Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
With the D90 (or D80, D70 or D50) or D5000 (or D3000, D60 or D40) DSLR, you won't have auto exposure and must shoot totally in manual.
There's a significantly larger selection of Canon EF lenses available. Canon made a complete conversion to the all-electronic EF mount and lenses with internal auto-focus motors in 1987. Even the cheapest Canon DSLR is fully functional in any shooting mode with any EF or EF-S lens made in the past 22+ years.
The cheapest can, but not all canon cameras can mount and use all current canon lenses(unlike Nikon). A minor technicality, but important to address. Also, no canon body at any price does the remote flash stuff that even Nikon's low midrange bodies have done for years without a bulky and expensive attachment.There's a significantly larger selection of Canon EF lenses available. Canon made a complete conversion to the all-electronic EF mount and lenses with internal auto-focus motors in 1987. Even the cheapest Canon DSLR is fully functional in any shooting mode with any EF or EF-S lens made in the past 22+ years.
SPOOFE wrote:The events of 20+ years ago scarcely matter now, although being able to throw older nikon glass onto a new camera is nice, particularly for certain uses. The 105/2.5 etc. for portraiture is excellent, and some of the old manual focus macros are outstanding bargains as well. For some applications AF is a bit superfluous.... And in the process severing any legacy they may have had, although up until the AF revolution Canon's lenses weren't exactly heralded. Nikon, on the other hand, has been making amazing glass for longer than most people have been alive. It's not a matter of one being "better" than the other, only different. Sure, Canon may technically have "more" lenses, but who's going to buy them all? Who's going to buy more than a handful? Like I said earlier, outside of select special-purpose lenses or the really high-end (that is, looking at the lenses that a budget photographer would consider), they each cover essentially the same range. It's hard to go either N or C and not get good gear.
SPOOFE wrote:Nikon's were somewhat absent for years. Now that they've released a new lineup of T/S lenses, they're probably excellent. Canon was the only real game in town for a while there.My way of looking at it assumes that for almost anybody, there's not much more than a half dozen lenses that really, really matter, and maybe another half dozen slightly less so. I don't know many people that use T&S lenses, but those that do seem to rave about the Canon offerings (I've never used 'em myself, and have no idea what Nikon's are like).
SPOOFE wrote:That about matches my take. More fast Nikon primes would be nice, but they'd also be $$$. Canon could probably use more kitzoom stepup options, but for my purposes I wouldn't really care, even if I shot canon. Canon's f/4 stuff, particularly the 70-200s, hits a target that nikon doesn't, but nikon can get you into an f/2.8 for a bit cheaper than canon can.I wish Nikon had as full a set of primes as Canon does, although I don't begrudge the f/1.2 lenses that much; the price is horrendous for my uses, but people that know that they'll use 'em can certainly use 'em. On the other hand, Canon would be better served with an improved range of 18-whatever lenses, but that's at the other end of the spending spectrum and, ironically, pretty outside my usual shooting patterns.
JustAnEngineer wrote:All Canon EF and EF-S lenses produced since 1987 are fully-functional with even the cheapest Canon EOS DSLR.
Skrying wrote:That is the entire point. At some point you must make a decision. You either use multiple lenses and have superior image quality or you use one lens and have worse image quality.
SPOOFE wrote:Even a superzoom will get very sharp if stopped down, and with camera bodies getting better and better handling high ISO's the loss of aperture isn't as big of an issue outside of select circumstances (low light without the ability to use a flash, or the need to catch quick movements).
Richie_G wrote:The assistant explained that it actually performs better than the 500D and 50D at higher ISO owing to the fact that they cram too many pixels.
Richie_G wrote:It is rather light, and I decided that I preferred a larger camera, which ultimately ruled out this option.
SPOOFE wrote:Yeah, sure, and that sort of thing mattered in film days. Today you waste a shot or two, and then you're set.
