|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
canon or nikon?
I have a Canon 20D with a 28-135 and 19-55 mm lens. I do a lot of photojournalism and street photography as well as editorial and fashion shoots usually outdoors.. (I want to work on getting a backdrop and 1 or 2 lights). Now, I have this urge to get a new camera and thinking of going NIKON as there is something sharp and HD looking about NIKON images or at least in my opinion, so perhaps the Nikon D5100 or D700 as the price point is in my budget it. or I can perhaps get the canon60D and call it a day.. Any opinions? I really wanna focus on fashion photography and need an upgrade from my 20D THANKS Jun 24 12 10:43 am Link if you don't need to shoot sports, check out the mirrorless cameras: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/all-revie … s-central/ i love my fuji x-pro1. Jun 24 12 10:48 am Link Session36 Photography wrote: Quite a price difference between the D5100 and a D700. Jun 24 12 10:48 am Link Paul AI wrote: Ya i saw that too, pretty sure he meant the D7000! Jun 24 12 10:49 am Link The sensor has far less to do with the sharpness of the images it produces than the lenses. Instead of investing in a new body, I would suggest investing in an L lens for your Canon. Or rent one and see if that makes you happy. I see no justification for you to switch brands. Jun 24 12 10:50 am Link Session36 Photography wrote: From my understanding a lot of photographers shoot the same stuff as listed with the same level of gear or less then with magical results. So maybe the problem with shapeness in user error ?/ Jun 24 12 10:54 am Link Session36 Photography wrote: If you need to ask "Nikon or Canon" then you should consider not buying any new gear and instead invest in and learn more about the skill and art of photography.. especially considering that you think that the camera has something to do with the images looking "HD" and you think you really need an upgrade from the 20D in order to do fashion photography. Jun 24 12 11:01 am Link Session36 Photography wrote: If you don't know what you need, you probably don't really need it. Jun 24 12 11:01 am Link Sorry, I disagree with a lot of people here. The 20d is very old technology. For me, the LCD is more than enough reason to upgrade to a new camera. If the OP has the money and the inclination, I would certainly upgrade. IF the OP is comparing to a 60d, then to me it would be the Canon 60d or the Nikon D7000. They are similar class cameras. My personal preference would be the D7000, because it is a metal camera and a little more capable, but ... the truth is either one would serve him well. My advice to the OP is to go to the camera store, hold them both in your hands, play with them and see what fits you better. Either one woud be a good choice. Jun 24 12 11:06 am Link 2004 = Very old technology  Some of my cameras are from the 1940s. While yes, new cameras with new features are fun, more $ spent does not = better photographer or better photography. I agree with the rest, OP needs to master the camera he has, and *then* decide if an upgrade or brand switch would benefit him. Jun 24 12 11:14 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Are you saying that a photogapher can't produce good sharp photos with a canon 20d ?/ Jun 24 12 11:24 am Link A photographer was telling me about this magazine issue he is being featured in where the photographers were asked to shoot with disposable cameras. Pretty cool, really shows that it's the artist not the gear. Jun 24 12 11:48 am Link The 20D is a very capable camera, I still shoot on one. (along with my 5D2 & 7D). In 2004 everyone though it was the dogs b*****ks in terms of image quailty. Many millions of pictures taken with a 20D have been sold worldwide, it's quality is no worse now than it was 8 years ago, and many of those pictues in stock libraries are still selling. OP, I reckon you ought try some good glass before you invest in new a new camera. The 28-135 and the 18-55 are not top lenses for IQ, there are many better.. Jun 24 12 11:58 am Link *yawn* Again? Jun 24 12 12:05 pm Link Stay Canon as you have started with Canon lenses. I am a Nikon user and while I love my d7000 I think I could get good and similar results with a Canon. Canon is a great company. One thing I would advise in tandem with exploring different lighting techniques is learning all the camera functions, which helps tremendously with getting everything out of your camera, performance-wise. I can't claim that I know every function of my camera in an effortless way, but I know quite a bit about how it works, from sensor performance through to quickly setting up off-camera manual flash settings. From what I've seen the Canon 7D gives a lot of options and has great video to boot, so I would try and get a used one. I highly recommend Nikon D7000 and I would love to get a D700 full frame but before that I would rather buy an infinity backdrop to setup my apartment studio. And I would also prefer to buy some scrim and also some gels before I bought another camera. I would also like a few more lenses. Jun 24 12 12:08 pm Link Zenith Jun 24 12 12:08 pm Link Canon 7D with a 24mm to 105mm L Lens Or even upgrading your glass will help Jun 24 12 12:11 pm Link My pops and pans are the newest and cost a lot of money, that is why I am a great chef! Jun 24 12 12:11 pm Link When I was first starting out with photography, I had a Canon film camera (don't even remember the model - I think maybe something like FM2). The images weren't sharp and I wasn't satisfied. I had the perception at the time that Nikon was a higher end brand than Canon, so I 'upgraded' to Nikon. Suddenly the pictures were so much sharper and better. I went to the camera store and asked if they knew why this was. The reply was that it was just a better camera. So, for years that's what I thought. Moving forward 20 years or so of photography experience, when I look back at this, I realize it probably had nothing (or very little) to do with Canon vs. Nikon, but had more to do with a crap lens (either just a low-budget lens or a lens with a problem/defect). I