ive never owned a dslr camera before, im used to using simple point and click cameras,

3 years ago i upgraded to a fuji S7000, although it looks like a dslr it doesnt have the interchangable lenses and other gumf you would get with a dslr.

im going on safari next year and will need a better camera so have decided to buy a dslr.

i want one that if i upgrade in the future, any lenses i will have bought, will also be able to be used on the newer model.

price is also coming into it though, not nessasarilly the camera price but the lens prices.


a couple of questions really

would you go for a nikon body (have been looking at the new d90) or a canon body (havnt looked properley yet)?

which of the 2 has the cheapest lenses (zoom lenses especially)

which of the 2 has the better quality lenses

i have noticed cheaper compatable lenses from sigma and tameron, are these lenses any good?

thanks in advance.

Consider carefully whether you are going to use it in the long term. All too often people that buy slrs for a hobby end up losing interest in carrying an slr and lenses.

Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make mediorce, good and outstanding lenses, just like Canon, Nikon and all the other camera manufacturers.

Every single slr manufacturer makes good cameras and have good systems so it boils down to the features you want, how it feels and handles and price.

I'm a Canon 400D owner and love it. I've got a basic 200m zoom lens by sigma, don't ask me any tech stuff about that, but I've taken some lovely shots with it.
It's really down to budget and the feel of the camera in your hands. The Nikon D90 and the above Canon are pretty much the same, but you need to play with both before deciding.

Bought a Nikon D60 recently, extremely good camera, couldn't afford the D90. Always felt that Nikon is a better quality make than Canon, but I guess that's a bit personal really as they're both highly regarded.

we have a Canon EOS450 and love it, but as others have said, its really down to personal preference, as they both make superb cameras.

i did think i read somewhere though that newer Nikons tied you in to their lenses, but i may have misread that?

Iain

canon v. nikon flame wars are a favourite on camera forums

both highly regarded but they have their respective supporters.

i think the major decision comes down to which you want to go with, because once you've invested in one system you'll probably stay with them.

Which ever camera you decide on, and I use a canon d450, I would suggest an after market 75-300 which in one lens will give you good long and close range photography. Buy the body first then go to a shop and try different lenses, they should allow you to try them before you buy.
Dave

I use a Canon myself for historical reasons, but overall I'd be hard pushed to come up with reasons why a Canon would be "better" than a Nikon of equivalent age and price, or vice versa. I certainly prefer the controls and lens mount on the Canon, but that might be just because I'm used to them.

Have a look at both somewhere where they'll let you handle the merchandise and try to get a feel for how well they fit your hand, particularly with a (physically) long lens in place. And when it comes to how to carry the camera along with a reasonable selection of lenses and a flash gun or two, after years of using the shoulder bag style of gadget bags, I'm rapidly coming to see the advantages of the backpack style.

Someone gave me a Nikon D40 as a gift. I had been a Nikon fan for many years then I got my camera and lenses (all Nikon) stolen. It put me off for years until someone kindly gifted me one!

I have always preferred Nikon because when I was first thinking about it I was told that most professionals use Nikon.

Agree totally and as a Canon 40D user, I'm in the Canon camp and very happy too.

One thing to remember is that a poor lens on an expensive body means that you are wasting the potental of the camera, so buy your lenses wisely and get the best you can afford. A good lens will often cost more than the camera body.

i have a canon 1000d , only because it felt the most comfortable to me out of that , the d60 and the a200 , you could buy the best camera in the world , but if it is not comforatble then i reckon it would be nigh useless

I prefer Nikon, for no other reason than I like the ergonomics, feel and build quality of their SLR's. My best advice is to pop down to a local camera store,Currys digital etc and have a play around with a few cameras . No need to spend a fortune on features you will not use... BTW Have A look at the Nikon D40, D60(Be quick with the D40 now out of production-replacment is D5000) compact, reliable and cheap. Plenty of advice at www.Kenrockwell.com. And don't forget to post some Holiday snaps on here.

Some good advice posted here, apart from the Ken Rockwell recommendation as he'll say all you ever need is a D40 with an 18-200 lens. Which quite simply is not the case.

There are plus points for both brands. Choose a brand and stick with it, as others have said, buy the best lenses you can as it'll make all the difference over the body you choose.

Lower end bodys can be a little rubbish handling noise at high ISO's and if you want to do serious night photography you need to choose wisely as you'll get hot pixels, banding, noise and so on. If you're just going to be shooting in the daytime then there wont be much in it.

Pro wedding photographers will tell you that even on the top of the range Canon's, the auto focus is rubbish in low light and that's why they shoot Nikon. Some will tell you that the D90 has a much better sensor and a better all round camera than the equivalent Canon.

And then someone else will tell you something completely different.

Personally, i would go for Nikon. You have a whole raft of old lenses you can choose from if you want to go cheap, whereas Canon seems to stop you doing that with every new body they bring out, negating some very good glass they brought out 20 years ago. You would be very happy with the D90. It's a very new camera, yes it has HD video which is a bit of a novelty but the features are strong, the sensor is fantastic and much better than a similar priced Canon.

There's not much in it lens quality wise and the aftermarket manufactures make some amazing lenses.

EDIT: The mantra goes, "Canons are made by engineers, Nikons are made by photographers"

thanks for the advice everyone, i think im gonna go with the nikon d90.

Good choice. Remember, don't forget to post some holiday snaps...Still think you should have gone with the D40 and a 18-200mm lens. Sorry Martin couldn't resist....

and owned by people like Ken Rockwell, i rest my case your honour.

:yawn::yawn::yawn:

And you by the sound of it LOL

Come on fella he slagged old Ken off for his choice of body and lens and then attempted to flog Nikons as the best option by dissing Canons. Also a lot of what he posted was utter FUD so get over it.

No one can tell me there is a crap DSLR out there no matter which one you buy. The only way you are going to get a poor images off any DSLR is if you shove a 90 quid lens on it. The cheapest DSLR from one brand will take images just about as good at the top DSLR providing you put good glass on it. When you spend money on bodies you are buying in to longevity, speed, weather sealing etc. not vastly improved image quality.

Thats true between Canon and Nikon, but throw something like Panasonic or Sony into the equation and its a different ball game.

Also canon make a very decent 50mm lens for £60 - its build quality is crap but the picture quality is good.