SPOOFE wrote:You are very likely to damage your camera if you try to attach one of those pre-1977 F-mount lenses without modifying the lens' aperture linkage. The well-regarded AI-S 105mm f/2.5 lens was introduced in 1982, so it does just fine on the D300.I can stumble on most any lens made all the way back in 1959 and play around with it.
SPOOFE wrote:Canon did produce FD to EF adapters for a while in the late 1980s to aid in the transition.JustAnEngineer wrote:.... And in the process severing any legacy they may have had...There's a significantly larger selection of Canon EF lenses available. Canon made a complete conversion to the all-electronic EF mount and lenses with internal auto-focus motors in 1987.
mattsteg wrote:The inexpensive adapter that I linked above would also let you attach those old F-mount manual lenses to a Canon EOS camera. While it is certainly possible to get great photographs with a totally manual exposure, it's a lot easier with modern automatic equipment.Being able to throw older Nikon glass onto a new camera is nice, particularly for certain uses.
Madman wrote:If you have an old Canon film SLR or a $2.5k+ full-frame DSLR like the EOS 5D Mk. II, then yes, you should skip the 7 Canon EF-S lenses or sell them when you sell your APS-C camera body, since the EF-S lenses cannot be mounted on a full-frame camera. My EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the most expensive EF-S lens. The other six might easily be as disposable as your old APS-C camera when you upgrade. There are still 50+ other Canon EF lenses from which to choose. If you spend $3k+ on the Nikon D700, you probably want to avoid the 15 Nikon DX lenses, since their reduced image circle will make more than half of the D700's 12.1 megapixels useless. Being able to get some image is a nice feature with the Nikon DX/FX switch. That's not an option for Canon because the EF-S lenses might protrude into the camera body far enough to contact the mirror if you made modifications to force an EF-S lens onto a full-frame camera.JustAnEngineer wrote:They keyword is DSLR, they won't fit the other way around, so I suggest staying with EF lenses which will fit all Canon cameras and will probably work with DSLRs when they'll be full frame.All Canon EF and EF-S lenses produced since 1987 are fully-functional with even the cheapest Canon EOS DSLR.
Richie_G wrote:If you zoom in to the individual pixel level, the Rebel XSi (EOS 450D) and EOS 40D might have slightly less high-ISO noise then the Rebel T1i (EOS 500D) and EOS 50D. However, the newer cameras have so many more pixels, that once you've re-sized the images to the same resolution, the newer cameras produce the better images.The assistant explained that it actually performs better than the 500D and 50D at higher ISO owing to the fact that they cram too many pixels.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Your continuous spouting-out of google-sourced half-truths regarding Nikon only serves to showcase your ignorance (which is fine, there's no real need to know much about camera systems you don't use). Seriously though, you might as well just not talk about Nikon. The 105/AI-s (and mostly the identical 105-AI that it followed) isn't safe to mount because of when it was launched. It's safe to mount because it's an AI(s) lens. The year of introduction is rather immaterial except as historical trivia since whether it will mount safely is indicated by the name of the lens.SPOOFE wrote:You are very likely to damage your camera if you try to attach one of those pre-1977 F-mount lenses without modifying the lens' aperture linkage. The well-regarded AI-S 105mm f/2.5 lens was introduced in 1982, so it does just fine on the D300.I can stumble on most any lens made all the way back in 1959 and play around with it.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Converters with optical elements are hardly ideal. In any case that was over 20 years ago and isn't a big deal at this point.SPOOFE wrote:Canon did produce FD to EF adapters for a while in the late 1980s to aid in the transition.JustAnEngineer wrote:.... And in the process severing any legacy they may have had...There's a significantly larger selection of Canon EF lenses available. Canon made a complete conversion to the all-electronic EF mount and lenses with internal auto-focus motors in 1987.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Some will fill more of the frame at most zoom levels if you want to push it, but it's scarcely an ideal situation.If you spend $3k+ on the Nikon D700, you probably want to avoid the 15 Nikon DX lenses, since their reduced image circle will make more than half of the D700's 12.1 megapixels useless. Being able to get some image is a nice feature with the Nikon DX/FX switch. That's not an option for Canon because the EF-S lenses might protrude into the camera body far enough to contact the mirror if you made modifications to force an EF-S lens onto a full-frame camera.
