So I am currently researching Digital SLR's. I never owned a Film SLR but I'd like to improve my skills / learn more about advanced photography and so I'm looking at beginner DSLR's
( Read more... )
Both Canon and Nikon are good makes. I'd be inclined to go with what you're familiar with; I've got an oldish metal-body Canon DSLR, but I suspect you'd find the plastic one quite adequate.
Note that most of the weight's often in the lens anyway, so you may not save much weight with a plastic body.
I doubt I'll be buying any larger lenses for a loooong time (if at all), so thanks for the heads up on the body/lens weight factor :)
General net consensus about Nikon vs Canon is 'buy into the ecosystem you already have accessories / lenses for', but as I am starting with a clean slate (so to speak) I can take my pic.
I definitely want to try handling a body style from each brand to see which ergonomics most suit me. Thanks again :D
(I'm the Pentax fan she mentioned)neovenatorNovember 16 2010, 04:48:38 UTC
Nah, I spent four years selling cameras at a high-end camera shop, so I know all the major brands (except Sony, which we didn't carry, and the more recent entries such as Panasonic and Samsung) pretty well. I admit, I had a Pentax before dSLRs came out and bought a Pentax dSLR because I had the lenses, but I found that we got more entry-level Canon cameras coming back with problems or user-caused plastic part breakages than any other brand. Thus my avoidance of that brand
( ... )
Re: (I'm the Pentax fan she mentioned)d_floorlandmineNovember 16 2010, 14:20:26 UTC
[grin] It was a tongue-in-cheek comment!
I went for Canon, but that's because I'd already got EF-fit glass from my 35mm camera. I haven't had any real issues with my 400D or 350D, but I do tend to cosset my gear, and be very careful with things like battery doors and the like.
Take your point about treating sales staff, though.
As for lens gear, I've found that Sigma and Tamron lenses tend to be better value than the low-end Canon ones, but mid-range and up, the Canons are fine. Also, there is the "nifty fifty" ... it's very cheap, but it is nifty. [grin]
Mid-range Nikons also have the handy remote flash commander function built-in, too. Not something people worry about at the outset, but can be annoying if you're thinking of trying out some strobist stuff.
Comments 12
Note that most of the weight's often in the lens anyway, so you may not save much weight with a plastic body.
Reply
General net consensus about Nikon vs Canon is 'buy into the ecosystem you already have accessories / lenses for', but as I am starting with a clean slate (so to speak) I can take my pic.
I definitely want to try handling a body style from each brand to see which ergonomics most suit me. Thanks again :D
Reply
You say that now ... [giggles]
Reply
Reply
Your Pentax fan mate might be a little biased. [grin] Or just jealous of the lighter EOS bodies.
Reply
Reply
I went for Canon, but that's because I'd already got EF-fit glass from my 35mm camera. I haven't had any real issues with my 400D or 350D, but I do tend to cosset my gear, and be very careful with things like battery doors and the like.
Take your point about treating sales staff, though.
As for lens gear, I've found that Sigma and Tamron lenses tend to be better value than the low-end Canon ones, but mid-range and up, the Canons are fine. Also, there is the "nifty fifty" ... it's very cheap, but it is nifty. [grin]
Mid-range Nikons also have the handy remote flash commander function built-in, too. Not something people worry about at the outset, but can be annoying if you're thinking of trying out some strobist stuff.
Reply
Leave a comment