[ClaraT]

I'm getting ready to buy a DSLR-either Nikon or Canon--but my search for advice is NOT about which to get, as there are plenty of posts on this that have already helped me tremendously.

I need to know which is the better compatible with my MacBook for actually getting the photos into my computer and then printing them out? Nikon or Canon?

What should I be aware of beyond the feel of the camera body, the system, the lenses, the ISO and the video quality for ease of use. For example, is there software that comes with each camera that I need to load onto the MacBook in order to get the photos from the camera to the computer? Which is better? Which one is buggier? Will I use an USB or Firewire? What is RAW vs JPEG and do I need Photoshop, etc?

Again, I'm interested in the heads up for which manufacturer is most compatible with Apple with the end goal being--it's simple and enjoyable to use.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the Nikon D90, but your input will weigh heavily on my purchase so I look forward to hearing from both Canon and Nikon users.

Thanks so much.

[ClaraT]

Me again.

After posting I found this In case others are interested in my question.

Mac OS X v10.5: Digital camera RAW formats supported

The D90 is not listed under Supported by Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.7. Hmmm? What does this mean? It would not be a wise choice?

[chabig]

You shouldn't require any software. Just plug the memory card into your MacBook and iPhoto will automatically take care of it. In fact, most all camera maker's software for Macs is terrible.

[mduell]

Both major brands (Canon and Nikon) are well supported in first party (Apple iPhoto and Aperature) and most third party (Lightroom, DXO, etc) software for OS X. Canon and Nikon both have software for OS X that can be useful in some circumstances, but is generally pretty awful.

You don't need to load any software to transfer photos (what is this, 1998?). The consumer SLRs have USB ports, and you can buy a USB or Firewire or ExpressCard (if you have an appropriately equipped MBP) card reader if you don't want to have to connect your camera to your laptop to transfer. Some of the newer MBPs and iMac include SDHD card readers. For library management and photo editing software you can use the included iPhoto (some people like it, I think it sucks) or buy more advanced software for library management (Lightroom, Aperture) and/or photo editing (Photoshop, Pixelmator, etc). If you're unsure about RAW vs JPEG, use JPEG; Ken Rockwell covers RAW vs JPEG pretty well.

Per the link you provided, support for the D90 was added in Mac OS X v10.5.7. Why are you asking about Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.7?

[ClaraT]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Both major brands (Canon and Nikon) are well supported in first party (Apple iPhoto and Aperature) and most third party (Lightroom, DXO, etc) software for OS X.

Per the link you provided, support for the D90 was added in Mac OS X v10.5.7. Why are you asking about Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.7?

I don't know what I'm asking since I'm learning. What is this?

Thanks.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by chabig 

You shouldn't require any software. Just plug the memory card into your MacBook and iPhoto will automatically take care of it. In fact, most all camera maker's software for Macs is terrible.

Both Nikon and Canon dSLRs are relatively well supported by Apple, but it's now almost Xmas and my Canon EOS 7D's RAW files are still not supported. I've had my 7D since September.

Thus, I've been running Canon's software (unfortunately).

[OreoCookie]

@Eug
Please check your software update
The 7D is now supported as of Digital Camera RAW 2.7.

@Clara
There is no brand that is `more compatible' than the other. Nikons are a tad more flexible as you can configure whether you want them to show up as a mass storage device (just like a USB stick) in the Finder or if you want to use the camera transfer protocol. Canons only use the latter in dslrs, but they are just as compatible: you can easily copy your pictures with, say, Image Capture (included with every copy of OS X), iPhoto, Lightroom, Aperture or many other pieces of software.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Eug
Please check your software update
The 7D is now supported as of Digital Camera RAW 2.7.

Sweet. I happily stand corrected. The 7D update came yesterday. I haven't been prompted for an update yet but I'll make sure to do so as of tonite.

Still, it does go to show you that "compatibility" is an important issue. With new Canon and Nikon models, it often takes Apple a few months to get them support. With older models of other brands, Apple sometimes never adds support.

P.S. Now I'll have to find out where Canon installs all its junk. I have the software on my laptop and I hate it.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by ClaraT 

At the moment I'm leaning towards the Nikon D90, but your input will weigh heavily on my purchase so I look forward to hearing from both Canon and Nikon users.

Thanks so much.

