Nikon or Canon?

[TheNerdAL]

Which one is best brand for cameras?

I also want a camera that is a good video recorder as well.

[KiwiNZ]

For SLR I think they are equal.

[23meg]

There's no "best brand for cameras". They're equally good, for different reasons and different people.

Further reading:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

[cprofitt]

I can only say what my preference is.

Nikon lenses

Canon sensors

Though Leica lenses are better than Nikon.

[TheNerdAL]

For SLR I think they are equal.

What's the difference between SLR and DSLR?

[23meg]

What's the difference between SLR and DSLR?

DSLR means "digital SLR".

[TheNerdAL]

DSLR means "digital SLR".

I know that part but which is better?

[23meg]

I know that part but which is better?

Neither is better; they're just different things.

[lisati]

I don't think I've used either Nikon or Canon. As for SLR and DSLR, the only kind I've used is an SLR 35mm camera. The main advantage of (D)SLR over other kinds of viewfinders is that it can give you a better idea of your composition. (Kinda made redundant on my two digital stills cameras with the screens on the back, neither are "SLR" of any sort.)

[TheNerdAL]

Neither is better; they're just different things.

Explain.

[oldsoundguy]

Cannon or Nikon (D)SLR .. Nikon is higher priced and has fantastic lenses and a much larger selection.
(I have a Nikon D-100 older (D)SLR (SLR means Single Lens Reflex .. which relies on a mirror that is inside the camera to use the actual lens as attached to the viewfinder)(The mirror flips up to take the picture.)
I had been using a Nikon FM film SLR for years, migrating after getting a pocket Nikon to test drive was not that hard for ME .. small learning curve.

I have several friends that swear by Cannon .. the body is more sturdy and less likely to give problems. You will find most sports and nature photographers have at least one Cannon in their arsenal .. and, although there is not as wide choice of lenses, what IS available meets most needs and the lenses are nice solid work horses with very good results (Art Wolfe uses Cannon)

[lisati]

Explain.

AFAIK, "SLR" refers to a film camera, and "DSLR" refers to a digital camera which doesn't use film.


Edit: links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera

[LMP900]

Explain.

One uses film. The other, a digital sensor. For further explanation, refer to the countless articles written on the topic.

[ve4cib]

Explain.

SLR cameras use film, dSLR cameras use memory cards. A few pros and cons of film/digital off the top of my head:

SLR pro:
- film, when properly-stored, lasts longer than digital media; in 100 years when your descendants find your film negatives they will be able to easily make digital/analogue reproductions of your original photos
- you can arbitrarily enlarge negatives without pixellation (though higher-speed films will get slightly grainy if you blow them up too much)
- can be made with entirely mechanical parts; no batteries to go dead (barring the flash)

SLR con:
- film costs money up-front, and again later to develop
- photos must be scanned or manipulated in the darkroom before they can be edited
- cannot change the ISO (film speed) between images; you're stuck with whatever film you put in the camera
- can take fewer pictures before needing to reload


dSLR pro:
- no film/development costs
- photos can be easily printed from home
- easier to retouch photos (no need to scan them/play around in a darkroom)
- media (i.e. SD cards) is cheap and readily available
- can take video
- can record audio
- can change the ISO between photos on the same "roll"

dSLR con:
- current digital media may not be usable by future generations (need to back up to newer media)
- image is a fixed maximum resolution (based on the camera's megapixels)

[oldsoundguy]

ISO is an outdated phrase that, on a film camera, was used to indicate the "speed" of the film .. the higher the number the less amount of light had to reach the film in order to get an exposure.
In film, the big drawback was that the faster the film, the "grainer" the image.

Same applies to the ISO numbers on your SLR .. If you have a really fast lens (one with a LOW f-stop number like f-2.4) and set your ISO at say 400 .. you can shoot without a flash indoors. (could be great for those concerts where they have said "NO FLASH") because you can still use a NORMAL shutter speed.
Not sure what results you can get doing this (including depth of field), as have not tried it digitally.

[ve4cib]

Presumably the depth-of-field should be the same between film and digital, provided your aperture, and shutter-speed are all the same. The optics of the lens shouldn't change because you've gone from a chemical sensor to a digital one.

[23meg]

Presumably the depth-of-field should be the same between film and digital, provided your aperture, and shutter-speed are all the same. The optics of the lens shouldn't change because you've gone from a chemical sensor to a digital one.

It does tend to change a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera#Depth-of-field_control), depending on sensor size, except in a so-called "full frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR)" camera.

[an0dos]

I have a Nikon D90 and like it very much. If you are considering purchasing a DSLR, you should do your homework. Nikonusa.com has good information about their lenses and cameras.

You may want to think of getting the body and lens separately. Think about what you want to shoot and choose your lens purchases accordingly. It is better to have one good lens than three or four crappy lenses for your camera.

I think you will do well to get either Canon or Nikon. I really like Nikon lenses. Good lenses are expensive $600+. This means that once you start with one brand you will probably stay with them (it is too expensive to build a new collection of lenses).

If you stick with photography you will probably end up shooting in raw format. This means that you should research compatibility with your favorite photo programs.

Note: not all DSLRs can shoot video. That is a relatively new feature. They are also not as good at shooting videos as a camcorder.

[LMP900]

It does tend to change a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera#Depth-of-field_control), depending on sensor size, except in a so-called "full frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR)" camera.

I don't think it depends on sensor size, at least not directly. Small sensor cameras have smaller focal lengths than large sensor cameras to get the same FOV. So, at a given aperture (ratio), the opening on the large sensor camera will be larger giving a shallower depth-of-field.

For example, a 50mm lens at f/2.8 (let's say ~235mm equiv. FOV) on a small sensor camera will have the same depth-of-field as a 50mm lens at f/2.8 on a full-frame camera. Different sensor sizes, but same depth-of-field.

I'm not totally sure that's correct, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Khakilang]

I own a Nikon D200 digital SLR with a couple of lens 18-70mm and 80-200mm lens and SB800 plug on flash. Cover most of the photography situation. Its been 3 years now and never fail me once.

But choosing a camera is a personal preference. Both Canon and Nikon are equally good if you understand the camera function and all. Go to a shop and check out the demo set. Get a feel of its weight, size and see whether those function button is easy to deal with and above all your budget. One thing annoys me is that their image processing software is for Windows and Mac only. But I use Gimp and its quite useful. Check out the website below. Good luck!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/

[Slug71]

Something with a Leica lens.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

lol@thread.