Looked at Nikon D90 and Canon XSi

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:41:06 +1100, John Kecskes wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:36:18 GMT, measekite
> wrote:
>
> I did the same thing, use Canon and Nikon film camera also have a
> Nikon 5700 and Canon XSi or 450D, The Canon felt much better to me,
> plus I also had a 50mm 1.4 and a tele lens, so that helped to make up
> my mind. The biggest draw back I had against the D90 was the movie
> future, why have it in the first place, I would have liked some other
> function in the place, if I want to use it to make a movie I get me a
> movie camera. My Canon does take good picture once I played with the
> settings, straight out of the box had a green co lour cast, but this
> is just my opinion, others may have different out look on this. I was
> a die hard Nikon use on till now.
> cheers, John
>
>
>>I just briefly looked at both of these cameras. I did like the menu
>>system of the Canon better. It seemed easier to use. I also liked the
>>fact that when you held is eye level and looked thru the finder the LCD
>>turned off. I did not like the position of the shutter release and felt
>>the camera was not that comfortable to hold.
>>
>>I liked the feel of the D90 but not some of the ergonomics and the menu
>>system. I heard there was a two button sequence to return the shooting
>>menu to default but not the entire menu system but could not find them.
>>
>>It was also more difficult to see the focus points telling you it was in
>>focus.
>>
>>I did NOT like the fact that the LCD would not go off when you held the
>>camera at eye level. And the review LCD went on before you took the
>>camera away. I was told Nikon does not have this feature.
>>
>>Between the two I really would have a hard choice since I really do not
>>like either that well. From what I read I should take a good look at the
>>Canon 50D. If the look and feel is better than the rebel then it may be
>>worth the money.
>>
>>I did take a few shots with the 5DmkII and thought that was great but
>>$4,000 for body and lens is a bit steep.

Read some more reviews and also read about the Canon 50D. The reviews
said that the controls of the 50D was from not so great to horrible. The
reviews of the Nikon D90 said the controls were well placed and better and
the menus about the same which is preference. The D90 felt a bit better
in my hands and the controls did feel better placed.

Now you are comparing 12mp vs 15mp. Do not know how much difference that
makes in a cropped 11x14 or larger. The Nikon is 12 bit vs 14 bit for the
Canon.

Then there is the price favoring the Nikon D80 by about $500 with lenses
costing about the same for similar.

The big kicker is future upgrades. The upgrade to the Canon 5DII is a no
brainer. Good feel, good ergonomics and with 21mp for $2700 it is a no
brainer for better image quality over the Nikon D700. Currently there
does not seem to be an upgrade path for the D90 to the $2700 price range.

If Nikon up the D700 to about 21mp to compete then what happens to the D3.

What they really need is to match Canon in the 5DmkII and either call it
the D800 or the D4. What makes sense to me is to call it the D800 and
then upgrade the D3X to the D4 and have that go against the 1DsMkIII which
will come out.

So now I would like to know what the difference is in image quality
between the D90 and the 50D. I would also like to know which camera body
is better not so much in features or build quality but in usage.

The problem with most reviews is they do not adequately compare the usage,
ergonomics, controls, printed image quality in various sizes against one
another in the same review. It is almost like they are concerned about
getting advertising than to do that.

Your ideas are welcome.
 >> Stay informed about: Looked at Nikon D90 and Canon XSi 

measekite wrote:

> Now you are comparing 12mp vs 15mp. Do not know how much difference that
> makes in a cropped 11x14 or larger. The Nikon is 12 bit vs 14 bit for the
> Canon.

The difference in color depth is a significant advantage for the XSi.
OTOH, the D90 has a video mode and some people may find this to be an
advantage. The D90 feels much better made, but this is because of the
feel of the plastic, there may not be any difference.

> If Nikon up the D700 to about 21mp to compete then what happens to the D3.

This is almost certain to happen, and soon.

I think an issue you may be overlooking is the cost and quality of the
glass. For the mid-range lenses, Canon has a pretty significant
advantage. At the lower end lenses, Nikon has an advantage, and at the
very high end Canon has a big advantage.

OTOH, since you're already talking about full-frame body upgrades, you
won't be able to take advantage of some of the L quality optics in some
of the Canon EF-s lenses, since you wouldn't buy EF-s lenses (or DX
lenses for Nikon for that matter).

This evening I was at a wedding banquet where my niece had her new D90,
and it was really nice, but I haven't had an XSi to compare it to. Her
brother had a D200. I showed up with my lowly 20D because my wife had
insisted that I bring my D-SLR since there would be no photographer
there (the couple got married several months ago in Korea, and this was
the "U.S. relatives" party), and my wife thought that I was the only one
in the family with a D-SLR, but suddenly there were three family members
with D-SLRs all running around taking photos. Not to get into the P&S
versus D-SLR debate again, but in talking to my niece and nephew, one
got the D-SLR because his daughter is competing in gymnastics at a high
level and the P&S was hopeless due to AF lag, and one got the D-SLR
because she became disgusted with the low-light performance of her P&S
cameras. I still took most of the photos at the banquet because I was
the only one with a wide-angle lens and an external flash. My nephew
doesn't want to buy the Nikon 12-24 wide angle because he has visions of
upgrading to full frame when Nikon brings out the successor to the D700
and the 12-24 is a DX lens (personally I think that this is not all that
big a deal because the Nikon lenses have high resale value if he wanted
to dump the 12-24 once he goes full frame).

