Cannon or Nikon
Cannon or Nikon
I am shoping around for a Digital SLR. Just wondering what the majority prefer out there. Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony.
Thanks.
DeadI/Jared
Thanks.
DeadI/Jared
Deadi
- MuleyMadness
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9997
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 9:34 pm
- Location: St. George, UT
- Contact:
- CoopersDesign
- 2 point
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:18 pm
- Location: Layton, UT
- Contact:
Jared,
I shoot the Canon 30D. I'm sure that nikon is just as good. If your going to shoot wildlife, you need to buy a camera with a conversion factor. The 30D has a 1.6 conversion, this makes my 100-400mm lens a 160-640mm with out any drop in resolution. I don't like shooting with a converter but I have both the 1.4, 2x converters and they do come in handy. This makes the 100-400mm lens a 320-1280mm lens, with the 2x. This fox photo was taken with the 30D at 992mm 1/125sec f11, 400iso thats with the 2x converter. There is another important factor about the 30d, there is virtually no difference in the digital distortion between 100iso-400iso. I only shoot at 400iso, this means: 1. cheaper lens and 2. faster shooting in low light conditions. If you would like any other information, I'd be happy to help. Just drop me an email at: harlan@coopersdesign.com
Hope this helps...
Sincerely,
Harlan Cooper
Cooper's Rugged Design
tel: (801) 721-0115
I shoot the Canon 30D. I'm sure that nikon is just as good. If your going to shoot wildlife, you need to buy a camera with a conversion factor. The 30D has a 1.6 conversion, this makes my 100-400mm lens a 160-640mm with out any drop in resolution. I don't like shooting with a converter but I have both the 1.4, 2x converters and they do come in handy. This makes the 100-400mm lens a 320-1280mm lens, with the 2x. This fox photo was taken with the 30D at 992mm 1/125sec f11, 400iso thats with the 2x converter. There is another important factor about the 30d, there is virtually no difference in the digital distortion between 100iso-400iso. I only shoot at 400iso, this means: 1. cheaper lens and 2. faster shooting in low light conditions. If you would like any other information, I'd be happy to help. Just drop me an email at: harlan@coopersdesign.com
Hope this helps...
Sincerely,
Harlan Cooper
Cooper's Rugged Design
tel: (801) 721-0115
- Attachments
-
- fox-sm.jpg (150.2 KiB) Viewed 6977 times
Cooper's Rugged Design - Most Trophies Hang on Your Wall, Ours Hang in Your CLOSET...
http://www.coopersdesign.com
http://www.coopersdesign.com
-
- 3 point
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Antelope, Oregon
You won't go wrong with Nikon or Cannon either. Probally Pentax, Sigma and other's would be just as well. I use Nikon because I alway's have and my old film lenses work on my D 70. Like my 70-300 and especially my 150-500 lense's for wildlife and animals. The picture of the dog was taken with a film camera, Nikon FG, and scanned into my computer.
- Attachments
-
- Digital D 70 Nikon w/70-300 lense
- Doe #003 re-sized.jpg (231.98 KiB) Viewed 6947 times
-
- Pete on Huns - Nikon FG with 28-200 lense
- odd ball stuff-sort it out 243.jpg (199.65 KiB) Viewed 6947 times
Take a look at the Pentax K-10 that is the camera I just bought and for what the camera has and is, I think price for price this is a Superior camera to the others( in this price range)I would definately look at it as well.
This was taken with a inexpensive 70-300
This was taken with a inexpensive 70-300
- Attachments
-
- Keni's-12-21-(41)-copy.jpg (250.91 KiB) Viewed 6922 times
-
- 3 point
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Antelope, Oregon
-
- 3 point
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Antelope, Oregon