Nikon d90 vs canon? [Archive] - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

commie

Jan 11th, 2009, 03:04 PM

I am looking to purchase my first dSLR and was looking towards the Nikon D90.

This will be my first dSLR, but i have experience with film SLR's...however, its been close to 10 years since i touched a SLR...
Been too busy with other hobbies...But now i would like to get back into photography....Nothing crazy..just looking for a good overall camera.

Would the Nikon D90 be the best bet? what about the canon's? what is the Canon's model to the D90?

My price point is probably $1500 for the body and lens...Although that is not set in stone.

MikeAK

Jan 11th, 2009, 03:58 PM

Here are a few links to help you out with research...

http://www.cameralabs.com/
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm

Camera Labs is a really good site and has video tours as well. Unfortunately us Canadians pay a premium for electronics so the D90 is priced around the same as a Canon 40D - 50D. If you have around $1500 to spend I would seriously look at the Canon 40D-50D, they are both built like tanks and get rave reviews from most. The D90 does record 720p video though so you have to ask yourself what features you really want/need. Have a look at those links I gave you, they may help.

j27lee

Jan 12th, 2009, 02:36 AM

i just went through this and ended up with a 50D w/ 17-85... to me, the video is useless... the 50D felt better in my hands, though heavier... and the kit lens was faster focusing than the d90 kit lens ... then i went with gut feel and when a deal came up ($1269 pm'd at BB), i grabbed it... no regrets so far.

I know the kit lense isn't the greatest, but is fine to play around with for now. When i have some more money, i can always sell it.

With the Nikons though, they are supposed to have better low light IQ, and do nice little things like including the screen protector and lens hood... the D90 also uses SD cards which will save you a good amount of money... CF cards aren't cheap... especially if you want to get something that won't bog down the camera. It is also a substantially lighter camera, which would be nice for traveling...

in the end it's up to you... both are very nice cameras

jackwest

Jan 12th, 2009, 03:16 AM

Holy crap where did you get the 50D with 17 85 from for 1269?

Txiasaeia

Jan 17th, 2009, 05:20 PM

If you're just getting back into the hobby, and you don't absolutely need the best or the greatest, you might want to consider the D80 over the D90. The D80 has an older sensor & 2 megapixels less, which are likely the only features that will make a difference. It's also a few hundred dollars cheaper.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 17th, 2009, 05:28 PM

Narci

Jan 17th, 2009, 07:52 PM

Doesn't the 50D have Digic 4 processing and the D90 Digic 3 processing? I read the digic 4 processing is much faster.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 17th, 2009, 08:02 PM

Doesn't the 50D have Digic 4 processing and the D90 Digic 3 processing? I read the digic 4 processing is much faster.

Nikon uses the Expeed chip and the 50D uses Digic 4.

warpdrive

Jan 18th, 2009, 12:11 AM

Nikon uses the Expeed chip and the 50D uses Digic 4.

This whole thing about naming the processor is a bit of a marketing excercise anyway. It's just something that sounds impressive for advertising. It's as if "yeah, our processor is so good, we trademarked a name for it so that you know that nobody else is using our superior processor". Everybody has jumped on the bandwagon, Nikon with their Expeed, Sony with Bionz, Panasonic with Venus, etc. It's all pretty meaningless.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 12:21 AM

This whole thing about naming the processor is a bit of a marketing excercise anyway. It's just something that sounds impressive for advertising. It's as if "yeah, our processor is so good, we trademarked a name for it so that you know that nobody else is using our superior processor". Everybody has jumped on the bandwagon, Nikon with their Expeed, Sony with Bionz, Panasonic with Venus, etc. It's all pretty meaningless.

I agree, but I'm only spelling out the differences for him. This is no different from Intel and AMD naming their processors either.

Asad_A203

Jan 18th, 2009, 12:22 AM

warpdrive

Jan 18th, 2009, 12:31 AM

Does the D90 have a built in AF motor?