My brother has the Nikon D90, there is no need to install any Nikon software to get it fully supported, which are terrific news cause, as it was already said, the software that comes with the cameras is far from being Apple's Aperture, which my brother relies on.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ClaraT 

I don't know what I'm asking since I'm learning. What is this?

What?

[ClaraT]

mdeull,

I was referring to your question: " Why are you asking about Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.7?" Sorry for not being clear, but I'm asking what the heck Digital Camera RAW Compatibility is?

Thanks for following up.

[mduell]

Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.7 was an update from Apple to add support for a few cameras to OS X, iPhoto, and Aperture. The D90 was not included because it was already supported by OS X in a previous release.

[ghporter]

For further clarification, "RAW" format is actually the raw picture data, formatted for storage on the camera. There are no broad standards for this format, so not only is a RAW image from a Canon camera not compatible with one from a Nikon, two Canon cameras may not produce files that are directly compatible with each other, and likewise with two Nikon cameras. The "compatibility update" was an Apple software update to allow a Mac to handle the specific files produced by certain cameras.

The "most compatible" DSLR is the one you like best. You can feel confident with any of the "big names," though Canon and Nikon are the leaders in the field from my perspective. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi as my first DSLR and I haven't had an opportunity to even get started exercising all of its features. This type of camera is as flexible as a film SLR but with way more capabilities, with various specific features that help differentiate different models. Find your favorite mix of features and you'll have the "most compatible" camera for you. And whatever you choose, it will work great with your Mac.

[ClaraT]

Everyone,

Thanks so much for your interest in my question and for taking the time to give such informative and thorough replies. As a result I feel really good knowing that my first transfer of photos to my Macbook from the soon to be purchased new DSLR will fly without a hitch.

This is a treasure of a forum. Thank you. May you all have a great holiday enjoying your favorite camera and lenses.

ClaraT

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Both Nikon and Canon dSLRs are relatively well supported by Apple, but it's now almost Xmas and my Canon EOS 7D's RAW files are still not supported. I've had my 7D since September.

Thus, I've been running Canon's software (unfortunately).

Get the newest version of DPP for RAW processing until the other parties catch up. You'll probably have it on the disc that came with your camera.

Congrats for buying this great camera.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by ClaraT 

Everyone,

Thanks so much for your interest in my question and for taking the time to give such informative and thorough replies. As a result I feel really good knowing that my first transfer of photos to my Macbook from the soon to be purchased new DSLR will fly without a hitch.

This is a treasure of a forum. Thank you. May you all have a great holiday enjoying your favorite camera and lenses.

ClaraT

Clara,

I recommend going to Amazon and getting one of those introductions into digital photography, and then a book that gives you the basics of digital editing.

Other resources would be sites like luminouslandscape.com, where you can read about basic photography techniques like "expose to the right" (ETTR).

[richwig83]

Canons EOS utility works fine on MacOSX

[tonton]

Canon's consumer level lenses are the worst in the industry, with Nikon not far behind. Nikon's cheapest cameras require their most expensive lenses for autofocus (no in-camera focus motor), so avoid them like the plague. Canon and Nikon are awesome if you've got lots of money (several thousands of dollars) to spend.

If you're looking at spending more like $2000 or less, you're far better off going with Sony or Pentax if you're not already invested in lenses.

All of them work fine with Mac OS.

[Buffy Summers]

Originally Posted by tonton 

Canon and Nikon are awesome if you've got lots of money (several thousands of dollars) to spend.

Go German.

[angelmb]

The thing with Leica is that you have to wonder where they sell them… either photo stores, jewelry stores… or both.

[Veltliner]

It doesn't actually depend on the camera maker, but on the software company whose RAW processor you use.

Adobe is quick with updates, Capture One is OK. If you buy a Canon you get a RAW processor for free anyway, and with a Nikon you will not run into trouble using Nikon's excellent RAW software.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

The thing with Leica is that you have to wonder where they sell them… either photo stores, jewelry stores… or both.

And then you'll need a body guard when you shoot with this photo jewelry...

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by tonton 

Canon's consumer level lenses are the worst in the industry, with Nikon not far behind. Nikon's cheapest cameras require their most expensive lenses for autofocus (no in-camera focus motor), so avoid them like the plague. Canon and Nikon are awesome if you've got lots of money (several thousands of dollars) to spend.

If you're looking at spending more like $2000 or less, you're far better off going with Sony or Pentax if you're not already invested in lenses.

