[Litos]

i heard the only Canons out there that perform as good as their Nikon counterpart was the 5dMKII.

i have personally been around and shot the MKII and it's amazing, but well over the OP's budget. still doesn't perform as well as it's Nikon counterpart - D700.

i think that when you compare two equally priced entry level Canons/Nikons, the Nikon always come out ahead.

i'd rather go with a D3100, BUT, once you start shooting and beuing sucked into the photography world, you'll clearly want more - might as well start off with the D7000.

[cadeucsb]

I love my d90, but I only got it because its the only nikon that can utilize AF with older Nikon lenses. Its not a camera for someone buying their first DSLR. I mean it will work, but your overkilling it big time if youre coming from point/shoots.

Like the others have said before, look at the entry level canon DSLRs. Great functionality, great quality and much better pricing than the prosumer models.

I would go canon all the time and owned two before my d90, but having so many expensive Nikon lenses, shifted me that direction.

The biggest downside about the d90 video is not that its only 720p, its that it has a max record time of 5min due to overheating.

[cadeucsb]

Originally Posted by Litos

i think that when you compare two equally priced entry level Canons/Nikons, the Nikon always come out ahead.

Nikon ruled the 35mm world, but has been a follower to Canon in the digital world since day 1.

[Litos]

Canon still can't get away from noisy shots at higher ISO's.

and the color saturation straight from the Nikon is so much richer and realistic.

that's even shooting with the $450 D40 HAHA !!!! (which is a steal and a half for that price). i'll sell my D700 before i ever sell my D40.

if you can find a lightly used D40 on C-List, jump all over that. best camera on the market under $900 - seriously.

Nikon D40 + 18-200VR = $1200 (all you'll need is an extrenal flash and you'll be set.

[cadeucsb]

Originally Posted by Litos

Canon still can't get away from noisy shots at higher ISO's.

and the color saturation straight from the Nikon is so much richer and realistic.

Having owned both brands, I cant say I agree whatsoever on either of these points. I shoot a ton of high iso/no flash. My canon d30 still had one of the best color saturation levels of any camera I have used (and it was all of 3 MP).

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by Litos

i heard the only Canons out there that perform as good as their Nikon counterpart was the 5dMKII.

i have personally been around and shot the MKII and it's amazing, but well over the OP's budget. still doesn't perform as well as it's Nikon counterpart - D700.

i think that when you compare two equally priced entry level Canons/Nikons, the Nikon always come out ahead.

i'd rather go with a D3100, BUT, once you start shooting and beuing sucked into the photography world, you'll clearly want more - might as well start off with the D7000.

Out of curiosity, where do you feel that the D700 outperforms the 5Dmk2?

[leemik]

Asking an internet discussion forum which SLR is better is like asking which car is better.. Audi, BMW or Benz.. you're gonna get a 100000000000x diff opinions and none of them are really wrong..

Honestly, any DSLR you can afford is decent for a beginner.. It's 85% photographer skill anyways. I have some mofo setups now but my fav pics ever were still taken with a 6 y/o Canon 20D that can be had for $150 now lol

[Litos]

the 5dMKII's AF system has to keep hunting in low light - actually the AF system of the D700 is king.

5dMKii is a bit grainer in the dark areas (shadows), even under normal ISO's

D700 has no lateral color fringes - if you're into that kind of stuff

those are just a few i can think of. and like i said, i shot both camera for about 3 weeks straight. i shot the Canon first, then the Nikon. stuck with the Nikon.

[Litos]

oh.........

D700 shoots at more FPS

even if you have DX lenses, you can use them on your FX D700 whereas the DX lenses won't even mouynt on the 5dMKII (which means you'll have to buy a complete array of lenses as opposed to using the ones you already have)

the D700's one hand shooting is awesome and very convenient.

5dMKII has a retarded image playback system - Canon dropped the ball on that one.

programmable auto ISO is great for any "non professional" setting.

the ADR from the D700 is superior.

[Litos]

my D700 works for me, so i need it to be great in specific areas: the af system and the fact that it's faster in low light than the 5dMKII was a good selling point.

will there be better bodies coming out by the end of the year !?!? of course, that's why it's always best to invest in glass.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by leemik

Asking an internet discussion forum which SLR is better is like asking which car is better.. Audi, BMW or Benz.. you're gonna get a 100000000000x diff opinions and none of them are really wrong..

Honestly, any DSLR you can afford is decent for a beginner.. It's 85% photographer skill anyways. I have some mofo setups now but my fav pics ever were still taken with a 6 y/o Canon 20D that can be had for $150 now lol

Hey! Don't be knocking on the 20D... it's what I use.

Thanks for your comments and observations Litos.

[Litos]

just so you know, i'm in love with the 5dMKII because it's pretty much identical to the D700, but it just so happened that the D700 performs slightly better in the areas where i personally need it to (low light mostly). the af system is delicious also

and we all know the 1080p on the MKII is insanely good. that camera will make 98% of people jealous HAHA !!!!

