Question about DSLR: Nikon-Cannon-Sony

[Mefistofeles]

So first, i'm thinking abut getting a brand new DSLR, my budget it's not that big so i'm looking for a $900 or less....maybe $1000 but.. really pushing it...

Forget about Pentax, Olimpus and all of those "eXtrange" brands :p. It has to be either CANON, NIKON or SONY and that's it.

My questions are:

- Why is it that most DSLR do not have image stabilization??

- Is the image quality really that different between NIKON, SONY and CANON??

I ask this because this would be my FIRST DSLR and i plan to use this camera for a loooong time and i don't have plans to become a PRO or make photography my way of living.

- What about lenses??
DSLRs are all about the lenses... So which brand offers the best lenses, the biggest catalog, etc.

After some research... supposedly :

NIKON= Expensive, expensive, offers the BEST image quality and DO NOT offer image stabilization or dust reduction system (yet), lenses...i have no idea about this. Good features, not that easy to use (but not a problem with DSLR).

CANON = May not the BEST image quality, but damn close to be the best, reliability, lot's of lenses, not as expensive as the nikon but not cheap either, no image stabilization...

SONY = Cheap... not the best image quality (is it really that bad or is the difference that big compared to canon or nikon?), lot's of features. maybe the best "all around" DSLR and "Value for my money". Since they teamed up with.. Minolta, Pentax, Rolex, Ford or something like that ... they have a great choice of lenses, but i heard somewhere that these lenses are not good at all. So, CANON, NIKON or Karl Zeiss?????

Oh! and by the way, just outta curiosity... which is the BEST DSLR out there???... i mean the best in the whole world... it may cost somewhere around 1,000,000 pounds of Mars Diamonds... but... which one is the BEST?? The BIG DADDY??

And just because this is a digital photography forum... a shot that i took in Querétaro, México a long time ago whit a "lame" casio P&S that i borrowed from a friend who loooooves to smoke weed. I don't like weed though...

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/balamfotografia/2336286510/" title="CIMG3891 by el cuervo y el jaguar, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/2336286510_3f76374f97_m.jpg" width="180" height="240" alt="CIMG3891" /></a>

[smc1377]

Lots of things about your info is incorrect.

Some Nikon DSLR's do offer dust reduction and some Nikon lenses do have image stabilization (I believe it's called VR).

And likewise with Canon, they do offer image stabilization (IS) in a lot of lenses. And with Canon lenses, their L series are among the best in the world.

I'm curious as to why you would rule out Pentax and Olympus but include Sony, since Pentax and Olympus have been in the camera game much longer than Sony has.

[GEli]

There is no best DSLR and most every bit of your 'research' has yielded inaccurate or just blatantly false information. I'd do a point by point analysis, but to simplify: every single statement you made after "supposedly:" is various stages of false. I'd be interested to know what sources would provide you with info like that.

I can't really comment on specifics, as you've written off Pentax for no particular reason (what does "eXtrange" mean?), but I'll just say: Buy into a system not for a specific camera but for the lenses that system offers.

[princessparrot]

There is no exact way for someone else to tell you what you need if you don't quite know yourself. I think you have to play and learn for a while and find your niche and then start asking questions so you can narrow down the choices, i have friends who love canons for their landscapes and I love nikon for the color duplications for my opal images , I am the owner of 4 point and shoot nikon coolpix's , the 995, 4500,5000[which was my first]and the 8800 which has the VR feature which is great for hand held macros but the large barrel blocks light at time , so they all have their little negitives but for the money they cost me 2nd hand I am way ahead but until the day I feel I deserve a DSLR I think I will keep learning all the features on the ones I have and get the max out of them all before I move on.
By the way the 4500 and 995 take super good macros. some not quite as crispy focus as my 8800 but very close up images, 2cms plus it can zoom in macro and still stay in focus. I still have to work out why that is the case for that one and it won't do the same in my nikon coolpix 8800. I am having a great time learning and checking out this forum each day.
thankyou everyone who posts answers as you are answering hundreds who haven't yet asked the same question and sometimes something just falls into place while I am reading an anwer to a question. so keep them coming please
Christine

[mattdm]

I'll add to the chorus that your perceptions thus far are way off.

Particularly, the only reason you've included Sony in your list is really just that they're a big electronics brand that's got a lot of name recognition. They're not any less "eXtrange" (?) than Pentax or Olympus. If you want to cut out options for not being mainstream enough for you, Sony's gotta go too.

But instead, I encourage you to look at all your options and compare them fairly. Particularly, if you want something with interesting features like image stabilization in the camera body, the next-tier brands are exactly where you should look.

