Camera decisions - Nikon? Canon? Wait for D90 or get something now?

[Solberg]

I have been using a Canon 350D with the kit 18-55mm lens for years. For the last year, I have had access to a Nikon D40x with a 18-135mm lens, and I use it whenever I want. Therefore I sold off my Canon for a good price

Now, I am about the get myself a replacement for the canon and stop using the D40x.

As for lenses, I will at first, get a lens with focal length of as low a possible - 200mm. Also, I will get a 50mm wide angle lens as they are quite cheap. Down the line I will get a fisheye lens as I wanted one since the beginning of time

I was about to get a D80, as it is basically a much much better D40x and I was pleased with the D40x the D80 should be brilliant for me. As for the lens I was planning on getting a kit of 18-55 VR and a 55-200 VR or maybe a 18-200 VR. I defiantly want a VR lens be it Nikon or Canon since I wasn't pleased with the sharpness of the
Nikon 18-135mm lens. It was fine but not perfect.

Anyway, just before getting the D80 rumors about is successor and replacement the D90 attacked the internet. I think I want the 12 megapixels, as it's great to be able to make prints even after cropping. So I could either wait for the D90 (But when will that be out?), or I could get a Canon 450D which would be a big improvement over the 350D. However, there is a third option, I am really tempted by the Canon 40D. The only thing that is holding me back from the 40D is the arrival of the D90 and the fact that the 40D is 10 megapixels and not 12

So to sum up, my options are these:

1. Wait for the Nikon D90 and get a 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm lenses or maybe the 18-200mm VR.
2. Get a Canon 40D (No idea what lens to get).
3. Get a Canon 450D (No idea what lens to get).

Which options is likely to give the best looking and sharpest images out of the camera?
Which option is likely to be the cheapest?
What should I do?
How will the Canon 40D stack up to the Nikon D90? which one will be better?

Just to mention, I am going to the London Motorshow this July and I'll be visiting a few countries around Europe. It would be really nice to have my new camera before that, but I won't rush into anything. I can always use the D40x.

I just wrote a bloody essay, sorry it's so long

Thanks to all those who take the time to read this and advise

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by Solberg

The only thing that is holding me back is the arrival of the D90 and the fact that it's 10 megapixels and not 12.


How will the Canon 40D stack up to the Nikon D90? which one will be better?

Seriously? You want us to compare the 40D to a camera whose specs haven't even been released yet? Where did you hear 10MP? If the D80 replacement has 10MP I'll bake a cake and eat it.

[Solberg]

You misunderstood my unclear sentence.

I fixed it - The only thing that is holding me back from the 40D is the arrival of the D90 and the fact that the 40D is 10 megapixels and not 12.

No official specs have been released but it is very likely and almost defiantly going to have a dust vibration reduction system thing and 13 megapixels.

[TopGearDog]

I'm still using a D70 and also waiting to see what the D90 will be. If it is like people have been predicting, a D300 sensor in a more compact body (D80) with a little less Pro features and less price, then im all for it.

If the D90 wont be announced by september, or it will disappoint, i will either stretch the budget and get a D300 or settle for a D80.

Regarding lenses, i would personally get the new 16-85mm VR. It gets very good reviews. And for telephoto, take the 70-300VR instead of 55-200.

I can also recommend the Tamron 17-50mm, i just got one today and it's amazing.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Solberg

I have been using a Canon 350D with the kit 18-55mm lens for years. For the last year, I have had access to a Nikon D40x with a 18-135mm lens, and I use it whenever I want. Therefore I sold off my Canon for a good price

Now, I am about the get myself a replacement for the canon and stop using the D40x.

If I'm understanding you right, you've sold a 350D with kit, and have a D40x with the 18-135? Got a little confused.

As for lenses, I will at first, get a lens with focal length of as low a possible - 200mm. Also, I will get a 50mm wide angle lens as they are quite cheap. Down the line I will get a fisheye lens as I wanted one since the beginning of time

Depending on the price, you've got a lot of options. But you might be best off getting the Nikkor 50-200/VR, which isn't all that expensive, while it has the crucial incentive of VR. As for the 50, it's nowhere near being a wide angle. Actually, even on full frame, a 50 is just a standard lens. A standard lens on a Nikon DX camera will be something in the range 30-35mm. 25 and less I would call wide angle on DX.