All of them work fine with Mac OS.

Canon has excellent zoom lenses from $650 up (older L zooms can be found at this price if you are looking), the 17-55/2.8 costs 1000$ and is excellent. Canon's kit zoom lens (18-55, second edition) got high marks in a review with a leading lens test site, but, of course, it's still a kit lens.

Nikon has very good, affordable lenses, but one should never buy the cheapest lenses anyway if one wants serious equipment. Nikon is strong in wide angle zooms.

Some Canon tele zooms are of incredible quality and still affordable.

You can't really crash if you buy into either the Canon or the Nikon system.

You do not need to spend thousands of dollars for good lenses.

Pentax has a very limited lens line-up, and some of their so-called pro lenses are not good.

Sony has excellent Zeiss glass, which, of course, costs no less than the best Nikon and Canon lenses. Also, the offerings are still somehow limited. But in no way is it cheaper in regards to lens purchases to buy a Sony. It's just another viable option if you like Sony DSLRs.

You don't know what you are talking about, so hold back with advice in regards to photographic equipment.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by tonton 

Canon's consumer level lenses are the worst in the industry, with Nikon not far behind. Nikon's cheapest cameras require their most expensive lenses for autofocus (no in-camera focus motor), so avoid them like the plague. Canon and Nikon are awesome if you've got lots of money (several thousands of dollars) to spend.

If you're looking at spending more like $2000 or less, you're far better off going with Sony or Pentax if you're not already invested in lenses.

All of them work fine with Mac OS.

Please don't listen to this person's advice. The hundreds of people on Flickr, or PBase, or SmugMug that use cheap Canons and Nikons will also back me up. Todays SLR market is great for first time buyers and while photography CAN be an expensive (very expensive) hobby, one can find great cameras, lenses, and accessories that don't break the bank.

I never had any issues with Canons or Nikons when using my Mac. I did have problems using a Sony - not an SLR.

[danbrew]

So this thread is about a month or so old, yet I'm going to leave my two cents...

First, Canon and Nikon are kind of like the Mac and PC argument or the 9mm and .45acp argument. Me? I'm a Nikon guy because I learned on it and have a bunch of dollars tied up in Nikon lenses. I used to say "buy a new body from whomever you have the glass investment with", although that's not necessarily true any longer. True Canon and Nikon glass are not interchangeable, yet it seems that every new generation has lighter sharper lenses (and less expensive). You'll also want to consider the whole DX thing if you guy with a digital sized sensor vs. a full frame sensor. A DX camera (D300, say) can really make a superb 17-35 f/2.8 lens from Nikon ($1500 or so just for the lens) a $400 so-so lens when you slap it on a DX body. You'll then end up with a 25.5-52.5 lens. Yawn.

Absolutely shoot raw. Raw has made me the photographer I've always pretended to be.

Use Aperature or Lightroom.

If shooting CF memory cards, get the HDMA cards and an HDMA USB reader - it will triple your transfer speeds from the CF card to the computer. Handy when you have an 8 or 16 gig CF card and you want to dump the images on your laptop.

[iomatic]

Well, I'll throw mine in too, and it's what these arguments always end up with:

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER THAT MAKES THE PICTURES.



Not sorry for the caps. And I shoot Hassy, POne, Leica, Canon, etc., film and digital. Prefer the rangefinder.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by iomatic 

Well, I'll throw mine in too, and it's what these arguments always end up with:

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER THAT MAKES THE PICTURES.

Quoted for truth.

Photography is first and foremost about seeing. Better equipment is a double-edged sword: it gives you a broader range of situations where you can make a picture, but it often gives you more to think about, so you end up thinking about equipment rather than the picture!

A common beginner mistake after taking lousy photos is to assume that the entry-level equipment is at fault, spend more money on better gear, and then discover the photos are just as bad -- or worse, never come into existence because you missed the moment.

Learn to make good photos with cheap gear. As you learn (and legitimately push up against) the limitations of your gear, then you'll know what gear needs improving.

For example, I only own one single filter: a circular polarizer. After carefully inspecting pictures, I realized the polarizer has a distinct green cast, so this week (after wishing it for a LONG time) I broke down and invested in an expensive polarizer that is color-neutral and multi-coated to reduce reflections. No lens or camera can do what that polarizer does, but you have to understand light to understand what a polarizer is and what it does.