[velvet4269]

I'm going to have to second the "you left out" comment - the new Olympus E510 *does* have Image Stabilization; as well, most of Olympus' new lenses come with Image Stabilization. And all Olympus DSLRs come with the anti-dust feature (which isn't to say that you still won't get dust on your sensor, just not necessarily as quickly).

[elrebrin]

Why is it that most DSLR do not have image stabilization??Because its best done optically, which is best done by the lens itself. Thats why there are things like Canon's IS and Nikon's VR.

And on a side note, I use Nikon's VR with one of my lenses, and I can take a crisp image with no noticable camera shake with a shutter speed of 1/4s when zoomed to 85mm (the lens' maximum). So if you're really worried about image stabilisation, I highly recommend the Nikon system. But I've not compared it to any others.

Cheers,

Chris

[mattdm]

Because its best done optically, which is best done by the lens itself. Thats why there are things like Canon's IS and Nikon's VR.

Note that sensor shift IS (as implemented by Pentax, Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic) is still optical stabilization. As for the other part — it being better done by the lens itself — the answer is less clear

It's possible that in-lens stabilization will give you an additional stop (half the shutter speed), although that is highly implementation-dependent.

On the other side, in-body stabilization means it works with every lens, including low-cost primes. Or high-end primes. Or (in the case of Pentax at least) manual focus lenses from 1975. Or for that matter, from 1952 with a screw-mount adapter. Or a Lensbaby (http://www.lensbabies.com). If you're on a budget (and who isn't?) or are looking for unique creative possibilities, in-body stabilization adds a lot of value.

[dmvp]

I would suggest checking out the reviews of certain cameras online at Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/). They often times go into extreme depth showing many comparisons of quality (including photo examples), features, etc. That's a good place to start.

Then, go into a store and try them out. What looks or feels good to one person, may not look and feel good to another. See and feel how the controls are laid out. See how quickly (or not) it focuses, and takes the picture. Which one feels better in your hands?

That's probably where you should start.

[inkista]

Actually, Minolta and Sony joined forces for the Alphas, so it's actually not that far off, pedigree-wise, from Pentax and Olympus.

[Mefistofeles]

Lots of things about your info is incorrect.
Some Nikon DSLR's do offer dust reduction and some Nikon lenses do have image stabilization (I believe it's called VR).


But.... what about price??... i haven't seen any Nikons with image stabilization for under $900 (so far).


That's something that i DIDN'T know :eek:... at first i tought that the CAMERA was the one with the image stabilization... NOT the lens.. OH! this one really chance my mind about a lot of things.

I ruled out Pentax, Olympus and other brands because... well.. i haven't seen any around where i live for sell.


Particularly, the only reason you've included Sony in your list is really just that they're a big electronics brand that's got a lot of name recognition. They're not any less "eXtrange" (?) than Pentax or Olympus.


Here in Mexico it's quite hard to get a decent camera for a good price, forget about lenses. And recently I've seen a lot of stores with Sony alphas, Canon and Nikon (including lenses)... i saw an Olympus a long time ago and i've never seen any Pentax ... that's why these are so "estrange" to me. So it's easier for me to have a camera with "backup" from a lot of stores right in the city where i live. I live in the country side, not even in México City, so it's even harder to get proper service in case my camera gets broken.

You guys are amazing :D, you really opened my eyes about a lot of things that i didn't know or i was just wrong. I have to do a lot of more research and don't jump into conclusions.

But... as far as the image quality... is there a difference between those three brands? And is it that big???

[wulf]

As far as image quality, the biggest factor is the photographer, then the lens, followed to some extent by the camera model (different sensors, etc). I doubt that many people could accurately name the equipment used just looking at the photos taken.

What you have readily available is a sensible factor to include. Do you have any friends with DSLRs? That might also be a factor (potential lens sharing). Also, do you get any second-hand lenses available locally? That can be a good way to give yourself a lot more creative options without spending a lot of money (most of my lenses are second-hand).

Wulf

[Taallyn]

The biggest differences between them is the system that they are a part of, followed by the ergonomics of the camera bodies. SLRs and DSLRs are only one part of a larger system of photographic tools. Lenses are the biggest component of that system, but it also includes the flash system, included software, community support, third-party support and so on. The best way to decide on a first time DSLR is to go to a store and handle them. See which feels better in your hands. Then look in to the manufacturer's system to determine if it will meet your long term goals.