Sure it does.

As for the D90 vs Canon, you REALLY can't go wrong with either the D90 or the 50D. What lenses do you intend to buy...that should determine your decision. Unless you are a fanboy of either brand, I really doubt that anybody would be disappointed with either camera.

For me, I'm already invested in the Nikon system so I'm looking for a D90 when tax refund time comes around, or I find a deal I can't refuse (too bad I missed out on the last two Futureshop price errors). If I was starting over again, I might have chosen Canon but it would have been a emotional decision or gut feeling than any scientific conclusion about which is a superior camera.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 12:46 AM

I am looking at upgrading my body too; the D90 makes it alot more tempting with the video recording function (even if it eats memory and audio is mono) than a 40D... Does the D90 have a built in AF motor?

Edit
Answered my own question.

The video recording feature is more of a gimmick. I wouldn't buy a camera for its video recording capability.

warpdrive

Jan 18th, 2009, 01:02 AM

I think the video recording might be a fun feature. More than once I had my SLR with me, but thought "wouldn't it be fun to capture a short video clip?".

For example, I was at a zoo, and there was a Panda munching on bamboo. I had my telephoto with me and was able to get some nice shots, but none of that captured the feeling of seeing the Panda munching...which was so cute. It makes me regret leaving my camcorder behind, but with a video feature, you'll never be caught off guard. The video recording is NEVER going to replace a dedicated HD camcorder because of the limitations of the way it works, but it adds an extra dimension to the appeal of carrying the DSLR around

Asad_A203

Jan 18th, 2009, 01:14 AM

Sure it does.

As for the D90 vs Canon, you REALLY can't go wrong with either the D90 or the 50D. What lenses do you intend to buy...that should determine your decision. Unless you are a fanboy of either brand, I really doubt that anybody would be disappointed with either camera.

For me, I'm already invested in the Nikon system so I'm looking for a D90 when tax refund time comes around, or I find a deal I can't refuse (too bad I missed out on the last two Futureshop price errors). If I was starting over again, I might have chosen Canon but it would have been a emotional decision or gut feeling than any scientific conclusion about which is a superior camera.

Lens setup I currently have is Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (Canon mount; which still has not shipped out so I could probably switch it over Nikon mount), kit lens, and 50mm f1.8. I assume Nikon has their own Nifty fifty lens. I have been eyeing a 70-200L f4 but I am sure Nikon has their own 70-200L equivalent. Only pain I will have is not being able to switch lenses between my current body and my future body if its a Nikon (means I will have to sell my Rebel...).

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 01:39 AM

Lens setup I currently have is Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (Canon mount; which still has not shipped out so I could probably switch it over Nikon mount), kit lens, and 50mm f1.8. I assume Nikon has their own Nifty fifty lens. I have been eyeing a 70-200L f4 but I am sure Nikon has their own 70-200L equivalent. Only pain I will have is not being able to switch lenses between my current body and my future body if its a Nikon (means I will have to sell my Rebel...).

Since you have Canon lenses, why don't you just stick with Canon? It seems like you're wary of losing money in the selling process. You can get a Canon 5D MK II if you want a camera with HD recording capability.

magical

Jan 18th, 2009, 02:24 AM

Lens setup I currently have is Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (Canon mount; which still has not shipped out so I could probably switch it over Nikon mount), kit lens, and 50mm f1.8. I assume Nikon has their own Nifty fifty lens. I have been eyeing a 70-200L f4 but I am sure Nikon has their own 70-200L equivalent. Only pain I will have is not being able to switch lenses between my current body and my future body if its a Nikon (means I will have to sell my Rebel...).

Actually Nikon doesn't have a good equivalent to the 70-200 f4, this is one of canons best bargain lenses, the IS version being even more impressive, I own the bigger brother the 2.8 IS but unless I really need that extra stop, the lightness of the f/4 and its sharpness still blow me away! Not saying that nikon doesn't have any nice lenses in the same class but not many will touch that lens for that focal range.

j27lee

Jan 18th, 2009, 02:27 AM

Holy crap where did you get the 50D with 17 85 from for 1269?