Learning photography is learning light. Start there.

[ClaraT]

Wow. I love the passion. Thanks for reminding me about the "basics" of what makes a photograph a winner--the photographer. And tooki, your point about light can't be underscored enough. I spent a lot of time long ago with my Minolta SRT201 and still have it. It's all manual, all film and you really had to hone your skills to capture that moment knowing you only had 24 or 36 opportunities to do so.

So it's kind of weird to re-engage with my old hobby and not have to think through the shots because I don't want to waste my film. As a result I'm "trigger happy" and have close to a thousand photos on my little card.

Where do you store your digital photos? Since this thread is still cooking, anyone care to offer their tips and tricks for putting your photos in a safe place other than on your computer? Do you have a favorite hard drive to back up to? Do you use Mobileme? What's the best way to keep our digital photos?

[angelmb]

Dropbox is a good start, and free. Follow this link to get a 250 MB of bonus space.

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTE3NjM1Mjc5

[tonton]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Canon has excellent zoom lenses from $650 up (older L zooms can be found at this price if you are looking), the 17-55/2.8 costs 1000$ and is excellent. Canon's kit zoom lens (18-55, second edition) got high marks in a review with a leading lens test site, but, of course, it's still a kit lens.

Nikon has very good, affordable lenses, but one should never buy the cheapest lenses anyway if one wants serious equipment. Nikon is strong in wide angle zooms.

Some Canon tele zooms are of incredible quality and still affordable.

You can't really crash if you buy into either the Canon or the Nikon system.

You do not need to spend thousands of dollars for good lenses.

Pentax has a very limited lens line-up, and some of their so-called pro lenses are not good.

Sony has excellent Zeiss glass, which, of course, costs no less than the best Nikon and Canon lenses. Also, the offerings are still somehow limited. But in no way is it cheaper in regards to lens purchases to buy a Sony. It's just another viable option if you like Sony DSLRs.

You don't know what you are talking about, so hold back with advice in regards to photographic equipment.

With regard to Nikon, please tell me how much it costs to buy a Nikon DSLR with a 50mm prime lens that can autofocus. And how much it costs to buy a Sony or Pentax with a 50mm prime lens that can autofocus. And tell me the Nikon isn't a bait-and-switch ripoff with a straight face.

With regard to Canon, the consumer glass has always gotten worse reviews than any of the other manufacturers. Including the kit lenses. Canon is famous for plastic that feels far more plasticky than other manufacturers' plastic. And that has not changed.

Non-Zeiss Sony glass is excellent, and consistently wins high praise for image quality. There is not a lemon in the lineup. Pentax is well known for some of the best value lenses on the market. Also, no crap lenses to be found.

And what about in-body anti-shake? What do Nikon and Canon offer?

[tonton]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Please don't listen to this person's advice. The hundreds of people on Flickr, or PBase, or SmugMug that use cheap Canons and Nikons will also back me up. Todays SLR market is great for first time buyers and while photography CAN be an expensive (very expensive) hobby, one can find great cameras, lenses, and accessories that don't break the bank.

I never had any issues with Canons or Nikons when using my Mac. I did have problems using a Sony - not an SLR.

You apparently don't even know enough about the market to know that Sony consumer camera division and the DSLR division (ex-Minolta) are completely separate and connected in no way.

Again, Canon's cheap glass is lower quality. Canon's better glass is great. If you can afford the better glass, then go for it. Canon makes excellent cameras with good features and specifications.

The issue with Nikon, however, is more grave. Nikon's consumer bodies have no in-body focus motor. This means that you cannot autofocus with used glass or any glass you may have from the pre-digital days. This also means that when you buy a new lens, you are FORCED to buy a motorized lens, which can be double the price of a non-motorized equivalent. I guess it doesn't matter if you stick with the stock kit lens. Which most of those "flickr" people you're referring to do. Good luck in getting a nice shallow depth-of-field portrait with the f4.0-5.6 kit lens.

I'm not as much against Canon as I am against Nikon for the entry-level consumer. Nikon's D3000, D5000, D60 and older D40 and D40x are absolutely the worst investment you can make in a DSLR.

That said, the D3 and its various incarnations are droolworthy. If you've got the cash, maybe the best cameras out there, period. Probably producing better results at poster size than the Hassys.

However, because I've got Minolta glass and I love the Minolta way of doing things, my next body is the Alpha 850 (full-frame).