Additionally, here is a link to a new Nikon D60 with a 18-55mm kit lens with VR priced at $750.00: Nikon D60 (http://www.adorama.com/INKD60K.html).
Canon's equivalent is priced at $899.00: Canon rebel XSi (http://www.adorama.com/ICADRXSIBK.html)

[inkista]

That's something that i DIDN'T know :eek:... at first i tought that the CAMERA was the one with the image stabilization... NOT the lens.. OH! this one really chance my mind about a lot of things.
Actually, the Sony Alpha does have stabilization in the body. Nikon and Canon have stabilization in the lens. There are arguments about which system works better. It's true that the Nikon and Canon systems are far more expensive, but the usual argument runs that the quality of stabilization is actually better, because it doesn't involve moving the sensor around.

As for the cost of stabilization; Canon's new kit lens, the 18-55 IS has stabilization and it's a $200 lens. So, stabilization can be had on some of the entry-level glass.

But... as far as the image quality... is there a difference between those three brands? And is it that big???
There probably is a difference, and it's probably tiny. The biggest impact on the image quality, beyond brand, is going to be the size of the sensor, the quality of the software that processes an image in camera, and the quality of the lens you used.

This is why Canon and Nikon dominate the dSLR world, right now. They have the best lens lineups and (for now) the only full-frame sensors. So in terms of upgrading your equipment later, as a pro, these two brands offer the best paths for a budding photographer. As a hobbyist, you may come to a different decision.

[Major_Small]

NIKON= Expensive, expensive, offers the BEST image quality and DO NOT offer image stabilization or dust reduction system (yet), lenses...i have no idea about this. Good features, not that easy to use (but not a problem with DSLR).Nikon offers image stabilization - look for the "VR" designation. Some of it's cameras also have dust reduction systems. Nikon lenses are some of the best in the world, but overall image quality is pretty much on par with Canon.

CANON = May not the BEST image quality, but damn close to be the best, reliability, lot's of lenses, not as expensive as the nikon but not cheap either, no image stabilization...Image quality is on par with or better than Nikon - All of the numbers I've seen have Canon edging out Nikon by a small amount in professional use. Canon also offers image stabilization. Just look for lenses marked "IS".

SONY = Cheap... not the best image quality (is it really that bad or is the difference that big compared to canon or nikon?), lot's of features. maybe the best "all around" DSLR and "Value for my money". Since they teamed up with.. Minolta, Pentax, Rolex, Ford or something like that ... they have a great choice of lenses, but i heard somewhere that these lenses are not good at all. So, CANON, NIKON or Karl Zeiss?????I would never go with sony, ever. In this spot I would put Pentax DSLRs.

Oh! and by the way, just outta curiosity... which is the BEST DSLR out there???... i mean the best in the whole world... it may cost somewhere around 1,000,000 pounds of Mars Diamonds... but... which one is the BEST?? The BIG DADDY??The best IMO is the Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15710).

[inkista]

Oh! and by the way, just outta curiosity... which is the BEST DSLR out there???... i mean the best in the whole world... it may cost somewhere around 1,000,000 pounds of Mars Diamonds... but... which one is the BEST?? The BIG DADDY??
Hmmm... This is just a matter of opinion, but being a size queen, my vote would go for the Hasselblad H3DII (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/h3d-ii.aspx). I believe it's about $34,000. 39MP, medium-format sized sensor. And yes, it's an SLR. Just not 35mm-format. The large format digital backs tend not to be SLRs, but for view cameras. :)

The best of the non-dSLR 35mm-formatish digital cameras is probably the Leica M8 (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/) rangefinder. That's about $5,500.

And yeah, of the dSLRs in 35-mm format, the 1DsIII is probably at the top of the list, although Nikon's D3 is definitely closing the gap.

[Mefistofeles]

I would never go with sony, ever. In this spot I would put Pentax DSLRs.


Why not?? any reason in particular??... bad experience?


The best IMO is the Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15710).

WOW!! Tha Big Kahuna!

[mattdm]

WOW!! Tha Big Kahuna!

Which, of course, is its downside too (leaving aside price). I mean, the body alone weighs three pounds — you could carry three Olympus E-420s with their lenses instead. Everything in camera design is about compromise, and you can't have a camera which is the best at everything.

[Major_Small]

Why not?? any reason in particular??... bad experience?I haven't seen anything from Sony that I've liked. I've also yet to see a customer happy with their Sony. They're not necessarily unhappy with it, but when you sell a Canon or Nikon, or even a Pentax, a certain percentage of people will come back and thank you for pointing them to a good camera, and want to share some of the shots they've taken with it (at least when you work at a lab). I've not once had that happen with a sony camera. DSLR or compact.

