Fafhrd on 22/9/2010 at 23:13

---

I bought my D50 because it just seemed like the best value for money at the time. I wanted to do astrophotography, I'd considered a Panasonic pseudo-SLR (can't remember the model. It was a Lumix, iirc. SLR form factor, but integrated lens), ultimately decided that I really did require a bulb exposure setting, and I was able to get a D50 with a 28-80 Nikkor lens, a 500mm reflective lens (plus t-mount), and a camera bag for the price of my Christmas money+a tiny bit out of my own pocket. I would have only been able to get a Canon+kit lens for the same price (at least from where I was shopping).

I've actually been really jonesing to upgrade, but I want some hands-on time with the D7000. I really really wish I could justify blowing 5 grand on the D3S, though.

glslvrfan on 25/9/2010 at 18:39

---

I went a little more budget route. Went with Nikon D3000 w/18-55 lens, extra 55-200 lens and a ghetto bag. Was like 680 total.

Muzman on 26/9/2010 at 06:15

---

Interesting stuff all this. For me it's all about video and on that front there is absolutely no contest. No one looks like approaching Canon for a while yet. They're not ideal video equipment at all in any case, but you'll put up with it for the picture and the control being way above what any dedicated video camera can give you for the same money. So handling considerations fall somewhere down the list. (Although I've never really compared them in this context, but the newer Canons like the 7D and others coming out now seem to have similar body shape and button layouts to the Nikons mentioned. So maybe they learned a thing or two).

It's a bummer in a way for the choice to come down to, not which brand, but which Canon for me. Still, whatever one you want and whatever you want one for, its a good time to get a camera all around.

Fafhrd on 26/9/2010 at 21:34

---

I'm curious about this. Beyond the ability to do 1080p at 30 and 25 fps, what specifically do the Canons bring to the video table? The D7000 does 1080p24 with continuous auto-focus (which apparently the Canons don't), and I'm pretty sure Nikon's low-light performance trumps Canon's (though I can't find any good comparisons, so I'm forced to base my assumption on the expanded ISO capabilities. 25,600 on the D7000 (102,400(!) on the D3S), 12,800 on the 7D).

Is it the memory vs. time limit on video clips (4GB on Canon 7D vs. 5 minutes on the D90/D3, 20 minutes on the D7000), or is it some much more nitty gritty filmmaker stuff that I would probably never care about (i.e. the Nikons lock the aperture once you start recording video, so unless you have a lens with an external aperture control there's no way to adjust it without cutting)?

Muzman on 27/9/2010 at 06:12

---

Shooting at a few different rates in 1080 can't really be underestimated and makes the major difference. 24p is a pretty useless rate by itself, particularly in PAL territories. The Canons can also shoot at 50 and 60 fps at 720 (well, a few of them) which presents some interesting possibilities (plus they have precise settings for both '30p' and true NTSC frame rates where the Nikons don't seem to yet, not that I really care about that. Some pros probably do).
The D3Ss competition would be more the 5D-II over the 7D (camera to camera the 5D-IIs opposite number is the D700 which doesn't have video at all). Its ISO range is pretty massive, but not as big as the d3s, and it's full frame (I think the d3s still only shoots 720 too, unless there's been a firmware update).

The nitty gritty stuff is variable. They're all less than ideal, particularly in handling terms, but you'll put up with it for a picture and lenses you previously had to rent.
The major trump card is price really. All the HD video Canons are cheaper than their Nikon rivals and have these features. You can get a 550D/Rebel Ti/Kiss 4X (god that naming is weird) with three pretty good lenses for a pathetic amount of money at the moment and it shoots in all the ways I described above. What all this does is shatter the midrange video camera market at a stroke. If you wanted a lot of manual controls and lens lengths on a nice big sensor before, you needed to spend 5-9 grand depending on where you are. That was the serious 'prosumer' video entry point. Well not any more. (I'd be interested to see how features like full AF go. It doesn't matter that much to me or most people I know and I'd think if you were in an AF heavy shoot, like a documentary, you'd prefer a proper video camera for its handling and focus and zoom usually designed to be silent and lighting quick. But I don't know).

Things like the 60D look like they're going to continue this dominance, to my hacky eye from the specs I'm reading and the prices I'm seeing (I could have used a mobile view screen oh so many times). Although Sony and Panasonic seem to be up to some interesting stuff. Despite what it might sound like, I'm not really a Canon fanboy. Nikon just aren't competing in this area yet (nobody is). In time those gigantic ISOs are going to interest a lot of people (ie, me) and the fact they're the camera geek favourite. So we'll see I guess.