JustAnEngineer wrote:I don't think that having 25% more pixels (so ~12% linear difference in size) realistically counts as "so many more". The difference in pixel count is pretty immaterial between 450D/50D. It's a bit more substantial vs. the 40D, but still hardly a huge deal.Richie_G wrote:If you zoom in to the individual pixel level, the Rebel XSi (EOS 450D) and EOS 40D might have slightly less noise then the Rebel T1i (EOS 500D) and EOS 50D. However, the newer cameras have so many more pixels, that once you've re-sized the images to the same resolution, the newer cameras produce the better images.The assistant explained that it actually performs better than the 500D and 50D at higher ISO owing to the fact that they cram too many pixels.
mattsteg wrote:Ah, there's the snarky mattsteg that we remember.JustAnEngineer wrote:Your continuous spouting-out of google-sourced half-truths regarding Nikon only serves to showcase your ignorance (which is fine, there's no real need to know much about camera systems you don't use). Seriously though, you might as well just not talk about Nikon. The 105/AI-s (and mostly the identical 105-AI that it followed) isn't safe to mount because of when it was launched. It's safe to mount because it's an AI(s) lens. The year of introduction is rather immaterial except as historical trivia since whether it will mount safely is indicated by the name of the lens.SPOOFE wrote:You are very likely to damage your camera if you try to attach one of those pre-1977 F-mount lenses without modifying the lens' aperture linkage. The well-regarded AI-S 105mm f/2.5 lens was introduced in 1982, so it does just fine on the D300.I can stumble on most any lens made all the way back in 1959 and play around with it.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Or you could just look at the lenses, see that they aren't labeled AI or AF, and know that without looking up the lens's date of manufacture. Somehow I think my process of just reading the lens is a bit easier. Also, your date on the 105 is wrong, in addition to being somewhat irrelevant.There weren't any AI or AI-S lenses prior to 1977. We can therefore conclude that F-mount lenses produced from 1959 to 1976 should be modified before mounting them to modern cameras, if you decide to use a museum piece for current photography. It's simple deductive reasoning, not ignorance as you proclaim.
You are very likely to damage your camera if you try to attach one of those pre-1977 F-mount lenses without modifying the lens' aperture linkage.
Canon did produce FD to EF adapters for a while in the late 1980s to aid in the transition.
The inexpensive adapter that I linked above would also let you attach those old F-mount manual lenses to a Canon EOS camera. While it is certainly possible to get great photographs with a totally manual exposure, it's a lot easier with modern automatic equipment.
liquidsquid wrote:Hey, the Nikon flash commander is a good thing. The rest of us have to spend a fortune for something like that.Yes, Nikon has a great flash system, but last I checked I have yet to see a person who argues its merits and actually use it.
liquidsquid wrote:I use it. High ISO is no replacement for properly-employed flash.Yes Nikon has a great flash system, but last I checked I have yet to see a person who argues its merits and actually use it. The reason we get cameras with high ISO capability is to avoid using the flash in the first place.
liquidsquid wrote:Not a huge deal anyway in either case. A bit of difference here and there is hardly make or break. The more significant difference is in control over depth of field and subject isolation, which may or may not matter in a given situation. Diffraction will kick in a bit sooner as well. Realistically, the more important limitations are system size and age. You may or may not be able to get what you want and there just isn't the same selection of legacy glass to pick up new or used. They're fine enough cameras, like just about everything you can by these days, but don't see (the original) 4/3 as a good bargain - performance tradeoffs (however inconsequential they've become) vs aps-c, but no real compactness or price advantage. m4/3 is another matter entirely, of course. It's what the format should have been in the first place.And lately, the crap is flying about 4/3 sensors vs. APS-C. "Oh, the 4/3 is dinky therefore it is noisy! Oh, the 4/3 cannot hold a candle to the APS-C cameras!" Not so true any more.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Ahh yes, because that really offers on-camera control of flashes and TTL operation...liquidsquid wrote:Hey, the Nikon flash commander is a good thing. The rest of us have to spend a fortune for something like that.Yes, Nikon has a great flash system, but last I checked I have yet to see a person who argues its merits and actually use it.
mattsteg wrote:m4/3 is another matter entirely, of course. It's what the format should have been in the first place.