[Phileas]

In my opinion, Pentax offers cameras that match or outperform the best of what Nikon and Canon have to offer, at a far more competitive price point.

This is especially the case in the starter DSLR bracket. A K10D is built like a tank, is close to feature parity with a Nikon D300 and costs, typically, about 1/3 less. I also like that Pentax allows you to use old glass, going back to the 1960's. There's no autofocus of course, but what can work does and these old lenses can deliver absolutely beautiful results.

Having said that, I have sold all my DSLR kit and am now using a Lumix GF1 exclusively, with a mixture of the sensational 20mm 1.7 kit lens, some old Russian Leica knockoffs and a whole bunch of Minolta glass from the 70s when they had the partnership with Zeiss going.

[tonton]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

In my opinion, Pentax offers cameras that match or outperform the best of what Nikon and Canon have to offer, at a far more competitive price point.

This is especially the case in the starter DSLR bracket. A K10D is built like a tank, is close to feature parity with a Nikon D300 and costs, typically, about 1/3 less. I also like that Pentax allows you to use old glass, going back to the 1960's. There's no autofocus of course, but what can work does and these old lenses can deliver absolutely beautiful results.

Having said that, I have sold all my DSLR kit and am now using a Lumix GF1 exclusively, with a mixture of the sensational 20mm 1.7 kit lens, some old Russian Leica knockoffs and a whole bunch of Minolta glass from the 70s when they had the partnership with Zeiss going.

Thank you. Finally some good advice from someone who's not a Canon/Nikon sheep.

FWIW, I use a few post-war Zeiss M42 lenses and a fantastic SMC Takumar 50/1.4 with my Sony through an adapter. I have always envied the way the Pentax bodies work with M42 glass, however.

[tooki]

Using Canon or Nikon doesn't make you a sheep. They both make excellent gear. One reason I like Nikon is because its cameras fit better in my hand. (Canon's cheap DSLRs are too small for comfort for me.)

Regardless, petty fighting about which brand to go with is silly: ALL current DSLRs are "compatible" with a Mac, and they will all produce nice results in the hands of a skilled photographer. The differences lie in ergonomics and features, which are things you can't make blanket statements about.

For example, your decrying of the Nikon D40 for not having a focusing motor -- well, that's how the Canons are, too -- they've just been that way for so long that all Canon lenses have motors in them. So do MOST lenses for Nikon! And either way, for the target market for the D40, it's irrelevant: most buyers of entry-level DSLR cameras never buy any lenses other than what it came with.

[Phileas]

It all depends on what you feel comfortable with. The vast majority of users just want to point and shoot, whether they use a DSLR or not.

Once you delve a little deeper it quickly becomes obvious that there is indeed a whole other world outside the Nikon/Canon universe that is well worth exploring.

[tonton]

Tooki, I understand what you're saying, but I think you exaggerate when you're saying most Nikon lenses have focusing motors. Most affordable ones, and all used ones, do not.

I agree with you that for those who never intend to buy another lens beyond the kit lens, the D60 would make a fine camera. But in that case, what's the point of having a DSLR? You'd be far better off getting an ultrazoom or a high-end compact, which will give you a better lens than a DSLR kit lens, is generally much more sturdy, has built-in anti-shake and can be more portable.

If you've ever been in the position of being a starting photographer on a low budget, you'll find that one of the first affordable lenses you should invest in is a fast 50mm prime. Here's how much the new 50mm primes cost, by manufacturer:

(Prices are estimated fair street price, neither the lowest price you can find nor the MSRP)

SMC Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 - $350 (saw one listing for $260)

Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 - $125
Sony 50mm f/1.4 - $370

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - $100
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - $390

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D - $125 (No AF motor)
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D - $350 (No AF motor)
AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G - $450

Here's one review of the Canon lens:

"Used this lens on my 40D, and after a few uses, it got stuck on the camera body and would not come off. This was in the beginning of my Yosemite vacation, when I really wanted to use my 17-40L for landscapes.
I read about this common problem online, this has happened to a few others others. I learned that since the mount on this lens is plastic instead of metal, I could break the lens off, probably without damage to my 40D. I did just that, twisted HARD and broke the lens right off. Then I was able to use my other lenses.
Not sure why this got stuck on my body - probably cheap construction or shoddy tolerances. I will not re-buy this lens. Instead, I'll get the 50mm f/1.4"

Hmm...

