upgrade to canon 50d or nikon d90?

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
been looking at my options recently and i feel very limitted by staying with sony.
I have 2 people interested in buying all my sony gear for £600 which means i could upgrade to a canon 50d, or a nikon d90.

Which would be the better choice?

Ive been reading and reading and its all starting to go a bit blurry... i keep seeing posts by people saying they are moving from nikon to canon.

I have friends that use both nikon and canon, and they both rate them each etc. I just thought i would ask here :)

I can get a new 50D for around £560 then buy second hand lenses... something like an all round 18-200 to start with.

Or i could get a nikon d90 for around £530 and then buy an al;l round lens again.

So both cameras are pretty much equal cost wise... but which one would be better?

Thanks :)
 
A comparison of the features of the two cameras here.

Have a look through and decide what features would fit your needs best.

Then go down to a camera shop and get your hands on both cameras and see which feels the best to you.

Both are excellent cameras that will take excellent pictures if you do the right things, so it is a personal decision.
 
There is currently a drift from Canon to Nikon but that is mainly at the higher end levels though does seem to be flitering down too. Ultimately it won't make much difference medium to long term as somewhere along the line, Canon will get its act back together and produce a system that is comparable or even better and the tide will turn once again.

So as already said, get yourself down to the shops and have a good long play with both cameras, see which feels best in your hands, which has menu systems you prefer, which body you 'instinctively' feel better with and that's probably the one for you. :thumbs:














It will of course be the D90 :lol: :p
 
I'm detecting a noticeable bias in the replies here so feel that I should step in and give my totally unbiased opinion that it's got to be Canon all the way.

Actually, as has been already said, both are capable cameras so get to a shop and have a feel and play with them. When I first went out t get a DSLR I was going to get an Olympus but the Canon 300D just seemed to fit me better and I got on with the menus better.
 
When I got back into photography I tried a lot of models from various brands and the choice came down to Canon or Nikon in terms of what I could afford/features etc. The 40D won as the control layout and menus worked much better for me than those of the Nikon d80 I also considered.
 
I moved from a Nikon D300 to a 50D (lusted for a MP-E65) and was shocked at the poor porformance of the 50D at low ISO's.
 
low iso as in 100 etc?
what was bad about it?


thanks for the comparison link mike...
on paper the canon seems to be much better?
higher res, more iso control, better flash control, more raw file options?

What advantages does the nikon have over the canon? or visa versa?

Trouble is ive used both nikon and canon and i like them both, i tried my mates 40D and i found it very good... ive also used my mates nikon d80 and that too was very good...

I would like a camera that is good in low light, has a very good and fast auto focus, and that i could track say a motorbike and keep the focus on it as i track... if thats possible with these cameras?
 
I had a 50D for a very short time. I know it is all down to personal taste but I just didn't like it at all.:thumbsdown:
 
I think for your purposes, either would do! If that's the case, then look into what accessories, or other lenses you'll be looking at getting into later down the line. For example, if you're planning on getting seriously into macro, Nikon have no equivalent of the MPE-65. If you're going to be investing a lot in long lenses, I believe the Canon offers cheaper options, wheras Nikon only really do expensive ones (can you tell I'm a Canon fan yet?! :D )

Currently, Nikon definitely has the upper hand, and better philosophy in the noise handling stakes. I hear the ISO performance on the D90 is seriously impressive. But having said that, I regularly use my 50D as ISO 3200, and as long as you run it through some free noise reduction software, they come out really well.

The plus points you've listed for the Canon aren't really all that big a deal... More megapixels is a blessing and a curse, you can crop lots, but it's much less forgiving on the noise front if you don't nail the exposure. Nikon deliberately left the megapixels lower to focus on ISO.

You can push the ISO up to 12800 ('H2' mode) on the 50D, but be prepared for a pretty unpleasant sight! If you convert it to B&W, you can claim it's grainy and artistic, and I suppose it's better than a blurry mess, but I've only really played with it a few times. 6400 is just about useable, but you still lose a fair bit of detail. 3200 is the highest I'd use without worrying whatsoever.

More raw file options? Realistically I'd imagine you'll only use 1!

So after all that, I'm guessing you're no better off! Keep popping into the shops and playing with them. Try changing settings quickly, and see what feels more natural! Play with the menus, see if they make sense! Or if you still can't decide after all that, wait until the first one of either comes up in the classifieds, and snap it up!