What do you want a prime lens for? If it's for portraits, the 50/1.8 fits the bill nicely for its price. Relatively nice bokeh and of course large aperture. If you're thinking of more general shooting, it's really rather narrow.

If you do a lot of portraits, or concerts, I'd put the Nikkor 50/1.8 in the bag, but if you're thinking of getting it as a walkaround lens - I would really reconsider. It is very narrow.

What do you want a FE for? I believe there's a 10.5mm Nikkor that should fit te bill, but keep in mind that FE lenses are often very expensive.

I was about to get a D80, as it is basically a much much better D40x and I was pleased with the D40x the D80 should be brilliant for me. As for the lens I was planning on getting a kit of 18-55 VR and a 55-200 VR or maybe a 18-200 VR. I defiantly want a VR lens be it Nikon or Canon since I wasn't pleased with the sharpness of the
Nikon 18-135mm lens. It was fine but not perfect.

The D80 is a very nice camera with very, very few flaws. The 18-200VR would probably outperform the combo of 18-55VR and 55-200VR. It's said to be just as sharp as the superb 18-70 in that range, and not all that bad on tele.

Anyway, just before getting the D80 rumors about is successor and replacement the D90 attacked the internet. I think I want the 12 megapixels, as it's great to be able to make prints even after cropping. So I could either wait for the D90 (But when will that be out?), or I could get a Canon 450D wh ich would be a big improvement over the 350D. However, there is a third option, I am really tempted by the Canon 40D. The only thing that is holding me back is the arrival of the D90 and the fact that it's 10 megapixels and not 12.

The D90 will probably be out in soon future, but when is not surtain.

The 450D does offer stellar performance, if you like the grip, I find few reasons not to get it. But I wouldn't say the difference from 10 to 12 megapixels are really that important. I've got a friend who photographs for the second biggest paper in Norway, he gets along just fine with his 30D.

If resolution is a big point for you, then you get either the 450D or the awaited D90. Or switch system to Sony, and get 14mp from the A350, which is not a bad camera. Also, you could look at Pentax with their K20D which also delivers 14mp and a very impressive lens lineup.

1. Wait for the Nikon D90 and get a 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm lenses or maybe the 18-200mm VR.

The 18-55 and 55-200 will probably not be sharp enough for the D90. I know that the 18-70 is spotless on the D80 (10mp), but it's not spotless on the D300. To resolve that sensor, you should look at the Nikkor 16-85VR, but that is a tad on the expensive side.

2. Get a Canon 40D (No idea what lens to get).

Lens to get, well, I'd take a Tamron 17-50 to go with the 40D, as for teles, well, I can't really recommend a good quality cheap tele for Canon.

3. Get a Canon 450D (No idea what lens to get).

Same as above.

Which options is likely to give the best looking and sharpest images out of the camera?
Which option is likely to be the cheapest?
What should I do?
How will the Canon 40D stack up to the Nikon D90? which one will be better?

No one knows which will be better of the D90 and the 40D.

Which will be sharpest? The one with the sharpest lens. One thing you need to keep in mind is that what really determins how large you can print an image is how sharp your lens is. The lens needs to resolve the light onto the sensor to define an image. If the lens isn't sharp enough, you can forget about resolution.

Actually, I would recommend looking at what other brands can offer as well. Olympus, Sony and Pentax all have splendid offerings. An E-520 with a 14-42 and 40-150 will give you what you're after in terms of wide angle to tele, it will give you IS, as it's sensor stabilized, and it will be just as cheap. The lenses are also capable of providing enough resolution for big prints. The E-510 is also a good choice, as is the E-420.

Sony has it's offering with the a350. High resolution, good quality and a reasonable price. But really sharp lenses for print can be expensive.

If you want to work with primes, Pentax is arguably one of the best choices. Pentax produces wonderful primes, and good zooms. The K20D will give you 14mp.