And of course, do note that if you use the Nikon D40, D40x, D60, D300x, D3000 and D5000 bodies, you are forced to spend $450 if you want a fast 50mm lens (and used is not an option either). Granted, it's a fantastic "G" lens, but for the budget conscious, you have no choice otherwise. That's the root of my criticism. If Nikon ever decides to release a motorized 50mm 1.8, I may change my story. But they show absolutely no signs of an intent to do so. Nikon does have a great value 35mm 1.8 AF-S G lens ($200) but 35mm is too short for portrait work. The lens would be one of the best values available for certain indoor shots, however.

I'm surprised to see that Pentax doesn't currently produce a 50mm 1.7 or 1.8, but you can buy a used 1.7 for about $200 (high price due to demand).

That leaves Sony and Canon. If you don't have the problem with the lens getting stuck, the Canon is a good lens (good reports on IQ). Of course, you don't get in-body anti-shake like you get with the Sony (also good reports on IQ).

I use a Sony 50mm 1.4, and it is fantastic. My other "favorite" lens is a used Minolta "Beercan" 70-210 F4.0 which is legendary. Too bad those Nikon users cant use any of the legendary used Nikon lenses (Pentax has everyone beat here).

[tonton]

Please note... back to the original poster, I do notice that she mentioned the D90. Great camera, and the first camera one should consider if they are going Nikon. My other remarks were mainly aimed at the people considering the less expensive Nikon models.

[richwig83]

Not having in-body focusing isnt a big deal! USM focusing is much MUCH better that a noisy motor!

[tonton]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Not having in-body focusing isnt a big deal! USM focusing is much MUCH better that a noisy motor!

Not having in-body focusing can be a big deal. USM focusing is more expensive than an in-camera motor! And you can't AF with legacy lenses at all!

There. FTFY.

Seriously, though, I've never heard a noisy camera motor. Never. Especially on anything modern (DSLR). The mirror flip is noisier than any lens/motor combination. I suppose if you're doing some super quiet specialty photography, you'll want mirror lock-up combined with a motorized lens, but otherwise, it's not something the normal user would ever, EVER notice.

[richwig83]

On the nikons ive used the motor was pretty noisey! Apart from being silent... USM is also quicker!

Anyway USM FTW IMO... [/Acronyms]

.... we digress!!

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Pentax has a very limited lens line-up, and some of their so-called pro lenses are not good.

....

You don't know what you are talking about, so hold back with advice in regards to photographic equipment.

I only just read this. Your opinion about Pentax glass - where you are 100% wrong - makes it hard for me give value to the remainder of your advice. Pentax 35mm cameras used to be the standby for many, many pro photographers and that legacy is still very much alive.

Especially in the pancake arena, Pentax is a world leader.

[tooki]

@tonton: sorry, I meant to write "most modern Nikon lenses..." have their own motors.

That said, the 50mm argument is kinda... dated. Comparing the f/1.4 lenses is ridiculous, because nobody buying an entry-level body is gonna buy an expensive fast prime lens. As for the 1.8... well, 50mm makes sense on 35mm film (or a full-frame DSLR). But on a crop-frame DSLR like the D40/D60, 50mm is already a tele lens, so you actually need a wider lens to be equivalent to 50mm on 35mm film. The equivalent to 50mm on a crop-frame Nikon DSLR is roughly 33mm. Guess what? Nikon makes a 35mm f/1.8 with built-in focusing motor, for crop-frame cameras, which costs $200. OK, so it's a bit more expensive (but so would any other brand's 35mm).

Regardless, all the big camera brands make good cameras. You can't really go all that wrong -- but some models are decidedly better for different photographers. The main reason to go with the bigger brands is the wider array of lenses. You simply don't have the wide choice with, say, Sony, that you do with Canon or Nikon. For many people, this is not an issue, since they never buy any lens beyond what came with it.

[tonton]

"You simply don't have the wide choice with, say, Sony, that you do with Canon or Nikon."

I really disagree with this point and I think you're not very knowledgeable about the current market. Sony has all of the legacy Minolta Maxxum/Dynax lenses, as well as third party lenses, and a currently produced catalog of 21 lenses covering nearly all focal lengths, apertures and zoom combinations. Noticeably missing is the superfast 50/1.2 Canon has (for $1600) but Nikon doesn't have that either. Actually, if money isn't a factor, Canon has the best current lens catalog by far. But Nikon? Meh.

