25 replies to this topic

[pacificphoto]

Help, Bloggers! I will be getting my tax return next month, and will be upgrading to a 10 megapixel camera. After quite exhaustive research, I've narrowed it down to 2: the Canon 400D (Rebel XTi), and the Nikon D80. Both have benefits over the other. Rather than giving myself carpel tunnel right now by writing them all, please give me your personal opinions about which camera is the smarter buy. I will then discuss the pros and cons in counterpoint, and maybe by examining the thread upon crunch time, I can come to a decision I can live with. --Chris

[Crimsonblood]

One thing to consider is your lenses. They will fit on the Canon for sure, but will they fit on the Nikon? Also, one thing to consider is the sensors for monochrome images (since most of yours are that type). Which one is better for those before doing anything in PS. -- Tim

[pacificphoto]

You're right, Tim, the fact that I now have 3 lenses that get me all the way from 17 to 135 mm is a plus. The Nikon comes with an 18-135 zoom, though. Reviews have generally said it could be better, but I haven't heard any dissing as strongly as people have put down the 18-55 Canon kit lens. I used that one for quite a while, and as you see, I made them come out okay in many cases. So, is the lens factor put to rest? Not really, since one of mine has that lovely stabilization that allows me to handhold a shot going 60 mph at an object coming at me at 60 mph, and everything looks fairly good. Also, if I get the Nikon, I won't be changing the lens out. Eventually I think I'd have to get a really sharp Nikon lens, but then I'd have to change lenses to use it.

So what's the big concern about that? In a word, dust. The XTi (400D) has dust prevention that's supposed to work; not a single review has denied its success. I changed my lenses on my Rebel XT (350D) a total of about 5 times, mortally afraid of dust. Wouldn't I be in this same situation with the Nikon? Darn them, if they'd just knuckle under and develope this technology on their cameras, I wouldn't have such angst!

About the black & white, I shoot RAW color, convert on photoshop, and therefore have the option of either monochrome or color on every shot, so I don't think that is a big issue with either camera.

Well, I wouldn't be all in turmoil if all that was troubling me was the lens issue, so still not at a final decision. I eagerly await the next bit of input.

--Chris

[Crimsonblood]

Lenses aside, lets see about the other aspects. The XTi has 9 spot meters, and the D80 has 11 (if I am not mistaken). The megapixel amount is the same so we can toss that aside. They have different colour matrix meters. The Canon one is supposed to be extremely similar to the one in the XT, and the D80 one similar to that in the D200. Both are able to shoot in sRGB and Adobe RGB colour modes. Many of the other features are the same or extremely similar from what the reviews and product descriptions say. So, overall, I would say it is a matter of preference. Number of spot meters vs. sensor cleaning (which works very well, the camera store nearby did a demonstration that my dad saw when he was getting his camera there).

Good luck deciding which one to get! Its a tough decision. And get some sleep! Don't stay up all night over this!

-- Tim

[pacificphoto]

That's funny, because I have found myself reading reviews at 2 or 3 in the morning. Yeah, all those things are the same, but then I held the Nikon the other day, and it felt right. I think I have Nikonmania, a desease that strikes people who get gleam in the eye for the much liked product of any particular field (i.e. Mercedes, Hasselblad, etc.). It doesn't help that every single side by side comparison I've read goes on and on about the Canon image quality, and have 100% blown up example images that show it gives better clarity, etc., but then in the end the Nikon gets the nod. Why? What is the undescribable something that makes everybody yearn to get these cameras?

--Chris

[stewart bywater]

Given the choice, I would definitely choose the d80, but I have just inherited a 300d, so I'll stick to that for a while. The d80 is superior to the 400d and tha Alpha 100. All the reviews I have read (about six) have agreed.

[pacificphoto]

That's right, the reviews do say that. But when you look at the close up enlargements, the image quality is always better with the Canon. When I want it, I want critical detail, and I pout without it. Besides the 'feel' of the camera and nicey-nice features like auto iso, what is there that's going to give me superior product at the back end of the process?
--Chris

[stewart bywater]

When the cameras are this close in terms of performance, it is the feel of it that should determine which one you get. All three (including the Alpha) are excellent cameras that anyone should be proud to own, and they are all capable of perfect A3 prints. If you are enlarging further than that, you need a 5d/1dsmkii or a large format camera!

[Julie W]

Hi Chris,
I can not say which way to jump Chris as I do not have much knowledge of the 400d.
I have owned a D70S and also have used Steves D200, and I now own a D80, I have found the D80 to be excellent giving good results straight from camera.
The controls and menus are easy to use and well laid out.
The D80 is smaller than the D70S and a lot smaller than the D200, and I believe the 400d is smaller again than the D80, so if you have large hands this may be a problem.
If you have not already seen them, the reviews on www.dpreview.com are very helpful.
Good luck Chris, and I am sure which ever you choose you will have a great deal of fun with it!

Best wishes
Julie

[pacificphoto]

Thanks, Julie. It was actually dpreview where I got my most interesting reviews, the part where they show the differences between cameras with extreme enlargements. Every one clearly shows the Canon coming ahead of the Nikon in terms of picture quality. The Nikon has more consumer oriented results, which means they enhance color, contrast, and saturation so that it looks more like the final processed shot with less work on the computer. In thinking about this, my mind puts up a coupld of point/counterpoints. RAW processing pretty much strips away enhancing presets and takes images back to start, so that you can make all applicable enhancments there without image degragation. I've read more than one advice section of stock photo sites that say if you want to sell on that site, you have to turn all enhancement presets off in the camera. They have special programs which detect those kinds of things, and will reject them out of hand if it goes too far...which it's easy to do.

