Advertisement
I'm trying to decide between the two. Anyone have an opinion on which is better?
The Nikon has a VR lens and Canon his the IS lens. From what I've read, VR and IS seem like pretty much the same things, is there a difference?
The Nikon has a VR lens and Canon his the IS lens. From what I've read, VR and IS seem like pretty much the same things, is there a difference?
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Nikon d3000 or Canon EOS Rebel XS
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 11:07 PM
-
Re: Nikon d3000 or Canon EOS Rebel XS
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 12:49 AMWell though Nikon and Canons digital imaging processors and physical camera build are very similar, you should ultimately look at the glass. Nikon and Canon's base lenses are similar in build, but Canon's Pro series lenses are ultimately of higher quality (In my opinion) and so I'd suggest Canon if you're planing on taking this higher in the future. If this will be your only prosumer camera and you don't ever plan on going pro, then just get whichever one you can find the cheapest. -
-
Re: Nikon d3000 or Canon EOS Rebel XS
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 7:17 AMsome Canon "L" lenses aka "full frame " do not have "IS" if you are considering Canon XS, and also getting a "L" lens, just be aware of focal length issue in APS-C sized sensor. Which you can use a full lens on a APS-C camera but Not a EF-s lens on a full frame body.
Most people who buy "L" lenses are aware of price difference between the EF- lenses and EF-s lenses which are only for APS-c cameras which includes Canon XS.
-
-
Re: Nikon d3000 or Canon EOS Rebel XS
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 2:00 PMOk, so if you are comparing the standard kit right out of the box, then the Nikon D3000 will have a slight advantage in several areas. First, the cheapy Nikon kit lens is a bit sharper than the Canon kit lens. Second the screen is much bigger on the 3000, and the Nikon will be a bit quicker. If you are upgrading from the kit lens, then Canon has the advantage in the midrange lenses. If you go all the way up to the pro level, then it is just about a wash ( Nikon is a bit sharper, but Canon is 25% less cost).
Both kits sell for the same price @ San Jose Camera ($549.95) so you really can't go wrong either way!
If you want more details send me a PM and I can answer any questions you might have, as I have lots of hands on experience with both cameras.
-
Re: Nikon d3000 or Canon EOS Rebel XS
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 6:01 PMI like this answer:
photography-on-the.net/forum/...52.html
soumya63
14th of May 2003 (Wed), 18:29
Answer these two questions first:
1) Are you an action photographer?
2) Are you buying this for its fad value? Something cool to possess, an expensive toy to impress others?
If both the answers are no, go for regular non IS version.
I know this may start a flame war, but remember long lenses can not be hand held successfully for a critically sharp image. For sports and action photography sharpness is secondary as the value of the photograph lies on the moment. But for portrait, landscape or fine art photography, like what I do, IS has no value. I almost always use tripod to shoot lens longer than 70. If there is bright day light, I hand held shoot even with 300mm and crank up shutter speed 500 or higher.
IS is a recent innovation and available even in cheap camcorders of Canon. It is a nice feature but not indispensable. Does any medium format has IS? No. Does all big names in Photoworld are shooting with IS to capture breathtaking images? No. Does it make me a better photographer? No. So I see no need of spending $600 more in IS than to spend it in a proper camera support.
If you are really interested in buying the coolest gadget, then go and buy a gyro stabilizer. It will allow you to shoot rock steady shots even from shaking a swaying vehicle, and that will make all your lenses IS!
www.mitraphoto.com -
-
Re: Nikon d3000 or Canon EOS Rebel XS
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 8:19 PMabject,
The dialog in the forum that you linked to was quite interesting, and generally matches my own particular experience with the Canon EOS 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I almost always pack my 135mm f/2L prime for an event where the zoom would also work.
IS is pretty much useless for action photography, agree.
I have found however that it is useful in an action photography context by tamping down the viewfinder image jumbling that would otherwise occur as you may have to pan around to follow a dancer(s) whom is moving, esp. with cameras having a cropping factor.
So, this IS function works not for the shot itself, but for the necessary tracking to compose the shot in the frame the way that one would prefer. With IS, the tracking is much steadier that it would have been. A zoom lens lens with FL ≥ 135mm but no IS is like using a monocular, or a telescope, when tracking moving dancers. The IS helps a lot to keep the image stable so one can take the shot with Tv ~ 1/160.
Having said all of this, I have also found ways to handhold lenses with Tv > 1/FL, for good sharpness. I picked up the technique of shoulder harnessing the camera as suggested by Joe McNally in his book "The Hot Shot Diaries: Big Light From Small Flashes." It's really helped a lot. So, using this technique with lenses like the 135mm prime, or even a 50mm prime, I have gotten much better sharpness in environments when I did not have that bright light that would enable fast shutter speeds.
I grok the value of tripods, but ugh I've found them way too slow for composing with moving dancers at live events, in most cases.
wish you well, glad to see some dialog at all, here on the DSLR Tribe ...
Blessings and Light,
M
-