But the argument in this thread is assuming that money is an factor.

Nikon has legacy Nikon lenses and third party lenses, but only the most recent and usually more expensive lenses for the consumer bodies, as well as a current catalog of 55 currently produced lenses -- but guess what -- only 34 of those 55 lenses can be used with AF for those bodies I've mentioned. Sure, 34 is more than 21, but once you consider the price difference, the current Sony lineup is honestly far better than the current Nikon lineup.

Plus, all Sony bodies can use all Maxxum/Dynax lenses going back to 1985! Hardly is that a small lens catalog! The first Nikon AF-S lens was produced in 1996. There are in fact fewer AF-S lenses available than there are A-mount lenses. Yet you continue to spread the ignorant lie that Nikon has more lenses.

Pentax can make a similar claim to Sony with its K-mount lenses.

It seems you don't take legacy lens availability into consideration at all.

[tonton]

As far as those people who never buy any lens other than the kit lens -- as I said they're far better off buying an ultrazoom than a DSLR.

As far as saying 50mm is roughly equal to 33mm... that's what makes 50mm lenses for DSLRs so great! 85mm is a much better focal length for portraits than 50mm, which makes 50mm lenses even better for that purpose when used with DSLRs rather than full frame (of course you can always crop).

[OreoCookie]

First of all, let me point out that I think for an enthusiast, all manufacturers offer a more than adequate line-up. Even the pro lens range is usually covered quite well with manufacturers whose name doesn't start with C or N. I wouldn't advise against going for one of the smaller camera manufacturers.

That being said, I think your post is inaccurate:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Actually, if money isn't a factor, Canon has the best current lens catalog by far. But Nikon? Meh.

Where did you get that from? Canon's and Nikon's line-up is comparable. Both manufacturers have lenses that are better than what the other one has and very few lenses the other one doesn't have. But these lenses are usually irrelevant to all but a select few users.

Originally Posted by tonton 

Nikon has legacy Nikon lenses and third party lenses, but only the most recent and usually more expensive lenses for the consumer bodies, as well as a current catalog of 55 currently produced lenses -- but guess what -- only 34 of those 55 lenses can be used with AF for those bodies I've mentioned.

This is false: all of these lenses will work, but not all of them will autofocus on the low-end bodies. On bodies with motor, all of them will just work, period. The same goes for all lenses up to and including the AI-S lenses: depending on the age and type of lens, you may have to meter manually. The newer the lenses get and the better the body, the more functions are supported. Which means that you can use lenses from the 70s if you so desire. And since more lenses and very different lenses have been sold since then, the lens selection for Nikons is much larger than that for alternative manufacturers.

Generally, if you have a body with integrated focus motor (e. g. a D80 or D90), then all AF lenses will just work as advertised. (If you use non-D lenses, 3D matrix metering will not work.)

Originally Posted by tonton 

Yet you continue to spread the ignorant lie that Nikon has more lenses.

That's just a fact. It doesn't mean the Minolta system is bad, on the contrary.

The main advantage of `alternative' manufacturers is that used lenses may be cheaper.

[ghporter]

This kind of discussion is why I usually say "camera brand choice is mostly personal preference." Lots of folks here like Nikon because they started out with Nikon or the ergonomics of those cameras fit them better. I'm the opposite, and I like Canon. Potato/patato. Get something other than a bargain bin camera and you can be happy. Get something you're willing to scrimp for a little while to afford and you'll be very, very happy.

[OreoCookie]

I agree.
And I used to own and shoot Olympus and I was very happy. But I couldn't afford the Oly I wanted (an E-1 back then) so I switched back to Nikon. If I didn't already own 5 Nikon lenses, I'd definitely consider getting a Sony Alpha 850 at one point. I'd like a full frame camera to be able to separate foreground from the background better (equivalent focal lengths at the same aperture have a smaller depth of field).

[tonton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is false: all of these lenses will work, but not all of them will autofocus on the low-end bodies.

What is false? What I said was that not all of them will autofocus on the low-end bodies. What is true is that you didn't read what I wrote.

In this thread, we're talking about the low end bodies. I'm saying the Nikon low-end bodies are a poor choice when compared with any of the other brands, especially Sony and Pentax. If you read back on what I wrote, I also said the D-90 is a great camera.