, not much more than the 40d really...
Get a used 50d and a new or used Tamron 17-50 non VC. You could get both for just over £600 if you buy right. That would give you a fantastic platform to start with.
squishy said:Which is a fair point, but with pentax/sony/olympus you get more "bang for buck" in the camera body (just look at the K-5, fully weather sealed, state of the art sensor, fast performance and all for the price of a used 7D), which can make up for at least some of the difference of having to buy more things new because they aren't often available on the second hand market.
Well, its a D90 i have set my targets on. Add to that a nice prime and i will or should be happy! Just got to find a decent one now.
Are your nikon friends willing to lend you lenses?
If so, that would tip it in favour of the D90 for me.
I have a 40D and it is a great camera with no problems.
However most newer cameras have better high ISO performance and added features like being able to adjust for front amd back focusing.
That being said up to ISO400 you will find no difference. The High ISO performance on the 50d is very little improved, but the added features are useful.
Both cameras are heavy and solid but not so large and heavy as a Nikon D300
Terrywoodenpic said:I have a 40D and it is a great camera with no problems.
However most newer cameras have better high ISO performance and added features like being able to adjust for front amd back focusing.
That being said up to ISO400 you will find no difference. The High ISO performance on the 50d is very little improved, but the added features are useful.
Both cameras are heavy and solid but not so large and heavy as a Nikon D300
The high iso of the 50d is very much improved over the 40d.
The 40d is very noisy at 800 iso, whereas the 50d is very good at 1600 iso and useable at 3200 iso (which the 40d doesn't go to).
That's why I bought the 50d over the 40d as I need good high iso for indoor sports.
The high iso of the 50d is very much improved over the 40d.
The 40d is very noisy at 800 iso, whereas the 50d is very good at 1600 iso and useable at 3200 iso (which the 40d doesn't go to).
That's why I bought the 50d over the 40d as I need good high iso for indoor sports.
squishy said:I disagree, while I don't consider the 50D more noisy (like some people do), it's not any better until you get over ISO 1600.
My 40D certainly isn't very noisy at ISO 800.
I don't want to start an argument about this (it's been done too many times before), but if you want over ISO 1600 the 50D is better but there isn't really much to choose between them bellow 1600 (indeed many people who've used both say the 40D is better at controlling shadow noise in the 100-400 range).
I'll agree to disagree then. The 40d has the same sensor as the 400d. Enough said!
I use my bodies for indoor sport. I could not use the 40d over 800 iso. Even processing with DPP left me with unacceptable results.
The 50d I could keep clean (via DPP but without any nr) at 3200. Again, enough said!
As a low light performer the two are night and day. If not I'd have kept the 400d.
squishy said:Same sensor maybe, but not the same electronic behind it (which is a big factor in noise performance)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
Scroll down a little way on that page, there is a comparison of 400D/30D/40D/1DIII noise levels. The 40D looks definitely better than the 400D, pretty much the same as the 30D when you take into account the slight resolution difference.