Nikon vs Canon vs Olympus?

[cookieluvr2005]

So i'm looking into getting a nice camera in the somewhat kinda near-ish future. Right now all i have is your basic point-and-shoot like every other teenager in the world.

I've asked the photojournalism teacher at my school what she thinks and this is what she could tell me,

Olympus- cheap but decent
Canon- great great camera. more expensive than olympus but fair for what you're getting
Nikon- also great. However more expensive than canon, not necessarily worth it.

Now since it wuld be my first SERIOUS camera i'll probably get the cheapest I can find, and so far thats an olympus. However, can anyone tell me their personal experience using the cameras even if you've only used one of the brands.
You know the basics. It's pros and cons. What you loved most. The biggest problem you've experienced with it. I've looked at them online but everyone's trying to sell them to you so you don't get a completely honest report on how they operate you know?

So any info at all would be appreciated!

[Parry]

I started off with a 2nd hand canon 300d - paid £200 for it with the kit lens (18-55mm) and a 55-200mm lens with it... I've used that for 9 months, and got to the stage where it's limitations are too much, so recently upgraded... to a canon 5d Mk ii (thought i'd go the whole 9 yards (10 yards would be the 1Ds))

additional to that - i've recently bought my 60 year old dad a canon 300d, with the kit lens and given him my 55-200mm lens to go with it... he has used a SLR before, and it took him a few days to get used to how the canon works...

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by cookieluvr2005

Olympus- cheap but decent
Canon- great great camera. more expensive than olympus but fair for what you're getting
Nikon- also great. However more expensive than canon, not necessarily worth it.

Youre oversimplifying, and wrong.

Nikon bodies are generally more expensive, but lenses are often cheaper. It depends on what youre comparing. For isntance, I can get a D5000 kit for 750, or a T1i kit for 850 at a store right now. But then if I go to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, the Nikons are all more expensive.

[cookieluvr2005]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Youre oversimplifying, and wrong.

Nikon bodies are generally more expensive, but lenses are often cheaper. It depends on what youre comparing. For isntance, I can get a D5000 kit for 750, or a T1i kit for 850 at a store right now. But then if I go to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, the Nikons are all more expensive.

Yeah I figured she was wrong. Which is why I came here She also said I'd be fine with the point-and-shoot i have. That's so wrong! I mean they're great for just getting lines and just photo basics. But you can't start dealing with aperture and shutter speed etc. At least not with mine really. So it's been seriously frustrating.

[sybren]

The best way to pick a camera is to go to a store and try a bunch of them. Then see what feels good, what makes sense and what does not. Don't let the salesman explain the workings of the camera to you - see if it comes natural to you. Somehow I always get confused by Nikon. It makes sense to me when someone explains it to me, but it still doesn't really feel natural. Canon on the other hand make gear that feels logical and that I can work with. Most of my 7D I could understand without reading a word in the manual.

[inkista]

No mention of Sony or Pentax?

With Olympus, yes, the bodies are very low-priced and terrific. You get in-body stabilization which you won't get with Canon or Nikon. However, you also get the smallest dSLR sensor on the market. Four-thirds is more than sufficient for a great many people, but if you're ultra picky about things like high iso noise performance, or you care about getting a few centimeters more of DoF than you do about having a small light camera, then maybe four-thirds isn't the format for you. Also, the lens lineup is distinctly lacking in any fast primes that aren't Panasonic/Leica or Sigma (and designed for APS-C, not four-thirds).

Lens-wise, you're going to be more limited going with Olympus. IIRC, Tokina and Tamron don't make lenses for four-thirds. Only Sigma, and only a few of their lenses, not the full lineup, vs. what all three companies crank out for Canon/Nikon. If you like playing with adapted lenses, this changes a little, but the 2x crop factor means that if you're playing with old film camera lenses, you don't have that many options for going wide. So if you do go with Olympus, make sure the lenses you're going to want exist in the lineup and that you can afford them.

Frankly, all the camera systems out there are good, all offer you value for your money. But Canon and Nikon have the largest market shares, and that volume of sales speaks in terms of availability, breadth of lenses/accessories, and (sometimes) price. If you don't know enough to be able to tell if a brand's lens lineup is going to cover what you want to shoot, then sticking with Canon/Nikon is probably your safest bet. Maybe not your best bet, but they're the odds-on favorites.

And that snap characterization of Canon vs. Nikon? Might have been accurate about five years ago, but not today. And any description of Canon vs. Nikon that can be crammed into a single sentence? Probably wrong, misleading, or incomplete. Much like any holy war.

[sybren]

One thing you should keep in mind about four-thirds systems is that the viewfinder is equally small. My trusty 350D has a nice view finder, but I'm very pleased with the big bright viewfinder of my new 7D. I've looked through a 4/3 camera some time ago, and it looked like a small tunnel... I doubt that I'd enjoy shooting with such a camera for a long time.

[kirbinster]

Anything but Nikon is total junk Just kidding.

Its sort of like comparing top lines of cars, some like one some like the other. Keep in mind that once you pick one you will probably stay with that manufacturer forever as the investment in the glass is tied to the mount.

[JKJD]

I went through this same delima when I recently bought my first DSLR. I did a ton of research. You will always find arguments for both Cannon and Nikon. Different people like different things. But they are right here. Whatever you pick, you will most likely stick with. You can upgrade the body, and still use the same lenses. So once you start buying lenses, you won't want to rebuy them for a different brand. So you'll end up sticking with the same one.

I went with Nikon. What sold me was reading over and over again how user friendly the entry level nikons are. They are very easy to learn on. Now those comments might have come from Nikon users themselves, but I have had no trouble learning on my Nikon. I don't regret the decision at all. But I'm sure other people will have a different opinion.

I would suggest going to sites like cnet.com and watching reviews on the cameras you are thinking about. They typically have great insight to all sorts of electronics. After you narrow down your choices, hit up your local camera store. Ask to play with the different cameras you are looking at. They will let you (or should). Take pictures around the store. See what feels good in your hands. Go through the menus and see which one you find easier to navigate. There is no "best brand" when it comes to the top models of DSLR's. They all have their pros and cons. It really comes down to a personal choice.

[cbweyland]

There is really too much focus on which camera you use and much too little on what you do with them. In reality unless you're a pro and have specific expectations it doesn't matter which model or make you have.

If you have to ask which camera to buy, you're still in the process of learning and therefore is doesn't matter what you choose because the important differences are probably far above and beyond your present skills anyway (no insult intended). But I would definitely go with Canon or Nikon because of the better range of lenses (and the prices of them).

I went with Nikon for my first dSLR in the end because my first digital camera (years ago) was a 2MP Nikon point and shoot and the quality was really surprisingly excellent. So I thought I'd give them a second chance (after having been through some not so convincing Olympus and Sony models). I've never regretted that decision.