About the size and feel of holding the camera. Yes, it's true, the Canon is small for big hands, which I have. But perhaps because I got here through two other, much smaller, cameras, I didn't notice it was small until I started reading about other people griping about it. Tell you the truth, I still don't notice it when I pull it out and start shooting. I think part of my final search will be in the shop trying it with the accessory battery grip. Lots of people have said that improves things, and it would still be cheaper than the Nikon.

While reading about the 400d, I read about their RAW conversion software, which dpreview shows does better than Adobe Camera Raw. It came to me that I had some of that software for my 350d, so I got it back out and actually tried it. I had tried it early on and became frustrated because at that time I simply didn't understand what I needed to do. Now that I know more, I found the adjustments easier to understand than Adobe, and easier to reach my final result with less mucking in photoshop. The pic currently posted called "Remembering Autumn" (or it might be simply Remember Autumn) was converted with the Canon software, and then a simple smart sharpening in photoshop. I think it worked very nicely. Nikon's got such software, too, but I have to hand over yet another two hundred clams to pick it up.

This thread has helped me solidify some priorities, so that I am finally coming to the conclusion that what I will most likely do is try the battery grip on the camera, then trade in my 350d for a 400d, and for hundreds less than the Nikon I'll have 10 megapixels, software, good image quality, 3 lenses (including image stabilization), a good dust prevention system, and cash to spare to finally get a good flash (thinking the 430EZ).

But there's still time to sway my opinion, y'all, with a great sales pitch.

Chris

[Brian Clapper]

Chris, at your request, I'll weigh in. But I will not be attempting to sell you. As you know, I'm a D80 owner, having upgraded from a D70 several months ago. I also have Nikon in my long history. My most recent film camera (which I still have, but don't use very much) was a Nikon 6006. My very first camera was a Nikkormat (consumer-grade Nikon), vintage 1973, which I bought, used, in 1978, while still in high school. My dad was shooting a Nikon F at the time; when he upgraded, he went with a Nikon 8008. (He now has a D70.)

I went with Nikon largely by default. I already had a couple Nikon-compatible lenses. When it came time to buy a DSLR, I couldn't afford new lenses and a new DSLR, so I stuck with Nikon.

Having said all that, I stick with Nikon partly out of investment in lenses and partly because they just "feel" more natural to me. The important part of that last sentence is "to me." I've played with Canons from time to time; I just prefer the Nikons. That may be as much an issue of familiarity as anything else. Or, it may be that the layout of the controls on the Nikons better suit the way I happen to think and work. They certainly feel more intuitive to me, but as I said, that may be (hell, probably is) influenced greatly by my familiarity with Nikon gear.

As for the in-camera enhancements, I don't use them. I shoot RAW, and I rely on post-processing for any enhancements (other than on-lens filters, which I do use). I do occasionally "shoot" in B&W, but as you know, when shooting RAW, that mode basically just causes the camera to display the LCD preview in grayscale; all the color data is still present in the RAW file. I occasionally shoot that way when I'm shooting photos I'm pretty sure I'll want to convert to B&W; seeing a rough B&W estimate on the LCD is occasionally helpful. But, again, I shoot RAW, so the ultimate enhancement decisions come when I fire up Photoshop.

I agree strongly with Stewart Bywater: The cameras are so close in performance and quality that the technical differences are largely a matter of splitting hairs; what matters most here is which one feels more natural and intuitive to you. I, too, would love it if Nikon would give in and provide dust reduction in their DSLRs; however, quite frankly, dust on the sensor hasn't been a big problem for me, so the lack of that feature wasn't enough to sway my decision. Even though I prefer the Nikon, I always tell anyone who asks that you're very likely to be pleased as hell with either one. They do have different feels, though, and I think that, as much as anything, contributes to people's rabid preferences for one over the other.

In your case--and speaking solely for myself--if I had been using Canons as long as you have, and I had an investment in Canon lenses such as yours, I'd be highly biased toward the Canon. The onus would be on a Nikon enthusiast to sway me from my entrenched position. And, frankly, I'm not the Nikon enthusiast you're looking for. I mean, I am a Nikon enthusiast, but I like to think of myself as a rational Nikon enthusiast. Rationality dictates that you take your current investment and current comfort level into account when making this decision. Rationality also dictates that you do as Stewart suggests, and go with the camera that feels more "right" to you--or at least consider that element highly when making your decision.

Good luck with your decision. And, Happy New Year.

Regards,

-Brian

[pacificphoto]

Brian, thanks very much for your input. Couldn't ask for more. --Chris

[Schors]

Hi Chris

I have just purchased my first digital SLR and gone for the Canon 400d based on two things - recommendation from my course tutor (who has previously always used Nikon but has made the switch to Canon based on her opinion of this particular model) and the dust cleaning system. I just feel that if the technology is available now then I may as well take advantage of it.

I suspect the overall results would be pretty similar for each camera - they both seem to have wide spread good reviews and I do tend to agree with the comment that going with what 'feels right' is probably good advice. As it's the first digital SLR I've had I was fortunate in a way not to be swayed by previous experience or loyalty. My decision was based on fairly simple criteria.

However if you do decide to go for the Canon I would be delighted for selfish reasons - as someone who is still trying to plough my way through the instruction manual and figure out the basic instructions I need all the help I can get, and as one of the most helpful contributors on this site it would be great to be able to pick your brains occasionally!!

Ange

[pacificphoto]

Many thanks for your input, Ange. Put some pics up taken with that camera so I can see an object example.

--Chris

[ksss]

. . . or the Pentax K10D?