PM'd Mcbain Camera with BB

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=680939

:cheesygri

Asad_A203

Jan 18th, 2009, 02:32 AM

Since you have Canon lenses, why don't you just stick with Canon? It seems like you're wary of losing money in the selling process. You can get a Canon 5D MK II if you want a camera with HD recording capability.

Yeah I might have to; read more on the D90 and the video capability is not onpar as what I thought it was; although it is a neat feature. 5D would be nice but it will be a difficult choice putting out 3k+ for a camera way beyond my capabilities. Also would need to go with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 which would not be wide enough as a walk around lens on the Rebel when I decide to use that body. I think I will be fine with a 40D/50D and pick up a Canon Vixia HG20 or something similar to fill the video recording void somewhat.

Asad_A203

Jan 18th, 2009, 02:41 AM

Actually Nikon doesn't have a good equivalent to the 70-200 f4, this is one of canons best bargain lenses, the IS version being even more impressive, I own the bigger brother the 2.8 IS but unless I really need that extra stop, the lightness of the f/4 and its sharpness still blow me away! Not saying that nikon doesn't have any nice lenses in the same class but not many will touch that lens for that focal range.

That is good to know. I would really like the f2.8 IS as well but the price jump is a bit steep for me. I have also thought about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which apparently can be had for the same price; but need to do more research into that before I decide to get the lens.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 03:49 AM

Yeah I might have to; read more on the D90 and the video capability is not onpar as what I thought it was; although it is a neat feature. 5D would be nice but it will be a difficult choice putting out 3k+ for a camera way beyond my capabilities. Also would need to go with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 which would not be wide enough as a walk around lens on the Rebel when I decide to use that body. I think I will be fine with a 40D/50D and pick up a Canon Vixia HG20 or something similar to fill the video recording void somewhat.

If you don't need the resolution of the 50D, then you should also consider the 40D. It's alot cheaper than the 50D and you're not losing much.

asmielia

Jan 18th, 2009, 08:55 AM

If you don't need the resolution of the 50D, then you should also consider the 40D. It's alot cheaper than the 50D and you're not losing much.

I'm having this same dilemma right now. I'm a DSLR noob wanting to get started with a well featured camera. Trying to decide between the 40d and the d90. I don't care about the video recording, as I own a good camcorder (Canon HF-100). Looking mostly at used models.

I've read a bunch of reviews, from what I can tell:
Advantage of 40d over d90:
-faster frames/second
-$200 cheaper used
-14 bit internal processing
-built like a tank

Advantage of d90 over 40d:
-better high ISO performance
-higher res screen
-video recording
-chromatic abberation correction
-better viewfinder/UI
-smaller/lighter

The shortage of d90s on the market isn't helping with the price, hardly seeing anything sold used, if anything it's just people selling the FS price errors for profit. So that's leaning me towards the 40d. $200 could go a long way towards another lens.

zoomzoom

Jan 18th, 2009, 10:41 AM

If you don't need the resolution of the 50D, then you should also consider the 40D. It's alot cheaper than the 50D and you're not losing much.

Along with the higher mega-pixel count on the 50D, there are 2 other things on the 50D that buyers may want to consider that the 40D does not have. On the 50D, you also get the higher resolution 3" screen, as well as a micro-AF adjustment option that lets you 'correct' any front/back focusing issues with lens when used with the camera.

zoomzoom

Jan 18th, 2009, 10:43 AM

I am looking at upgrading my body too; the D90 makes it alot more tempting with the video recording function (even if it eats memory and audio is mono) than a 40D... Does the D90 have a built in AF motor?

Edit
Answered my own question.

Just curious.... is there anything aside from the video recording function that makes you want to go away from Canon and over to the dark side ;) ?