Chris
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I moved from a Nikon D300 to a 50D (lusted for a MP-E65) and was shocked at the poor porformance of the 50D at low ISO's.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair (and I'm a Nikon guy), you are comparing a £1200 Nikon to a £500 Canon. There's going to be some difference in performance there. :)

I think the D90 is going to handle better in low light than the 50D though.
 
evilonion said:
how do the two compare in low light, and also in speed of focus? :)
Click to expand...

To be honest, I doubt many people have used both! And speed of focus will depend a great deal on what lens you have attached. But I've never though 'I wish my 50D performed better in low light'. It seems to get a fairly big slating online, but I'm still chuffed with it!

All taken at ISO 3200:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/4349753874/in/set-72157604185032294/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/4349753604/in/set-72157604185032294/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/4406396365/in/set-72157623146398476/

(Ignore the colour casts on the first 2, been using 2 different monitors and they look washed out on one, and very red on the other, not sure which is right :D)

Chris
 
can i ask why you went from the D300 to the 50D?
Low light seems to be an issue for me with my sony... ive been having fun taking pictures at night in london and other places but my friends 40D blows my a200 out of the water. I cant stand all my images coming out grainy, does my head in.

So if the nikon is a better camera in low light, what would the biggest advantage be of a 50D?

I've seen on ebay quite a few D300's going for around £700 but im trying hard not to look at those auctions!!
 
evilonion said:
can i ask why you went from the D300 to the 50D?
Click to expand...

Question wasn't aimed at me, but he said in his post:

If you want the most exteme macro lens out there, you sort of have to be on Canon. The MPE-65 starts at 1:1 magnification, which is the maximum magnification most ordinary macro lenses can achieve. It then goes further, to 5:1 (which is insanely close-up!). Nikon don't have a lens that'll do that!

Chris
 
ah yeah sorry, mis read posts :)
I do love macro but i don't think i would be looking at a camera soley for this as i do a lot of general stuff... people, landscapes, close up, cars, racing all sorts.
 
just read on another forum that the 50d can embedd exif data, such as copyright... can the d90 do this as well?
looks like a handy feature (not all that important i know)

from what im reading, if im reading this right... the canon is better for bright light (iso 100 etc) and the nikon is better at low light? 1600+ ?
 
I love my 50D! It is very fast to use, easy to navigate user-interface and no problems at low ISO (WTF???) It doesn't have the same full-fame image quality like the 5D mk II, but I am very happy with it.
It has a fantastic LCD screen and micro-adjust, so if you're happy with the 40D you'll be even happier with the 50D. :thumbs:
 
Kaouthia said:
Well, to be fair (and I'm a Nikon guy), you are comparing a £1200 Nikon to a £500 Canon. There's going to be some difference in performance there. :)

I think the D90 is going to handle better in low light than the 50D though.
Click to expand...

Not really if i look back to Feb 09 (Digital Photo) Warehouse Express advert the D300 is £897 and the 50D is £819.99 - so that argument wont work ;)
 
evilonion said:
can i ask why you went from the D300 to the 50D?
Low light seems to be an issue for me with my sony... Ive been having fun taking pictures at night in London and other places but my friends 40D blows my a200 out of the water. I cant stand all my images coming out grainy, does my head in.

So if the nikon is a better camera in low light, what would the biggest advantage be of a 50D?

I've seen on ebay quite a few D300's going for around £700 but im trying hard not to look at those auctions!!
Click to expand...

I wanted a Canon MP-E65 macro lens so i needed to move to Canon, personally i'd forget the 50D and look at a used 40D if you want to go canon.
 
Sorry, was just going by the price stated by the OP, I have no need to research Canon prices. :)

The D300 RRP was £1199, same as the D300s currently is.

But..

Dogfish_magnet said:
I moved from a Nikon D300 to a 50D and was shocked at the poor porformance of the 50D
Click to expand...
serves you right for being a traitor. ;)
 
i dont think i could afford a mp-e65 lens for a very long time as i have others i would have to buy first for other things... plus flashguns i need and all sorts of other bits. 800 for a macro lens would sting too much at the moment when i dont do it that often...

Why would you go 40d rather than 50d?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top