Canon 500D vs Nikon D90

[inkista]

Ok, any camera is going to have a problem with the pushed iso settings at the top of the scale. If you want that to be perfect, you're going to have a long wait.

Personally, I think that if you want to switch to Nikon, do it now, before you're invested in lenses that will make you cry to give up Canon. Right now, you're in that position--neither of those lenses is peerless and you haven't spend thousands . Realize, too, that if you go NIkon, you're mostly giving up the equivalent of Canon's USM primes and a lot of mid-level choices in telephotos and superteles, while gaining much nicer choices on the wide end, and I'd also run an eye over lens prices on both sides of the fence to see what you think you can afford.

The Nikon bodies are great, their lenses are great, their flash system pwns Canon's in terms of choices and ease of use, and they have some really cool features Canon's only getting around to figuring out might be nice.

But you do want to be aware that digital technology changes very very quickly. For five years, Canon was the undisputed champion of high iso noise performance. It's only recently that Nikon's become king of the hill. But Sony's making strides, and there's an entire revolution going on in EVIL /larger-sensored cameras. In two or three years, someone else might conceivably knock Nikon from the top of the high iso mountain, or we might all want to be shooting without mirror boxes.

I'm just saying, if you're going to switch brands, do it as if it were going to be a permanent decision, because that system is a better fit for you and what you want to shoot, not based on a single number in a spec that's likely to be superseded in six months. The next product release cycle is never more than six months away. Brands and models are always leap-frogging each other.

I would also say of the two lenses you have, the 18-200 is probably the most disposable purely on image quality, but honestly? Better gear is really only going to help you out if you've learned all the technique you can from what you have, and you're still frustrated. And the ways you're frustrated are very clear arrows pointing to the features you're going to care about. Upgrading equipment in a vague hope of it improving your photos is possibly the wrong approach to take. Even a point and shoot can teach you a thing or two about technique. Especially a point and shoot, actually. Limits make you think about how to get around them.

Maybe you just need to shoot more. Maybe you just need a tripod. Or a flash. Maybe you just need to read a few books, take a course, or shoot with other people who can show you how they work. Getting post-processing software and learning how to use it can make you feel quite differently about a lens or camera. Noise Ninja made a huge difference for me and what I thought of as "usable iso". Just saying, it's not always about the bodies and lenses.

[MSidPhoto]

Not trying to confuse you or anything, but have you looked into Sony DSLRs ???

[josefarrugia]

The problem with Sony DSLRS here in the Philipines is the lack of accessories and lens. Nobody seems to be a fan of Sony DSLRS here anyway. They're more into Canon or Nikon.

[MSidPhoto]

Ok, didn't know that, then stay with Canon or Nikon. After reading all the comments, i'd say that you should go for a Canon 50D....

Good Luck

[santacruz]

Go for Nikon D90, you will never think of return back

[MSidPhoto]

If he didn't have the lens issue then definitely Nikon D90 would be the camera for him.

josefarrugia...if you want Nikon D90 and nothing else then see if you could get good Nikon lens in exchange of your canon lens. If that is possible then the possibility of Nikon is still open.

If thats not possible then read "my" previous post, the one before this one