Yes Nikon has a great flash system, but last I checked I have yet to see a person who argues its merits and actually use it. The reason we get cameras with high ISO capability is to avoid using the flash in the first place.
SPOOFE wrote:I use it a whole helluva lot, and is one of the most important features in Nikon's lineup to me.
And I can only note the irony of your whining about Canon/Nikon users and then turning right around running an ad for Micro 4/3s. If you're going to act like you're above the tumult, at least stay consistent.
Well, you likely aren't the majority of P&S shooters gone dSLR then, actually using your equipment to its fullest.
The problem I have with "Canikon" is they are both very good systems, but the user base gets so passionate about the details and merits of each when they are trying to help, that the really useful basic information for beginners such as myself gets lost in the noise.
I couldn't sort out the mess when I was done with my research back when I was looking apart from knowing: I have to go try it myself, and learn from my own mistakes, and there may be compatibility issues when trying to use my dad's old glass. Never really got straight answers.
I should say I never got straight answers to specific questions at the time... like "What system has similar performance to the Sony R1 and a decent zoom of similar range?" All I received was a huge dissertation of the available glass out there, none of which met my needs.
There really wasn't anything out there which went from f2.8 24-120 and was sharp and reasonably undistorted with very low CA and vignetting throughout it's range from corner to corner and affordable.
and thus the not-straight answers from people on the Canon and Nikon forums who could not accept the fact that a simple Sony R1 could be so good with IQ that I could not find a comparable solution in my price range.
Now I hope I am still posting useful data for the OP, I think I have stolen this thread...
mattsteg wrote:liquidsquid wrote:I use it. High ISO is no replacement for properly-employed flash.Yes Nikon has a great flash system, but last I checked I have yet to see a person who argues its merits and actually use it. The reason we get cameras with high ISO capability is to avoid using the flash in the first place.
liquidsquid wrote:There was more money in glass than I have in my car on some cams (that isn't saying much!)
liquidsquid wrote:The problem I have with "Canikon" is they are both very good systems, but the user base gets so passionate about the details and merits of each when they are trying to help, that the really useful basic information for beginners such as myself gets lost in the noise. (Take the old lens argument in this thread as example) The arguments go on and on.
liquidsquid wrote:I should say I never got straight answers to specific questions at the time... like "What system has similar performance to the Sony R1 and a decent zoom of similar range?"
Madman wrote:You're doing it wrong if you encounter those problems.mattsteg wrote:liquidsquid wrote:I use it. High ISO is no replacement for properly-employed flash.Yes Nikon has a great flash system, but last I checked I have yet to see a person who argues its merits and actually use it. The reason we get cameras with high ISO capability is to avoid using the flash in the first place.
Yes and no. Flash almost is always bad. I hate it. It always mixes with the natural light and makes the white balance go hi-wire. Reflections from face sucks, red eyes suck, all the wrinkles multiplied with flash sucks, sharp shades suck. Basically flash sucks.
Madman wrote:There's a fairly sizable middle ground.Unless... You have a huge umbrellas, multiple reflectors, you can move the flash around a lot and so on.
mattsteg wrote:Madman wrote:You're doing it wrong if you encounter those problems.mattsteg wrote:...
Yes and no. Flash almost is always bad. I hate it. It always mixes with the natural light and makes the white balance go hi-wire. Reflections from face sucks, red eyes suck, all the wrinkles multiplied with flash sucks, sharp shades suck. Basically flash sucks.Madman wrote:There's a fairly sizable middle ground.Unless... You have a huge umbrellas, multiple reflectors, you can move the flash around a lot and so on.