Nikon Vs. Canon... or Panasonic or Sony??? HELP!

I was all set to buy a Canon 60D... then I learned about the Nikon d7000 they seem to be neck in neck
Reading reviews led me to find the Panasonic GHT which has the best video of the lot
and Sony a55 with built in Images Stabilization and great video also.

I'm so overwhelmed right now... do any of you own these cameras?

Thoughts? Comments? Any help would be appreciated.

I'm buying mostly for art photography with fast lenses f2.8 but would like to do some video with them too...

Canon Eos 550D !!

For most, it's about the gear you already own. If you have Canon lenses, you buy a Canon. Me? I own a Nikon D7000 because I had a Nikon D80 3.5 years ago. If you select Nikon or Canon, as an amateur, the differences won't mean much.

Try looking at kenrockwell.com (let the flaming begin).

reply to post by angrydog


That's like the T2i? I'm looking a little higher in the line with the 60D.

So you love your canon?

I wouldn't buy a dslr based on the video it takes. It depends on what kind of money you are looking at spending and what exactly you want to do with the camera. Canon's are good because they are reliable and to be honest are easier and cheaper(slightly) when it comes to lenses. Nikons are great too possibly better, maybe not, but a Canon will give you the easiest run, more brands lenses will fit.

But as a poster said, it's all about what you want to lock yourself into.

Originally posted by ArcAngel
For most, it's about the gear you already own. If you have Canon lenses, you buy a Canon. Me? I own a Nikon D7000 because I had a Nikon D80 3.5 years ago. If you select Nikon or Canon, as an amateur, the differences won't mean much.

Try looking at kenrockwell.com (let the flaming begin).

I am starting out, and I am beginning to realize that... I will be spending more on lenses than the camera....

The panasonic is nice because it will accept both nikkor and canon lenses...

Originally posted by pazcat
I wouldn't buy a dslr based on the video it takes. It depends on what kind of money you are looking at spending and what exactly you want to do with the camera. Canon's are good because they are reliable and to be honest are easier and cheaper(slightly) when it comes to lenses. Nikons are great too possibly better, maybe not, but a Canon will give you the easiest run, more brands lenses will fit.

But as a poster said, it's all about what you want to lock yourself into.

edit on 9-4-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)

Video is just a nice bonus... I've listed the cameras I've narrowed it down to. I'm definately going to buy a nice f 2.8 lens 70-200 plus a 18-70(or as close as I can get) f 2.8...

The panasonic seems to have the easiest learning curve via the reviews, but they don't have the f 2.8 lenses I want.

I spent about 5-6 months before I dug in to buy a dslr. I eventually got a canon 30d but then traded up for a 50d based on a few issues I had yatta yatta.

In the long run like many say, lenses are more important than the body, so sink your teeth into what lenses you want to buy, macro, small aperature, zoom, what sort of photography do you want to get into, nature, just fun, low light no flash... all these things need to be considered, but try to be realistic with what you will actually be doing, not just basing your decision on stats and photo samples. Let me tell you I purchased the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM and it took photos I thought were impossible simply because no lense I used even touched the cameras potential.

long story short- get a t2i

Originally posted by el1jah
I spent about 5-6 months before I dug in to buy a dslr. I eventually got a canon 30d but then traded up for a 50d based on a few issues I had yatta yatta.

In the long run like many say, lenses are more important than the body, so sink your teeth into what lenses you want to buy, macro, small aperature, zoom, what sort of photography do you want to get into, nature, just fun, low light no flash... all these things need to be considered, but try to be realistic with what you will actually be doing, not just basing your decision on stats and photo samples. Let me tell you I purchased the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM and it took photos I thought were impossible simply because no lense I used even touched the cameras potential.

long story short- get a t2i

Nature, and artistic photos. A little macro, but will do that via the 70-200 f 2.8 zoom.

I will not be doing weddings, people, etc...

This is for art. t2i seems to come up short compared to the others... would buy the 60d, but not t2i. Cap for the camera is around 1200 US (body). So I have money to buy the lenses I want.

My avatar shall shed light on the issue. Try D5100 if you want video.

[Edit to add] Forgot that you cant really see it anymore. It's Nikon btw

reply to post by PsykoOps


I'm looking at the d7000, it's bigger brother...

so several canon, and several nikon votes...