[FStop7]

5D2 would be a total waste of money for a novice

[Litos]

Originally Posted by FStop7

5D2 would be a total waste of money for a novice

agreed.

what on the market right now for Canon is equivelant to the D7000 or D90?

that would be a great comparison and ultimately the best purchase.

i think he would get sucked into the photography world and would be wanting more once he learns all the camera mumbo jumbo.

maybe an entry level camera would leave much to be desired after about 7 or 8 months.

[Litos]

p.s.
i remember getting my first DSLR back in 2006. it was a D200.

i shot on Program mode for about a year because i had NO FREAKING CLUE how to use it and i didn't shoot enough with it to understand why one picture came out different than the other.

pretty good waste of $2100 5 years ago.

[FStop7]

Originally Posted by Litos

agreed.

what on the market right now for Canon is equivelant to the D7000 or D90?

that would be a great comparison and ultimately the best purchase.

i think he would get sucked into the photography world and would be wanting more once he learns all the camera mumbo jumbo.

maybe an entry level camera would leave much to be desired after about 7 or 8 months.

i think anyone who is new should get a used body like a 40D or 50D. Maybe a new 60D. i don't recommend rebels because i don't like plastic bodies, but they are undeniably good cameras. I think it's more important to spend money on glass because 1) it has a very direct impact on images and it grows with you and 2) good glass does not depreciate like bodies do. so if you decide to sell you will take a smaller hit.

i don't think there's anything "wrong" with starting off on program AE or the green box when you're new, it gives you a better chance of positive results and gets your confidence up. plus it lets you stay focused on nothing but composition rather than juggling 5 different parameters plus composition.

[Litos]

oh, now that you mention it, i heard the 40D was a great little camera.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by FStop7

i think anyone who is new should get a used body like a 40D or 50D. Maybe a new 60D. i don't recommend rebels because i don't like plastic bodies, but they are undeniably good cameras. I think it's more important to spend money on glass because 1) it has a very direct impact on images and it grows with you and 2) good glass does not depreciate like bodies do. so if you decide to sell you will take a smaller hit.

i don't think there's anything "wrong" with starting off on program AE or the green box when you're new, it gives you a better chance of positive results and gets your confidence up. plus it lets you stay focused on nothing but composition rather than juggling 5 different parameters plus composition.

I have to agree. I'm having just a tinge of buyer's remorse. Not because I don't like the T1i, but because I think the 60D would have been a better investment for not a lot more cash. If I had it to do again, I would have gone with a 60D body only and then picked up a 35mm f2 and a better mid-range zoom.

[krnboy817]

hmm no one here is an oly (olympus) fan?

[The1]

from my personal experience (with canon) if you were to chose a canon, i would say to skip past the rebels alltogether and grab onto one the the 40-50-60D, however, if you wanted something more entry level then those, from what i have seen, Nikon out of the box takes better pictures in their entry level stuff.

I think it's mostly down to the cheap glass that Canon puts into their entry level starter kits.

I would recommend to anyone now, buy body only, then pick up a lens you want/need, not something that just comes with the kit, it's a waste of money. (even though you'd be saving a couple dollars on a piece of glass/ but it will turn out to be poor)

I love my Canons, wouldn't second guess them, but if i were to do a rebel again (had a t1i for a short time), i would seriously consider Nikon instead.

Having used the 5DmkII for a while, i love it, but now that i've tryed some of the newer stuff i can see just how out of date it's technowlogy is. The AF system that is comming along now (seen in the 7D and to a lesser extent the 60D) puts the 5D to shame. But it still rules the others for it's ISO filtering.

If you were to start with a canon and wanted to start new, I'd recomend the 60D has all the functions and the swivel screen and a better auto focus.

or start with the entry level Nikons.

Once you start looking more professional, you're going to start getting a lot of people arguing what's best and getting nowhere.

They both have pros and cons.

I don't include other companies because i don't feel that they have carried as much of a name as Canon or Nikon into the world of digital photography, if we were discussing film i would probably say Nikon, and a few years further back still, Pentax.

This is just my opinion, and it looks like you're leaning towards an entry level Nikon, and it think you won't be unhappy with the choice. and JZang is selling some lenses somewhere in here for nikons! So get on that!!!

[remmib]

Guys, OP budget is $1000-$1300, so it has the be somthing cheaper than the NIkon D7000 kit.

[Halpin13]

hi,

i got into photography and got my first DSLR just under a year ago and i went for the Nikon D5000 kit camera with the 18-55 lens and recently bought the 55-200.
(couldn't afford right now the 18-200)

In my opinion i think this camera for starting out is great, takes really crisp shots and the button layout and working around the camera is easy to do. the camera as the cool swirl screen for taking good quality movie clips etc.

Also if you wanted to take quick shots like your point and shoot camera, the D5000 has live view and good old auto to combined with

i good all around starter DSLR in my eyes.