[janitha]

Originally Posted by sj_koova

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.

Reminiscent of the days when somebody liked Kodak Ektachrome and another wanted Fuji Velvia only!

[Samurai]

Fortunately I don't have to ponder between Canon or Nikon, I am an Olympian.

Although, I have often heard that Olympus has the best JPG performance across all dSLRs. That phenomena is known as Olympus colors, try googling it.

Ok, you lose that advantage if you switch to RAW.

[jaysmokesleaves]

Thanks for all the responses guys.
Last question: How is the low light performance comparision between a Canon50D & NikonD90...?
As mentioned by the pros, my last resort will be to 'hold' & 'feel' both the bodies before my final purchase.

Cheers,
J

[StarScream]

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.

Isn't that a moot point? With all the settings one can change with digital I'm pretty sure one can make a Canon look like a Nikon and vice versa. In the days of film I used to feel that Nikon lenses had a cool color bias while Canon's were warm. I feel that has changed now. Some of the new Nikon glass produces very punchy colors. There is a distinct difference compared with my older Nikkor lenses.

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Navin, what kind of photography do you do? .

family, friends, and travel. I know the zooms (esp the 17-55) will be my main lens the primes are mainly for portrait, night safari (where the f/2.8 zoom is not fast enough) and other such special occasions. I was thinking either a combo of the 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 or 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2. The 135/2 and 24/1.4 are way too expensive.

Originally Posted by sj_koova

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

Some prefer Nikon some prefer Canon. I found the 1Ds diffcult because I ma so used to the Canon controls now. Before that I had Nikon SLRs and took a while to get used to Canon.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Canon boat because of the obvious price factor.

Also some systems offer lenses that work for you. For me for example Nikon did not offer VR on it's 17-55/2.8.

[phamilyman]

FWIW:
Nikon prices are only costlier when it comes to the body (sort of).

The D90 is (close to) the 50D and is 10% lesser. (47k gray body vs 53k).

Lenses are close enough (10-15%) mostly
Mythbusters: Is a Nikon really costlier compared to a Canon? - The Global Indian Photographer can help

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Some of the new Nikon glass produces very punchy colors. There is a distinct difference compared with my older Nikkor lenses.

This is exactly the thing i DONT like about them. Yeah you can do lot of things if you have the "right" software, but somehow doesnt work on my eyes

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

Thanks for all the responses guys.
Last question: How is the low light performance comparision between a Canon50D & NikonD90...?
As mentioned by the pros, my last resort will be to 'hold' & 'feel' both the bodies before my final purchase.

Cheers,
J

I suggest you go through Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ for these answers, if you are layman @ photography like me

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

family, friends, and travel. I know the zooms (esp the 17-55) will be my main lens the primes are mainly for portrait, night safari (where the f/2.8 zoom is not fast enough) and other such special occasions. I was thinking either a combo of the 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 or 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2. The 135/2 and 24/1.4 are way too expensive.

for portrait and low light I suggest the 50/1.4 and 100/2. On an APS-C camera you'll get medium and long tele with the added benefit of a 1.4 lens for night shots and extremely shallow depth of field.

[jaysmokesleaves]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I suggest you go through Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ for these answers, if you are layman @ photography like me

Sir, I am an avid reader of dpreview reviews and after a side by side comparision I decided to ask the gurus on this forum.

I am hoping to draw from actual user experiences and the views posted until now have been tilting me towards a Canon. Primary reason being that I have just begun discovering my photographic talent and and the initial costs are a concern.
I am very fond of landscapes, travel photography and capturing real life human expressions and emotions in public, on the move.


So as of now, i think it will be the Canon eos500D with the 18-55 & 55-250 canon lenses. Unless I find a sweet deal at dxb dutyfree(where i will be transiting shortly) for the nikon D90 like jkdas mentioned.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

I am very fond of landscapes, travel photography and capturing real life human expressions and emotions in public, on the move.

Just follow your heart. It's finally what you produce matters.

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

for portrait and low light I suggest the 50/1.4 and 100/2.

The 50/1.4 will work as a 80mm on a APS-C and might even get me stuff like night owls. On my zoom @ 55/2.8 I was just a triffle short of exposure.

How does the 100/2 compare to the more popular 85/1.8 in sharpness?

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Just follow your heart. It's finally what you produce matters.

Rudra-da I do NOT have your expereince or ability. Can you ask Naresh for 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2. I am going to KL (Malaysia) in October (if this swine flu stuff peters out) so will get the lenses from there if he cant soruce them here.

Originally Posted by abhijitaparadh

1. 100mm macro with new Hybrid IS

Hybrid IS? the macro is a f/2.8 aint it?

[reignofchaos]

^^The 85/1.8 is a way way superior lens to 100/2. I compared both before buying. The 85 had better, more neutral color, was much sharper and surprising the bokeh was smoother too. Try both out yourself and then decide. If there's a canon image lounge close by, you can get your hands on both.

[navin]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

^^The 85/1.8 is a way way superior lens to 100/2. I compared both before buying. The 85 had better, more neutral color, was much sharper and surprising the bokeh was smoother too. Try both out yourself and then decide. If there's a canon image lounge close by, you can get your hands on both.

The Canon Image Lounge at Atria Mall had neither nor the 28/1.8. The thing is that if I get the 50/1.4, the 85/1.8 will be very close to the 50/1.4. If I could afford the 135/2 the issue would be solved but Rs 60K for a lens that I will seldom use makes little sense to me.

[gd1418]

Thank you sir. Aapka hukam sar aankhon par..

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Guru, a big congrats for your new baby. Now quickly show us some results.

Thanks TG. Have been travelling on work ever since the 300 came into the stable. Haven't even held it properly. Will have fun as soon as I get time..

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@gd1418
Awesome buy! Have fun!

[gd1418]

Navin, if these are Nikkor lenses then my take would be the 28mm f~1.8 and the 85mm F~1.8. The latter being an unparalleled Micro lens also with great portrait taking features. Well, as a third opion the 50mm F~1.4 is a gem anytime..

In INR it turns out to be 60K. Hmmm, a helluva lot of money... Tell me from where are you getting these glasses?

Originally Posted by navin

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?