In the end, I'll say what I've said to any other person who wants a new camera. Get into a good camera shop, and try holding the cameras. The difference in IQ is not that big between the makes, the biggest difference is in ergonomics and grips. Try the grip of all those cameras you can afford, and get the one that fits your hand.

Just to mention, I am going to the London Motorshow this July and I'll be visiting a few countries around Europe. It would be really nice to have my new camera before that, but I won't rush into anything. I can always use the D40x.

I just wrote a bloody essay, sorry it's so long

Thanks to all those who take the time to read this and advise

That's quite alright, better to take the time explaining your situation than having to answer a thousand questions afterwards.

[Solberg]

Originally Posted by nomix

If I'm understanding you right, you've sold a 350D with kit, and have a D40x with the 18-135? Got a little confused.

Yes, I sold my 350D and now I use a D40x with a 18-135mm lens but it's not mine

As for the felling, I have already tried out the 40D and the 450D and both feel very good to me.

Your post was very good and I learned quite a lot from reading it!

Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

[nomix]

Oh, not at all. I do it all the time. Got no work today, so I'm chilling on the interwebnutz, so as a forum addict I might as well try to help.

[Solberg]

I think I will scrap the idea about getting a 450D as it's not really much of an upgrade over the D40x. It's now down to the 40D or D80 or wait for the D90.

How do the D80 and 40D compare?

[nomix]

The 40D is better in all objective ways, really. Some might feel the D80 has the better metering, but I can't say that's a big difference.

The 40D can shoot at twice the speed of the D80, has faster AF, a little bit better build, a bigger VF, more buttons, a bigger grip, 14bit RAW for those who care about that, a bigger buffer, is noticably better at high ISO and has better DR.

The IQ of the D40x is to my knowledge the same as the D80. So the 40D will mean a difference.

The only reason to pick the D80 over the 40D, in my mind, would be if you've got golden Nikkor lenses, if you prefer the offerings Nikon has of optics in surtain aspects and so on. But for older MF Nikkor lenses, you can just as easily use them on a 40D with an adapter. You might even get a little better metering than you'd get with a Nikon camera.

But I would wait for the D90, it's in the making, and will probably be a very good camera.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The 40D is a better camera, as it's situated higher up the chain than the D80. It also commands a price $500 higher than the $750 D80.

[nomix]

You get what you pay for. The difference between a D90 and the 40D will probably be a lot less substantial. And you could also get a 30D if there's someone selling them still, then there's no difference at all. 30D comes in at 3900 NOK in Norway, the D80 at 4700 NOK. I know what I'd chose.

[Solberg]

I have no lenses right now so I can get either Canon or Nikon.

It's down to getting a Canon 40D now or waiting for the Nikon D90.

I honestly don't know what to do

[the infinite jar]

I would also look into the Pentax K20D like someone else suggested, it's a very good well built camera, high resolution and very strong lens selection. I checked one out at a shop and liked the ergonomics a lot. it's quite heavy but consequently feels well put together.

I'm looking for this bad boy next for my K100D:
http://www.thecamerastore.com/Produc...roductID=32440

Anyone else on this site shoot something other than Canon or Nikon?
We outsiders have to stick together. :p

[nomix]

The K20D is a very good choice, no doubt. I would also think about the Olympus E-3 (which is very expensive, though), or even an E-520.

[Solberg]

I think I'll stick to either Nikon or Canon.

[Solberg]

What lenses should I consider if I go down the Canon route?

[nomix]

Just curious, do you have any reason for that?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by Solberg

What lenses should I consider if I go down the Canon route?

Depends on your budget. The Canon 17-55/2.8 is excellent but expensive, look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 if you don't have that kind of bling to blow.

[nomix]

Yup. The 17-40L is also a good option, if only f/4. Excelent piece of glass on crop. Not so good on FF, but still.

[Solberg]

Originally Posted by nomix

Just curious, do you have any reason for that?

Well the market for second hand accessories for Canon and Nikon is the largest and I have hand good experiences with both brands.

As for the lenses, the 17-55mm is a quite expensive.

What is the difference between this and the 18-55mm that there is such a huge prices difference ?

Anyway, I think I would like to get lenses with vibration reduction feature.