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by el1jah
I spent about 5-6 months before I dug in to buy a dslr. I eventually got a canon 30d but then traded up for a 50d based on a few issues I had yatta yatta.

In the long run like many say, lenses are more important than the body, so sink your teeth into what lenses you want to buy, macro, small aperature, zoom, what sort of photography do you want to get into, nature, just fun, low light no flash... all these things need to be considered, but try to be realistic with what you will actually be doing, not just basing your decision on stats and photo samples. Let me tell you I purchased the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM and it took photos I thought were impossible simply because no lense I used even touched the cameras potential.

long story short- get a t2i

Nature, and artistic photos. A little macro, but will do that via the 70-200 f 2.8 zoom.

I will not be doing weddings, people, etc...

This is for art. t2i seems to come up short compared to the others... would buy the 60d, but not t2i. Cap for the camera is around 1200 US (body). So I have money to buy the lenses I want.

imo you might want to spread your budget a little over time rather than buying all at once. I remember when I wanted to buy I was jumping to get a 10-20mm ultra wide sigma... yeah right now that I think about it I would never use it. so take some time to decide... The 60d body is great for what it has, some things that turned me off from the previous years... No magnesium body, plastic like the rebel series, no real improvement on the water resistant scale over the 50d... at least compared to a 7d... the shutter speed is better than the t2i though I have never shot high speed on my 50d as much as I thought I "needed it"....

one thing that is great over the t2i though... ergonomics, great great great ergonomics the wheel and screen are stupendous and very hard to let go of if I got used to it. the 60d is also simillar in size over previous models...its like the 30d which I found more comfy than the 40-50d bodies which are bulkier (more square) and heavier... I sometimes am not inclined to bust out my dslr since it is bulky... I sometimes wish I had the t2i instead.

go with your gut, get a good warranty, buy used if you are comfortable since reputable stores offer great warranties (Henrys Canada).... Look at the d90 if your heart is not set on a canon, I think if you find it for a good price you can join the dark side and have a great quality camera and lense options. either way you go, you are in for great picture taking and a hole in your wallet.


EDIT: just so you know I shoot entirely with a SIGMA 30mm1.4, canon 100mm 2.8 (macro and telephoto), and IF IF IF I cant get far enough I bust out the 18-55is that is a great deal for a kit lens good IQ and Image stabilizer is useful. I found the sigma a touch too wide, this is the dilema , you get a 50mm it is to far (since it is for full bodied cameras) you get the 30mm sigma it is too wide since it is designed for the apsc sensors.... If you go with a NIkon you have the option of their 35mm lens for like $299 and it is a perfect range and 1.8 to boot

reply to post by pianopraze


Check the video specs. for the D5100. It's the newest model therefore I'd go for that.

Oh btw. Don't underestimate the usefullness of tilting lcd. One of the biggest problems I have with my D200 is that taking macros is a pain in the knees, ass and back When you compare D5100 and D7000 I'd definately go for D5100.

I'm flooding the thread. I don't wanna edit the previous posts Anyway one thing that came to mind is that when you start doing video make sure you buy a proper mic. Actually depending on what kind of video a boom mic and a button mic should be in you arsenal

reply to post by PsykoOps


I'm a musician I have good mikes

reply to post by el1jah


I'm going to buy sigma lenses probably for the price/performance they seem the best on my budget...

if i go with the sony i don't have to lay out money or image stabilization on the lenses... thats a real draw, but people don't seem to like sony... thought the pics look good in the comparisons..

I too am thinking of going the dslr route for video. Great complementary gear and nice work flow.
All my filmmaking contemporaries are attached to their Canon 7Ds or 5Ds for those with the money.
For film like DOF the dslr are the only affordable option. I get great video and stills with my Panasonic and Canon video cameras but limited in expressive capabilities.

I appreciate the feedback also.

Since I was starting with no lenses i bought a Canon 30d over the comparable Nikon simply because I liked the ergonomics and the menu system

Just get what is more comfortable

IMO I would not get anything Sony, everything I ever bought broke

reply to post by pianopraze


When you go for a cheaper lenses such as sigma or tamron compare them before you buy. I did and ended up with tamron 17-55mm 2.8 cause of better performance and it is definately worth the money.