happen to still be a Nikon shooter and I'm not switching to Canon anytime soon - particularly now that Nikon seriously addressed the needs (finally) of the pro studio photographer with the D800. But with that all said, it probably wasn't the fact that I was using the Canon brand at the very beginning at all. Jun 24 12 12:19 pm Link I have an old 20D and still use it. I would not buy the 60D look at the 7D or 50D if you go Nikon you won't have any lens were as if you stick with canon you will have 2 lens and a back up body with your new canon body L2 Jun 24 12 12:19 pm Link KonstantKarma wrote: With film cameras historically, the difference in a new body was 'features', now that we're on the digital slippery slope, not so much. Now, there's a real quantitative quality difference in the resulting images between a 2004 and a 2012 camera. Jun 24 12 12:27 pm Link Session36 Photography wrote: I personally don't think jumping ship is the answer here. Some might not agree with me, but i 100% think you should definitely upgrade your camera as its old now. Jun 24 12 12:30 pm Link KonstantKarma wrote: Is your film from the 1940's too or do you buy it new? Jun 24 12 12:37 pm Link canon or nikon? pentax!  Images by MR wrote: depends on the shapes. circles, triangles and squares, sure. dodecahedrons? forget about it. Jun 24 12 12:38 pm Link Moon Pix Photography wrote: Jun 24 12 12:40 pm Link ultimate dream wrote: Thanks for the tip... Jun 24 12 12:44 pm Link Studio La Donna wrote: and you do comedy as well.. Too funny some of you are... but I can roll with the punches. Jun 24 12 12:50 pm Link But there is obviously a need for better quality photo products out there or they would not be sold an with this in mind maybe I wanna craft my skills on a different product. Since the majority of the posts seem to agree it's more about the user and (I agree to an extend) how about you send me your high end camera and let the me suffer poor image quality as rookie and I'll send you my 20D and you can continue with your amazing images. I'll cover shipping both ways. The small LCD on the 20D is enough to make me wanna throw it against a wall. The point of a better lens makes a lot of sense so will see if I can give it a try. if my post is worthy of a YAWN", try skipping it next time as it will have the same impact (shrugging my shoulders) Thanks for the kind feedback, Jun 24 12 01:00 pm Link The 20D is a fantastic camera. Spending $1000 on lenses, it will produce better images than spending $1000 on a body and keeping your current lenses. I still shoot with my 300d (a step down and a generation older than the 20D) and get images I love. 300d - 50 1.8 - $45 speedlite  Yes, the newer cameras are better, faster, etc... but unless you're pushing the limits of current gear, is all that 'better-ness' doing you any good? Though with a $1,000 budget (stretch that by selling your 20d and lenses?) I would suggest: Canon T2i - $385 (canon loyalty program - same IQ as 60D) 50 1.4 - $350 Tamron 28-75 2.8 - $350 -$1,085 and a fantastic kit... Jun 24 12 01:02 pm Link You will be well served by either brand. Jun 24 12 01:12 pm Link Nikon rumors may be announcing the D600 http://dslrreleasedate.com/new-camera-f … 2012-d600/ Jun 24 12 01:17 pm Link ultimate dream wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Camera is not just as important. When it comes to image quality, lenses definitely trumps the camera. Jun 24 12 02:03 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: I upgraded from a 20D to a 7D. Jun 24 12 02:27 pm Link Images by MR wrote: I went from 8 megapixels to 18 megapixels when I upgraded from the 20D to the 7D. Jun 24 12 02:32 pm Link Wow, you held out past a couple of upgrades. I'm a Canon user too. Best thing you can do after establishing your price point is rent or borrow the camera and check the test shots on PS. Might help you to test it with L glass too. Don't really use Nikon, but same applies. If I were in your shoes, I'd skip the 60D super rebel and go with a 7D if you're looking prosumer. I'll be upping to a 5D3 from a 50D myself. Check the MTF charts for your 28-135 vs. L glass to get an idea of what glass to try. Jun 24 12 02:43 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: Images by MR wrote: A photographer can certainly capture shapes with a 20d. They can even produce good images. You are dreaming though if you don't realize that dynamic range, color depth and low light performance has improved dramatically from a 20d to a 60d (or 7d). The cameras aren't in the same league. To think they were would be naive. Jun 24 12 02:52 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: Jerry Nemeth wrote: The 7d is a much better camera than a 60d. It just wasn't on the list that he was considering, but the image quality between them is about the same. Jun 24 12 02:53 pm Link ultimate dream wrote: Wow, after seeing your port, it would be hard to dissagree with you that the sky wasn't blue. Gorgeous. Jun 24 12 02:57 pm Link Why switch? Why not use both? I understand the expense of having to buy new lenses for both, but at the same time, I don't really think it's an either/or thing. I don't understand why there's such a divide about it. I intend on buying a D3200 within the next year (unless Canon comes out with something comparable), even though right now I shoot with a Rebel XS. I don't see the need to stick to one brand or the other, except for the lens issues. Though, there's a lot of glass out there that is interchangeable, so there goes that argument as well. Jun 24 12 03:03 pm Link Nikon is no better for fashion than Canon is. They both take good, sharp photos in the hands of somebody who knows what they're doing. At least 95% of the image is about YOU, not your camera. If you have Canon lenses and feel that you've outgrown your 20d then look at something like a used 50D or maybe a 7D, both of which are more than adequate for shooting fashion and beauty to magazine level. More mp doesn't equal sharper pictures, just more blurry pixels if you get it wrong. Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Jun 24 12 03:09 pm Link |
