[Torqueguru]

Originally Posted by janitha

5D Mark II being full frame, will it not be managed by the bigger (24x36) sensor?

Well yes, much better than what a four thirds system would, but Canon technology within the price bracket of the 5D mark 2, has not yet quite successfully worked out the noise issue in higher ISO along with this humongous number of pixels in it's full frame as compared to their Rivals.

It's a technical fact that's all, but it really doesn't take anything away from the camera in terms of making good pics, since that is heavily dependent on the man behind the cam

[navin]

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

This purchase would be useless unless you're taking large prints on a regular basis. What say?

Exactly. I figred if I can get a decent 4x6 out of a (canon G2) 4MP CCD I can get a decent 8x10 out of a APS-C sensor. Also smaller sensor size means that a fast (f/2.8) lenses are cheaper. So the 40D+17-55/2.8 IS was my best option (under $2K I had a system that could shoot in reasonable low light and still make good pics). Beyond f/2.8 DOF is pretty shallow anyways.

The best part is that my camera+lens was blessed (holy water was used) by the Old Man during one of his visits to Mumbai.

Rdura-da...after playing around (for about 2 hours) with an old Nikon 1Ds and a 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/2 i see the benefits (not speed but sharpness) of using primes. So I was thinking of getting the following a) 28/1.8 b) 50/1.4 c) 85/1.8 or 100/2 I figure that at $400 per prime I cold afford $1000-1200 for a set of 2 or 3 fast primes. What do you think?

[s0uljah]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

Rudra Sir,

Any tips or a small write up on your workflow for printing would help all of us.

Would be of immense help especially Resizing/cropping before passing images to studios.

Also preferred studios in bangy would help too

[jaysmokesleaves]

Originally Posted by navin

1. the D90 and 500D are very different beasts. The D90 is better compared the the Canon 50D not 500D. The weather sealing, body ruggedness etc. is the difference.

2. I'd take the D90 kit but with the 16-85 and 70-300 lens kit instead. the current combo gives you too much overlap between the 18-105 and 55-200.

In that sense the Canon kit is better balanced and for the 20K extra you could get yourself a 270EX flash, battery pack + extra batteries, or a nice fast prime like the 28/1.8 (which will work out to a 42mm on the 1.6 crop canon). 42mm is about what the human eye sees au naturel.

Lastly Nikon and Canon camera work very differently and have a very different touch and feel. I myself prefered a Nikon's feel (having used the 1Ds) but bought a Canon because it would let me have access to my niece's pro lens collection. So use both bodies and see what feels better. Also compare the Nikon D90 to the Canon 50D body and the Canon 500D to the Nikon D5000.

Navin, thanks for helping.
Being an amateur photographer i have used the NIkon D80, which I find quite comfortable to use. I have never used a Canon. Reading from user experiences and voices on this & other forums, i gather that most users get ' married' to either a Canon or a Nikon. Now, before I get 'married' I am trying to understand what you mean by the highlighted statement above.

Secondly, the pixel density offered by Canon is higher than that offered by the D90. My understanding is that this results in crisper pictures with less noise, is this correct?
Isnt a 15mp pic supposed to be better than a 12mp pic...? (Going by the more is better understanding).

With regards to ruggedness, weather sealing etc, are you saying that the Nikon is way superior than the Canon. Will it be a cause for concern since i will keep this camera for a very long time to come...?

Do excuse the fact that my questions are ametuerish, but i most likely dont want to log onto secondshaadi.com..!
Any advice opinions suggestions feedback is welcome.

Cheers,
J

[janitha]

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

With regards to ruggedness, weather sealing etc, are you saying that the Nikon is way superior than the Canon. Will it be a cause for concern since i will keep this camera for a very long time to come...?
J

My EOS 650 bought in 1993 is still functional, though not being used nowadays due to it being a film one. By the way it was the first EOS model from Canon. But some of the lenses are affected by fungus.

[TOR]

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

Secondly, the pixel density offered by Canon is higher than that offered by the D90. My understanding is that this results in crisper pictures with less noise, is this correct?
Isnt a 15mp pic supposed to be better than a 12mp pic...? (Going by the more is better understanding).

Considering that the sensor dimensions remain more or less the same on APS-C sensors, packing more sensor units in the same area will have its pros and cons.

Consider arranging buckets on the terrace to collect rain water. Bigger buckets will collect more water(light sensitivity) but the number of buckets(megapixel) that can be arranged will be less.

The same holds true here, without increasing the overall sensor dimension just by increasing the megapixel count will result in better resolution but inferior low light performance.

The low light performance of the D40 sensor is considered one of the best amount entry level/amateur level D-SLRs and the base sensitivity of the D40 is 200 reflecting the same.