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 05:53 PM

I'm having this same dilemma right now. I'm a DSLR noob wanting to get started with a well featured camera. Trying to decide between the 40d and the d90. I don't care about the video recording, as I own a good camcorder (Canon HF-100). Looking mostly at used models.

I've read a bunch of reviews, from what I can tell:
Advantage of 40d over d90:
-faster frames/second
-$200 cheaper used
-14 bit internal processing
-built like a tank

Advantage of d90 over 40d:
-better high ISO performance
-higher res screen
-video recording
-chromatic abberation correction
-better viewfinder/UI
-smaller/lighter

The shortage of d90s on the market isn't helping with the price, hardly seeing anything sold used, if anything it's just people selling the FS price errors for profit. So that's leaning me towards the 40d. $200 could go a long way towards another lens.

If you're concerned about the price, then you should go with Canon. They're usually cheaper than Nikon. It's the same for lenses. At the time I bought my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, I spent the equivalent to $2000 CAD. The Canon version was almost half the cost of the Nikon version. You really can't go wrong with either cameras.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 05:57 PM

Along with the higher mega-pixel count on the 50D, there are 2 other things on the 50D that buyers may want to consider that the 40D does not have. On the 50D, you also get the higher resolution 3" screen, as well as a micro-AF adjustment option that lets you 'correct' any front/back focusing issues with lens when used with the camera.

The 3 inch screen is a good feature, but not a necessity to get good pictures. I went from a Canon XTi to a Nikon D300 so I know what the difference is. However, I wouldn't buy a camera just because of a better LCD screen. You'll have to consider the overall package here. The 50D is a good camera, but the reviews out there have criticized Canon for such a high MP count. Overall the 50D isn't dramatically better than the 40D. The micro-AF adjustment is a good feature too, but it'll be useless for newbies. None of the buyers in this thread are pros. They just want a good feature camera to use. I'm not saying the 50D isn't a good buy. If money is an issue, the 40D offers tremendous value. If it was up to me, I probably would get the D300 over the 50D since the price range is about the same. Then again, I already have the Nikon D300 so I don't even need to think about it. ;)

Asad_A203

Jan 18th, 2009, 07:36 PM

Just curious.... is there anything aside from the video recording function that makes you want to go away from Canon and over to the dark side ;) ?

Haha; I am not entirely sure but it must be that I think Canon has been lagging compared to Nikon/Sony lately in camera entries, but that is just my opinion. Corvettes and Nikons; the dark side has a strong pull :confused: ;).

Asad_A203

Jan 18th, 2009, 07:39 PM

If you don't need the resolution of the 50D, then you should also consider the 40D. It's alot cheaper than the 50D and you're not losing much.

Yeah; I think I am sold on the 40D; and screen larger than a 1.8 inch LCD will be huge to me. The DIGIC 4 and higher ISO usability is a bit tempting, but from the reviews; the higher ISO is useless.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 08:28 PM

Yeah; I think I am sold on the 40D; and screen larger than a 1.8 inch LCD will be huge to me. The DIGIC 4 and higher ISO usability is a bit tempting, but from the reviews; the higher ISO is useless.

The screen on the 40D isn't that special. It'll get the job done. It's similar to the Canon G9 that I had. It's just marketing man. I don't think the Digic 4 is going to produce night and day results for you. If I were you, I would just get the 40D since money is of an issue for you. On APS-C sensors, even ISO 1600 can get a bit noisy sometime. If you want better ISO performance, it's time for you to move to a full frame camera like the 5D MK II or a Nikon D700.

Sgt_Strider

Jan 18th, 2009, 08:30 PM

Haha; I am not entirely sure but it must be that I think Canon has been lagging compared to Nikon/Sony lately in camera entries, but that is just my opinion. Corvettes and Nikons; the dark side has a strong pull :confused: ;).

What are you talking about man? I'd take a Canon XSi/XTi over a Nikon D40/D60 any day of the week. Canon have very good entry level DSLRs.