Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-669.html)

Technically 5100 may have better numbers because of a newer sensor, but d90 belongs to the next class even if older. The pentaprism viewfinder is a big factor for professionals. Most of the wedding photographers and Konica studio guys use d90, which means when you want to sell your d90 you will have more takers than for d5100.

Canon 650D released in India at 56K. This is a good time to grab 550D. The prices I think
have gone down by 5K.

Canon launches EOS 650D in India at Rs. 55,995 | NDTV Gadgets

I ordered "Nikon Cleaning Kit Lens Cleaner" few days ago and got it today.

Nikon Cleaning Kit Lens Cleaner | Lens Cleaner | Flipkart.com

Lenspen quality is not the best but acceptable.

For Rs.600/- (MRP 1000), it is a good buy and I am happy with my purchase.

I think that is an individual choice. There are people who like holding Nikon also.
That is why it is always good to feel the camera before you buy.

Just getting one based on the review may not suffice. Your own experience is a perfect
example. You went thinking one, felt both, and liked the other one.

Exactly, first shot shows the REAL HDR, the reason I say it, looking at it, one cannot say its an HDR. This is how HDR is suppose to be, not over cooked, over processed abominationg.

Sorry mate, but Nikon are better when it comes to Menu system (light years ahead of Canon) and ergonomics. But in the end its a personal opinion and user's hands/eyes.

I use both, hence I am basing on my opinion.

Exactly ;)

No one is going to entertain such comments stated without any information to substantiate the point. Pictures are far better when they are taken better. Or are there any major technical drawbacks which makes Nikon cameras (or lenses) produce inferior images to Canon?

Around 5 years back( or more) Nikon and Canon had clearly defined strengths and weaknesses and based on their requirements people were making choice. As per my understanding following was the scenario 5 years back:

Canon Strengths-
- Faster focussing lences due to their USM technology - now Nikon and Sigma has lenses with this technology
- Image stabilization - Now Nikon has VR ( though people say Canon is better, it is debatable)
- Better lens lineup - Now Nikon matches canon lens to lens for most range
- Cleaner ( with less noise) pictures due to CMOS censors - now I believe Sony/Nikon have improved and they have either CMOS or their CCDs match Canon
- Better organized menu system - I found Canon more intutive and user friendly ( but this is my personal opinion, I know some people will vouch for Nikon UI)

Nikon Strengths -
- Better exposure and metering - This was one of the tredinational strengths - I believe Canon has made improvements but not sure how they stand v/s Nikon
- Better Flash system - ability to operate/fire multiple flesh etc ( don't have better idea - but believe Nikon was better here)
- Better built bodies - this was one of area where Nikon was always perceived better for sturdiness of body
- View finder - Nikon was perceived ( and I also have seen) that their view finder had more % coverage of actual picture and in general looked brighter

Now, some areas where Nikon cought up with Nikon and vice versa was due to the fact that Canon held patent for few technologies, while Nikon held for others and after 20 years(period after which -I believe-technology becomes available for general use despite patent) these technological advances became available to compitition.

Currently both Canon and Nikon provide good systems and reasonable price and you may not go wrong as beginer with either. This is was commersilization and mas production does to a hobby/profession -photography- which was considered costly and niche few years back.
So, enjoy with whichever choice you end up making and take good pictures.

Regards
JLS

Ok.. The reason I concluded that canon pics are better is a wrong statement. Both are excellent cameras, I am a doctor and primarily use it to take pictures during and surgeries or per and post treatment pics of tissues, or surgical fields. And invariably red is the colour that's maximum. And when I take pics with my Nikon, the field appears a little blue, really don't know why, but the canon does not do that. I feel that I can differentiate the structures better. Sorry again.

I think the only difference in that case could be the white balance calibration in Canons and Nikons. You should be able to the get the same output in terms of color by tweaking the WB settings a bit. Any samples to show, if it doesn't freak out the viewers? :) May be small portion of an image.

Sometime back I had posted regarding how the color Burgundy (Almost like blood) is treated in a Canon and Sony. In that, Sony reproduced it correctly than Canon, while both were set to AWB.

Linking it here:
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post2638199

OMG. It seems, I have triggered a Nikon vs Canon war again here in this thread :). But, guys, I have some how made up my mind to for Nikon. After reading lot of reviews, I get more confusion than a solution.

Now, I am considering D90/D7000/D300. Please suggest.

If you have decided on Nikon, and if you are starting out new into DSLRs, I would suggest in the following order, budget permitting:

1. D7000
2. D90
3. D300

Why D300 in the last place (inspite having perhaps the best feature set of the lot). First, it can be a bit intimidating start with. Secondly, its a bit dated now and I think a replacent model may be in the pipeline. D7000 perhaps does most of everything D300 does and perhaps better.

Regards

How long do you want to keep the camera? If you want to keep it for a while, D7000 should be fine. If you want a DSLR just to learn the digital ropes before you upgrade, D90 should be fine (I use a D90 for the last 2.5 years, btw, and it has taken some nice pictures in spite of lens and camera limitations).

I would give D300 a pass unless you need the extra FPS and better build quality. D400 should be released soon, and the D7000 has IQ advantages over the D300 (while being cheaper) for folks who don't need the D300's unique pluses (e.g. buffer, build, 51 focus points, fps etc.)

I am waiting eagerly for the D400. Didn't want a D7000 or D300s because the upgrade was incremental and not worth it given my style of shooting and needs.

Thanks guys for the suggestions. So, its D7000 all the way. I am planning to keep it for a while before I move on to the next level.

Canon Vs Nikon

Can we let the debate/fight continue? I'm lovi'n it. We've gone over this umpteenth number of times but it still rages.

Let the games begin....clap:

p.s. My personal opinion - Nikon glasses are the best but mighty expensive, Canon lenses, specially the L series look gorgeous. If only Nikon too made white lenses.

Not as simple to put it but D700>D90, and It can either be D300s>D700>D90 or D700>D90>D300s ( I am using D300s instead of D300 because D300s is the current model and D300 is not made anymore, same story with D90).

D300s's 51 AF system is directly from D3 which is litreally the bees-knees. For example panning a car mid drift is hard with D90 and needs decent practice, with D300s's AF it makes it look almost too easy. D300s is also better than FF cameras with AF, reason being its AF points are all over the frame while same overlaid onto FF sensor get scooted up in the middle and if one wants to focus in one corner/side, it cannot be done.

Also D300s has better weather sealing and is one tough camera having magnesium alloy construction.

But in the end, for a beginner it might be a bit daunting.

Nikon did made grey colored lenses (70-200mm f2,8 VR1 and few others) but they were not so popular and internet is filled with nikon vs canon war.