[tsk1979]

The D90 and D5000 actually offer lower noise at high ISO, without losing out much detail as compared to 50D/500D
I think the last sane camera from canon entry level was the 450D (12.1 MP).

[Proxima]

I'm contemplating buying a DSLR. I have used a 1000d briefly and found it comfy to use. Is the 450d worth the premium over a 1000d? It is a 8k price difference between the two.

If there is no discernible advantage in the 450d, I will go with the 1000d.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by navin

Lastly Nikon and Canon camera work very differently and have a very different touch and feel.

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

I am trying to understand what you mean by the highlighted statement above.

When I asked a senior photographer in my company about the difference b/w Canon and Nikon dslrs, he told me, "Nikon is like a M800 while Canon is like the Ikon." (I drive an Ikon and he uses Nikon cameras). I guess what he meant is that Nikon cameras are comparatively simpler to use. Maybe the gurus here can explain the fact better?

I still haven't decided which of the 2 boats to board.

- Jag

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

Rdura-da...after playing around (for about 2 hours) with an old Nikon 1Ds and a 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/2 i see the benefits (not speed but sharpness) of using primes. So I was thinking of getting the following a) 28/1.8 b) 50/1.4 c) 85/1.8 or 100/2 I figure that at $400 per prime I cold afford $1000-1200 for a set of 2 or 3 fast primes. What do you think?

Navin, what kind of photography do you do? The reason I ask is because primes in theory sound very good but how often does one have the time and inclination to change lenses? At least for me, my primes pretty much stay in the bag and zooms are what I end up using the most. I guess, if you do portraits a lot then long primes are more worth it than wide or normal. For travel photography, zooms are it.

Originally Posted by Jaguar

When I asked a senior photographer in my company about the difference b/w Canon and Nikon dslrs, he told me, "Nikon is like a M800 while Canon is like the Ikon." (I drive an Ikon and he uses Nikon cameras). I guess what he meant is that Nikon cameras are comparatively simpler to use. Maybe the gurus here can explain the fact better?
- Jag

I can't quite understand your photographer friend's analogy. A better one would be - one is a Corolla and the other is a Civic.

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

Navin, thanks for helping.
Being an amateur photographer i have used the NIkon D80, which I find quite comfortable to use. I have never used a Canon. Reading from user experiences and voices on this & other forums, i gather that most users get ' married' to either a Canon or a Nikon. Now, before I get 'married' I am trying to understand what you mean by the highlighted statement above.

Yes people get wedded to a particular system because once you have the body and some lenses you tend to stick with the brand even as you upgrade bits and pieces.

Secondly, the pixel density offered by Canon is higher than that offered by the D90. My understanding is that this results in crisper pictures with less noise, is this correct?
Isnt a 15mp pic supposed to be better than a 12mp pic...? (Going by the more is better understanding).

Marginally more pixels, as is the case here, make an imperceptible difference. Don't get confused with pixels. Choose the make you like based on other factors like how the body feels in your hands.

With regards to ruggedness, weather sealing etc, are you saying that the Nikon is way superior than the Canon. Will it be a cause for concern since i will keep this camera for a very long time to come...?

Nikon makes sturdy cameras, they always have. Apart from the absolute entry level Canon bodies, all above a certain price point are on par with Nikon. I've seen Canon bodies take a lot of abuse and keep ticking.

Do excuse the fact that my questions are ametuerish, but i most likely dont want to log onto secondshaadi.com..!
Any advice opinions suggestions feedback is welcome.

Cheers,
J

The two systems are very equal. Base you decision on factors like feel and ease of use. Try both makes, you won't need to do a secondshaadi with either.

[sj_koova]

Nikon vx Canon is never ending confusion.
I had a tough time deciding between Nikon D90 and Canon 40D.

After going through flicker and pbase for few months, I felt that my eyes and taste are more towards Nikon.

Also I felt the Nikon D90 ergonomics is better compared to Canon 40D.

[Jaggu]

Nikon is too bright with colors for my taste, Canon shots look more natural. This was the deciding factor for me.

[quickdraw]

Although I've used canon for most of my shooting, Nikon always seems to pull me towards it. For someone who isnt a Pro or mad about Nikon I suggest getting into the Canon boat because of the obvious price factor.

[sj_koova]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Nikon is too bright with colors for my taste, Canon shots look more natural. This was the deciding factor for me.

You are right about Nikon colors. That is one factor attracted me to Nikon.
I always felt sky and green looks pleasing to eyes with Nikon, though not so real.

[jkdas]

Some say one is good for Indian skin tone while the other for others

And similarly, one good indoors and while the other brand is good out doors.

Donno which is true.

Try both. There is an offer for D5000 and D90 at DXB.