MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What camera for a newbie Nikon v Cannon  (Read 6322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 03, 2011, 06:03 »
Hi I know its an impossible question.
As a user of Microstock photos and someone who has been absent from taking photos with a SLR for many years (we are talking film). I was wondering what Camera would be a good one to learn from and not get to disappointed in any limitations.

The two I have been looking at are the Nikon D5100 (always wanted a Nikon) and the Cannon EOS 550D both seem to come with an 18 55mm lens.
The type of photos I current buy are mainly beauty (makeup, hair, face etc.) I will also need to take product photos.

I would love to hear any ideas you guys have. Thanks


« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2011, 06:13 »
I don't think there's a lot of difference really but I must admit I do like Nikon's Capture NX2 software, it's easy and intuitive to use and does seem to result in far fewer technical rejections than when using Photoshop.

« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2011, 06:16 »
Both cameras would be equally suitable, all modern DSLRs produce outstanding images.

Canon however are by far the choice of most microstockers and professional photographers generally. Canon tend to develop new technology first, with Nikon playing catch-up, they have more models, more lenses, more specialist outlets and a greater after-sales market on Ebay, etc.

« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2011, 07:10 »
I have the Cannon EOS 550D and I'm very pleased with it.  I would go for the 600D now though, the swivel screen and video crop zoom make it a better choice.  If you want to use video, Canon seem to get better reviews.  If you only want stills, flip a coin.  Mine landed on Canon :)

With either camera, the kit lenses aren't going to get the most from the sensor.  If you have the budget, get a better quality lens.


  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2011, 08:47 »
I've had both Canon and Nikon and I like them both. Each does something a little better than the other so it depends on what's most important to you. From a technical perspective neither system is "just better" than the other. IMO it's down to personal preference of what "feels right". For me, Canon has best met my needs.

Sounds like your decision had already been made though. You've always wanted a Nikon, so go get one. You can always change later if it doesn't work out.

« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2011, 11:02 »


    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2011, 11:22 »
I strongly suggest canon simply because of the lens choice you'll have. Especially recomended if you are (like most ppl) on a budget. Two reasons:

1. the world's best price / value modern lens for portraits, the 50/1.8 II

2. shorter flange to focal plane than most other brands... this is a big thing because you'll have a plethora of lenses to use, including some super cheap but L quality old M42 ones (and even nikon lens).... lens are far more important than the camera body.


« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2011, 11:31 »

« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2011, 15:18 »
I ended up with Nikon because at the point I decided to move they had the better camera (D70 vs. original Rebel).  Over time you end up with a lot of money invested in lenses, which makes switching an expensive proposition.  There are specific features of Nikon cameras that I prefer, including cheap solutions for adding GPS.  But in general you'll do well with either Nikon or Canon and can grow as far as your talent and budget permit.  I'd be less likely to recommend another brand, due to availability of lenses, smart flash systems and the like.

« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2011, 18:05 »
Thank you for all of your thoughts. Aghhhhh if only it was a simple decision. Heart says Nikon head says Canon.
I think flipping a coin may be my best bet.

Thanks again

« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2011, 18:50 »
I never had a Canon but actually only have the D60 and from last year the D90.. I havent enjoyed the way it fits the hand (Canon), some might think the opposite of course, lately have been hearing good and bad related to Canon so I am quite confused, but in terms of quality build I really think that Nikon is better.. Canon are a too light which I didnt enjoy but in terms of lens and price Canon is quite good/cheaper

This weekend have seen a little of Zack Arias workshop at CJ studio and he put the 5D on the trash talking about the focus on low light and focus points and many things, I was thinking he was only with Nikon but he seems do work with all
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 18:52 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2011, 22:02 »
My husband and I have worked with both Canon and Nikon. We both decided after using each we like Canon better. I really like the way you set your white balance way better on the Canon versus the Nikon, and working a lot in mixed lighting this is an important feature for me. I think you get more for your money with Canon including body and lenses. I think the ergonomics are superior. Again though, like others have said you will enjoy whatever you get.

« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2011, 01:43 »
Im a bit more gearhead that most microstockers. My opinion is that both Canon and Nikon offer bad value in their cheapest models - but its wise to invest into them because of further growth of equipment. Canon 18-55 is significantly worse then Nikon, actually Canon kit lens is amongst the worst available on the market.

Sensors in all C/N bodies are quality overkill but most lenses under $500 truggle to deliver enough quality to fullfill the sensor needs. In the cheap lenses only Nikon 18-105 is good one or you must check other manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.

Canon has huge problem with basic zoom, all of them are crap and heavily overpriced 17-55/2,8 IS USM is very very big, heavy and results are ...well not really impressive. But Canon has very good 70-200/4.
Nikon has enough good zooms in basic range from cheap 18-105 thru 16-85 up to 17-55 but they lack good zoom in mid tele range, you either have 70-300 or 70-200/2,8 and nothing in between.

I would go for either Canon with Sigma 17-70/2,8-4,0 or Tamron 17-50/2,8 or Nikon with 18-105 or Tamron 17-50/2,8. Forget 50/1,8 - its not bad lens but its much wiser to buy one good and versatile zoom instead of one crappy 18-55 and one good but not very versatile 50/1,8.

« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2011, 01:54 »
I forgot about the Sigma SD1.  I really like the foveon sensor, I have a compact and it's great but the sensors a bit small for stock.  The SD1 has a 4800 x 3200 sensor but if it's anything like their old sensor, it will be amazing and there will be no problem up-sizing files.  Of course that's banned by microstock but the native size is already quite big and this camera could be better than the 5DMKII for stills, if they get it right.

« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2011, 08:04 »
Go with whatever most of your friends have so you can swap lenses :-)

Personally absolutely Canon, but I never owned a XXXD body just XXD or Xd bodies which are in my opinion from the handling much much better amongst other advantages.

« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2011, 11:50 »
I'm a Canon user and have been since before the digital age. I like Canon cameras because I'm familiar with them. Had I owned a Nikon first I probably would have stuck with Nikons. You should go in store and fidle with both models and make a choice. You can't really go wrong with either the Canon or Nikon. Both brands have great (expensive) lenses and accessories. Nikon has the advantage when it comes to flash photography and using the flash off shoe. 

« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2011, 12:55 »
One of the draws for me, was the fact Nikon's mounting hasn't changed in forever, which means that just about any lens made in the last 20-30 years if not farther back can be used on the Nikon in manual mode.  For example I am using a Nikon 50mm from the early 80's on my D90. And I am pretty certain the same lens would work just fine on D700, or D2X. Unless you really need the auto focus, image stabilization, etc, this alone can save you thousands in lens costs by buying used lens in decent condition. And if you take care of those lens, it doesn't matter when you upgrade to the next body, they should work for the most part.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 12:59 by gwhitton »

« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2011, 19:12 »
Thanks again.

I had a very quick look at both the Nikon and Cannon today, i think i will probably go with the Nikon as it felt much nicer in the hand. i Thought the Cannon seemed to feel fragile and cheap. But that's just me. Do you think i would be netter going for a body only and adding the 18 - 105 lens or just sticking with the 18 - 55?


  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2011, 19:27 »
Body plus 18-105. It's actually a pretty sharp lens for a reasonably priced zoom and 105 is a decent range. If you get the 55 you'll pretty quickly wish you got something longer.

« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2011, 22:45 »
I like the build of my D-90 compared to similar Canon's I looked at. I am sure there are better Canon's though.

My first lens was an 18-250 Tamron.  You sacrifice a few things with it, but gives you some flexibility to do different kinds of shots, until you have the ability to get better lens. But that is just me.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 22:47 by gwhitton »

« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2011, 05:22 »


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
Last post August 22, 2012, 07:08
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
Last post August 06, 2013, 22:14
by YadaYadaYada
0 Replies
Last post August 05, 2013, 14:04
by modviz
11 Replies
Last post September 21, 2013, 07:26
by Pauws99
24 Replies
Last post August 19, 2015, 11:52
by Symbiostock Official


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results