Nikon vs Canon
#21
JK Enthusiast
I'm a Nikon man myself. I shoot a D200 and just love it! If you are just starting out I would say witch ever body you choose is going to be a pretty darn good camera. Just don't skimp when it comes to buying lenses. You won't regret coughing up a little more dough for pro glass. Just my $.02
#24
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Medford Lakes, NJ
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it matters much All based on personal preference, or which ever one you get a better deal on And once you go one brand you'll never switch because of the lenses you bought.
I have a Canon T1i and an XT and love them. The T1i I just got so can't really give an in-depth opinion but sofar I'm impressed.
I have a Canon T1i and an XT and love them. The T1i I just got so can't really give an in-depth opinion but sofar I'm impressed.
#25
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hill AFB, UT
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had the XSi for about 6 months and I love it. It's my first "nice" camera. It is very easy to use and I would buy it again if I had to. My mother-in-law is a bird nature photograpy buff and she made the switch from Nikon to Canon when she went to a digital SLR. I know it's just jumping on the bandwagon, but when you look at the sidelines at sporting events it's mostly Canons.
#27
I have to agree on the Sigma brand. I shoot mostly with Canon L lenses now , but the quality with my Sigma macro was so good I couldn't justify replacing it. The other lower priced bands just don't seem worth the money to me, but I have been looking for a much longer zoom. Sigma will be the only one I can afford at this time.
#28
Regarding lenses, the 24-105 L IS USM is the best all purpose lens I've found, but it's pretty expensive at $1300. The 17-40 L is only about $700 and is great for landscapes. Most of the shots on www.desert-photography.com were done with the 17-40.
Last edited by ElPaso2008; 07-27-2009 at 10:25 PM.