And I agree about the 1Ds. When I see press and event photographers with two or three 1Ds bodies around their neck, I get jealous. When I see somebody ask about the 1Ds, when they know they'll never get past flower macros, I have to keep the "this guy's a moron with a lot of money to kick around" thought to myself :)

[crunch]

Just felt like throwing in my 2c...

Look at any sporting event. All those white lenses: Canon! The handful (maybe 3-4 out of 50 or so) of black ones are definitely Nikon.

I've heard only praise for those two systems. Haven't heard much for Sony.

Oh, and for all the Nikon fans, I have some bad news. I know and know of many pros who have sold their ENTIRE Nikon kit to move to Canon. I don't know anyone that has sold their Canon gear for Nikon yet. Sorry :p Although I can honestly say that if I had initially bought a Nikon not a Canon I would still have enjoyed my camera immensely! Really, you can't go wrong with either.

Cheers!

[Taallyn]

That was mainly because Nikon didn't have a full frame camera and weren't talking about when they might sell one. That's changed with the D3. I've heard of Canon pros switching to the D3 and the new lenses released with it.

[djc1026]

If you don't look at the exif data, what camera took the following photos?

<a href="http://lh5.google.com/djc1026/R7cQN9ROIiI/AAAAAAAABjM/vuAIXZu6kec/s400/P2090426.JPG.jpg"><img src="http://lh5.google.com/djc1026/R7cQN9ROIiI/AAAAAAAABjM/vuAIXZu6kec/s400/P2090426.JPG.jpg" /></a>

<a href="http://http://lh5.google.com/djc1026/RnQpdH-Q83I/AAAAAAAAANw/9LB7d-gZT-A/s400/P1000734.JPG.jpg"><img src="http://lh5.google.com/djc1026/RnQpdH-Q83I/AAAAAAAAANw/9LB7d-gZT-A/s400/P1000734.JPG.jpg" /></a>

I will tell you that yes one was shot with my Oly 510, but the other was not. I'm an amateur and the differences in IQ primarily come down to the differences in the photographer. I have seen fantastic photos on every major brand DSLR out there. We can't tell you which one to get, that is a personal decision based on your research, likes and dislikes, and everything else you bring to the table when making a purchase. I think that your access to gear and support is an important factor to consider, but I would not rule out everything else just on that alone. Just my amateur $.02 for what it's worth.

[whereswill]

I'm an amateur who's looking to purchase his first DSLR, and this thread has been helpful, since it covers the 3 ecosystems I was initially considering.

I had discounted some other brands just to make life easier; the vast majority of people seem to recommend Nikon or Canon, and Sony's Alpha series has been getting "Recommended" reviews from dpreview. (I have a credit card that offers Sony promotions, so sometimes I can get discounts on their gear. That helps too.)

One thing that has kept Sony in the running for me is the lower initial price point for a (seemingly) decent quality kit. But I guess what I should really be considering is the glass that's available.

Sony has a selection of lenses outlined here (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=3770); they offer Zeiss glass, which I find reassuring. Sony also makes a big deal of noting that they support Minolta Maxxus lenses. Since Minolta's left the business, though, this is probably only of interest to those folks who already have a bunch of Minolta lenses.

So, my question for you folks who don't use Sony, Canon, or Nikon: how happy have you been with the lens selection you have available?

[mattdm]

So, my question for you folks who don't use Sony, Canon, or Nikon: how happy have you been with the lens selection you have available?

I'm a Pentax user, and I'm really very happy. The only thing missing is money to buy more lenses. (In other words, I'm out of resources before I'm out of lenses to buy.) Their weakness is in super-long telephotos (although there are some decent Sigma lenses available in Pentax mount), and in specialty lenses like tilt-shift. (Which, honestly, I couldn't afford even if it were available.)

For normal and portrait-length lenses, I think they've got Canon and Nikon beat, especially when you factor price for top-quality glass into the equation. Or medium-quality, for that matter. For example, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is $285 (at B&H), the Canon equivalent is $310, and the Pentax version is $200. And the Pentax version is just as well-regarded (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-50mm-lenses.html).

And, Canon and (mostly) Nikon have nothing like the DA Limited prime "pancake" lenses, which have top-notch image quality in a highly-compact package, so it's not like the Pentax lenses are just a subset of offerings from the "big two". Rather, it's different.

[vandergus]

And, Canon and (mostly) Nikon have nothing like the DA Limited prime "pancake" lenses, which have top-notch image quality in a highly-compact package, so it's not like the Pentax lenses are just a subset of offerings from the "big two". Rather, it's different.

I've often dreamed how that 21mm pancake would look on my D40 :)