Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Canon or Nikon DSLR for Photography Course

Feb 16, 2010 7:20PM PST

Hey, I already have a Sony A200 but unfortunately the course I want to do in Biological Photography in Nottingham cannot supply lenses etc for Sony, only Nikon or Canon.
I know there has always been a debate between Nikon and Canon SLRs and that some say Nikon are better for landscape and Canon better for portrait. I would be using the DSLR for taking photos of birds and animals out and about, so will have to look into getting my own 200 or 300mm lens before I start this course and for personal enjoyment, but I also was thinking about making taking photos at gigs and similar places. I have read that Canon are better at handling higher iso and so would be better in these kind of situations.

So I was wondering if anyone had any advice? The models I have been looking at are Nikon D5000 and D60 (if i can get my hands on one as they dont seem to be stocked in that many places) I could maybe stretch to the D90 but if I want to get a half decent lens then would rather spend the money on that rather than the body.
Canon EOS 450D and 500D, which is again a trade off between getting a cheaper model and a better lens etc, or geting a better body and getting a lens later.


If a similar thread is about let me know Happy

Thank you!!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Photography course
Feb 18, 2010 7:01AM PST

I don't quite understand what you try to say. What kind of lenses are they going to supply for the course? Are you planning on buying your own lens or are you going to borrow the lenses for the course and then decide what you want to buy?

The Nikon D5000 and D60 don't have an autofocus motor built into the body, so cannot autofocus on some Nikon lenses. You should find out what lenses they are going to supply you and see if they are compatible. If you only do manual focus for the course, then this will not be an issue. The Nikon D90 does not have this autofocus compatibility problem but costs more.

Canon entry level D-SLRs do not have this autofocus compatibility issue either. Canon and Nikons are both very good, cannot honestly say that one is clearly superior to the other. Nikon is now actually slightly better in high ISO than Canon, it was the other way around several years ago. But the difference now is very small and not a practical issue to the photography.

If you are going to buy your own lens, then why can't you buy the Sony lenses? The Sony (formerly Minolta) lenses are very good, and the Carl Zeiss series have exceptional quality. There is usually little reason to switch the entire D-SLR system, except for those who always wonder whether the grass is really greener in the other lawn. And there is always the honeymoon or placebo effect, new is always much better.

Your biological photography course is taking photos of wildlife, right? I suppose you are not doing microscope photography on microscopic biological life forms. But if you are, then Nikon is actually excellent for microscope photography. Years ago I used Nikon microscope and SLR to take photos for scientific publications, and they are excellent. The Nikon system can capture brilliant vivid fluorescent photos of the mysterious looking microscopic world. There is actually an annual Nikon Small World photomicrography competition.

- Collapse -
Thanks
Feb 18, 2010 7:52PM PST

Sorry for confusing you! I'm not sure how many different lens and other accessories the course uses, if it was just one then I would buy my own as would make alot more sense (I would only be buying one extra lens of my own for the new DSLR). I emailed the course director and they said it would be cheaper to actually buy a new DSLR, and to be honest I haven't bought anything for the Sony yet, so I wouldn't be loosing out much and the Sony would be given to a family member for their birthday.
I'm assuming the course will not just be wildlife photography, and will have a more biological background, so may involve microscope photography. Well I hope so anyway, I love the images of cells with fluorescently labelled proteins, such as parasite proteins so you can see the intracellular parasite so much clearer.

After your advice I think I would be leaning towards Nikon, for the model I will really have to find out from the course director I guess. So I know if the autofocus would be a problem or not.

Thanks again Happy

- Collapse -
Photomicrography
Feb 19, 2010 12:30PM PST

This is actually quite tedious and time consuming. Hope that your instructors have prepared the slides for you. Specimen handling and processing/fixation is an art that takes some time to acquire. The staining (eg. H and E, etc) and labeling with immunofluorescence can be tricky, and often needs to follow a very precise protocol designed for the specific specimen. You don't want the stain or fluorescence "spill" into the background. Learning how to focus and using the right filters to correct colors are key to a great image. I often use the computer screen to help me focus. In the digital era, color calibration of the monitors and printers are also very important in producing a perfect photo.
There are a lot of steps that require attention to fine details. These fine details make the difference of an amateur and a professional photo. You need a lot of patience and skill (skill other than photography).
Nikon is a very good choice for this type of photography, so is Olympus. In most laboratories, there are dedicated camera/microscope systems, so you don't need to use your own camera. And most labs do not want you to use your own camera, because dust will get into the system. This is usually not a hobby that you can easily set up at home. It involves a lot of high tech expensive equipment, toxic chemicals, licensure, biohazards handling, that are available mostly in large university, commercial or medical laboratories. So you actually don't need to base your choice of camera on photomicrography unless you plan on starting your own laboratory.
I have used Minolta SLR during my early teen, Nikon systems for work in the past, and now Canon DSLRs for family/travel photos. I like them all, though I have to say that I enjoy digital much more than film SLR. Remember that these are tools. Get what you need at your own budget. Photography is more about techniques and skills rather than which brand you use. You always have to think about how to capture the light and the color to create your vision. Obviously you need to have a vision, and know what makes good composition. Also remember that the content of a photo can easily outweigh the aesthetics.

- Collapse -
low light
Feb 23, 2010 8:08AM PST

just wanted to throw 1 thing in there.. i shot with many nikons (d50, d70, d200, d300) and canons (20d, 5dmk2, 7d) and must say i have much "finer" noise on most of my nikons, as well as better focusing
just some food for thought

- Collapse -
Interesting
Feb 25, 2010 4:39AM PST

I'm just curious why you shoot with so many mid range D-SLRs with similar specs. Are you testing products or just like to gather gadgets? If one is not happy with the mid range camera and really wants an upgrade, then one can go to the pro line (Nikon D3, Canon 1Ds Mk III or 1D Mk IV), instead of wasting money on many mid range cameras with similar specs.

Frankly I haven't had much noise issue even with the older generation of Canon, the 30D. I often shoot in low light and hardly notice any significant noise (at least not enough to bother me at 8x10 or 13x19 size prints). The only times I noticed noise were when I made some mistakes, eg. wrong exposure, overcompensating the exposure, shooting in extreme low light (near pitch dark and forgot to turn on the flash) or try to use Photoshop to force out shadow details. My newer Canon 5D Mk II is even better. Obviously one needs to know the limits of the equipment, and try to find the right exposure and minimize noise. Different manufacturers have different approach or philosophy of handling noise. Actual noise level between Nikons and Canons is pretty close, not a significant difference. For the present D-SLRs and those in the past few years, I don't think you really have to worry too much about noise.

Here are some photos taken in low light high ISO, all handheld, with the old Canon 30D:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/DSLR/IMG_0940-trim.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/DOF/IMG_3047.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/DSLR/Hotel18.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/hjfok/2008%20Travel%20Photos/ABeautyofNature.jpg

The last photo is taken handheld inside a slot canyon with extreme low light.

So I think most people can just decide on a DSLR system based on their need and budget. Most D-SLR camera bodies nowadays are very competitive in performance and features, but one needs to pick the right lenses and accessories to optimize the performance.