The funniest moment was when I commented on my nephew's use of a Pentax
branded carrying case for his D200. He said that he uses the Pentax bag
as a decoy because no one would want to steal a Pentax camera!
 >> Stay informed about: Looked at Nikon D90 and Canon XSi 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:31:54 -0800, SMS wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Now you are comparing 12mp vs 15mp. Do not know how much difference that
>> makes in a cropped 11x14 or larger. The Nikon is 12 bit vs 14 bit for the
>> Canon.
>
> The difference in color depth is a significant advantage for the XSi.
> OTOH, the D90 has a video mode and some people may find this to be an
> advantage. The D90 feels much better made, but this is because of the
> feel of the plastic, there may not be any difference.



How significant and how noticeable would it be in a print. What
differences would you actually see.
>
>> If Nikon up the D700 to about 21mp to compete then what happens to the
>> D3.
>
> This is almost certain to happen, and soon.
>
> I think an issue you may be overlooking is the cost and quality of the
> glass. For the mid-range lenses, Canon has a pretty significant
> advantage. At the lower end lenses, Nikon has an advantage, and at the
> very high end Canon has a big advantage.


What lenses are we talking about and how significant?



>
> OTOH, since you're already talking about full-frame body upgrades, you

As far as full frame at a high but not astronomical and unjustifiable
price the Canon 5DmkII cannot be beat. Why get a full frame if you cannot
make a terrific 16x20 (cropped) and the Canon does that. The Nikon needs
more mp to do that well so it seems to me that the D700 is just a place
holder. Like the D3 as well. But the D3x is really way overpriced.

> won't be able to take advantage of some of the L quality optics in some
> of the Canon EF-s lenses, since you wouldn't buy EF-s lenses (or DX
> lenses for Nikon for that matter).
>
> This evening I was at a wedding banquet where my niece had her new D90,
> and it was really nice, but I haven't had an XSi to compare it to. Her
> brother had a D200. I showed up with my lowly 20D because my wife had
> insisted that I bring my D-SLR since there would be no photographer
> there (the couple got married several months ago in Korea, and this was
> the "U.S. relatives" party), and my wife thought that I was the only one
> in the family with a D-SLR, but suddenly there were three family members
> with D-SLRs all running around taking photos. Not to get into the P&S
> versus D-SLR debate again, but in talking to my niece and nephew, one
> got the D-SLR because his daughter is competing in gymnastics at a high
> level and the P&S was hopeless due to AF lag, and one got the D-SLR
> because she became disgusted with the low-light performance of her P&S
> cameras. I still took most of the photos at the banquet because I was
> the only one with a wide-angle lens and an external flash. My nephew
> doesn't want to buy the Nikon 12-24 wide angle because he has visions of
> upgrading to full frame when Nikon brings out the successor to the D700
> and the 12-24 is a DX lens (personally I think that this is not all that
> big a deal because the Nikon lenses have high resale value if he wanted
> to dump the 12-24 once he goes full frame).
>
> The funniest moment was when I commented on my nephew's use of a Pentax
> branded carrying case for his D200. He said that he uses the Pentax bag
> as a decoy because no one would want to steal a Pentax camera!
 >> Stay informed about: Looked at Nikon D90 and Canon XSi 

measekite wrote:

> How significant and how noticeable would it be in a print. What
> differences would you actually see.

I doubt that you'd notice it at all on smaller prints. On large prints,
if you compared them side by side, you'd notice a difference (if you
were looking for it).

> What lenses are we talking about and how significant?

Lenses like the wide angle. Canon EF-s 10-22 versus Nikon 12-24 AF-S DX.
The Canon lens is both less expensive (by about $200) and higher
quality. However if you're already planning for full frame, you may be
avoiding the EF-s and DX lenses. There are others as well.

Nikon seems to have the edge in quality when you compare low-end lenses
from Canon to those from Nikon, but in the mid-range, Canon has the
advantages. And of course as you know, Nikon lacks any of the fluorite
lenses at the high end.
 >> Stay informed about: Looked at Nikon D90 and Canon XSi 

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:25:48 -0800, SMS wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> How significant and how noticeable would it be in a print. What
>> differences would you actually see.
>
> I doubt that you'd notice it at all on smaller prints. On large prints,
> if you compared them side by side, you'd notice a difference (if you
> were looking for it).

What size range do you consider small and what size range do you consider
large. 16x20 8x10 etc

>
>> What lenses are we talking about and how significant?
>
> Lenses like the wide angle. Canon EF-s 10-22 versus Nikon 12-24 AF-S DX.
> The Canon lens is both less expensive (by about $200) and higher
> quality. However if you're already planning for full frame, you may be
> avoiding the EF-s and DX lenses. There are others as well.
>
> Nikon seems to have the edge in quality when you compare low-end lenses
> from Canon to those from Nikon, but in the mid-range, Canon has the
> advantages. And of course as you know, Nikon lacks any of the fluorite
> lenses at the high end.
 >> Stay informed about: Looked at Nikon D90 and Canon XSi