Nikon 5000d Or Canon Eos 500d

[aidenai]

Back home I loved to take pictures with my Minolta Dynax 700Si with power grip and nice lenses. Coming to Thailand the digital era started and I've bought a Canon A100 and then a Canon G6 and recently a Canon G10.

I'm feeling to go a step further and am interest in a upper-entry DSLR camera. I'm looking into two rivals. The Nikon 5000D and the Canon EOS 500D. All reviews available on the net show a neck to neck race between the two.

I would appreciate some input from users of either one.

Thank you very much.

[MarkBKK]

Go into a shop and try both. Buy the one that you think feels better in your hands and whose menu system you can navigate more easily/intuitively.

Nikon owners are likely to say Nikons are better, and however wrong they may be, Canon owners are likely to say Canons are better. (See what I did there?)

[aidenai]

Thanks MarkBKK.

Cheers.

[endlessimage]

As well as getting a feel for the camera try and anticipate accessories that you will need to buy as your skills (and needs) improve. What lens will you want, what external flash? What prices? Will they be compatible with the next model up (i.e. when you upgrade from say the 500D to a 7D). Also look at after sales service (locations and costs) for repairs, calibrations or sensor cleans etc.

As a professional photographer I changed from Nikon to Canon at the start of the digital era simply because at that stage Canon were far more advanced but now they are much of a muchness. Once you start investing in a system it's an expensive excercise to change so don't look back!

[astral]

Go into a shop and try both. Buy the one that you think feels better in your hands and whose menu system you can navigate more easily/intuitively.

That is good advice.

It was the way I settled on Canon back in 1990.

[aidenai]

As well as getting a feel for the camera try and anticipate accessories that you will need to buy as your skills (and needs) improve.

Thanks for this.

Cheers.

[aidenai]

It was the way I settled on Canon back in 1990.

Thanks, astral.

[svenivan]

Why not a Sony A550, then you can use your old Minolta-lenses?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyalphadslra550/

[neverdie]

Go into a shop and try both. Buy the one that you think feels better in your hands and whose menu system you can navigate more easily/intuitively.

That is good advice.

It was the way I settled on Canon back in 1990.

How do the digital cameras of the present times compare to those digitals of 1990 astral?

[VerbalKint]

Read the topic title and expected yet another Nikonians vs Canoneer battle.

But I see good some advice.

Go to the shop, take canon and nikon in your hands aks them for the lens(es) you want to have, put them on and shoot.

And remember that lenses are far more important than the body, 5 yrs. from now you will probably still use the lens you are going to buy now, not the body.

(that's how I settled on Nikon in 1987 )

good luck.

[alant]

olympus may be worth consideing, their anti shake technology is in the body not the lenses thus making lenses cheaper in theory

[svenivan]

olympus may be worth consideing, their anti shake technology is in the body not the lenses thus making lenses cheaper in theory

Yeah, same idea as Sony. So he can use his old Minolta lenses and use the new technologi because it is in the Sony camera!

[VerbalKint]

you have sony stock svenivan ?

[kurnell]

What's the difference between Nikon D5000 and Nikon D80/D90?

[aidenai]

What's the difference between Nikon D5000 and Nikon D80/D90?

Have a look here: http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-...-T1i-500D.shtml

[ozsamurai]

My Rebel is due for an upgrade and I checked out the newer Canon 500D at Powermart, I can say that I was a little under impressed at the newer features development over my current. A few more MP, a difficult to operate video, I think I'll wait a few more years till they make it a bit better, but will still buy Canon anyday. Lens prices, flash choice, picture clarity all win for me.

Oz

[astral]

How do the digital cameras of the present times compare to those digitals of 1990 astral?

I did not say I was comparing digitals back in those days,

just Canon v Nikon.

I purchased the EOS 600.

The Canon felt better in my hand.

Feature wise there was little to choose between them.

IMHO Olympus and Sony are very much "also rans" in the competition.

[VerbalKint]

@ozsamurai: seems like the MP race is a bit over imho a good thing, cramming more mp's on sensor that is the same size is not necessarily a good thing.

One of my reasons for sticking with nikon is the great flash possibilities. I love being able to use my flashes (sb600's/800's) off camera using the nikon CLS system.

[endlessimage]

One of my reasons for sticking with nikon is the great flash possibilities. I love being able to use my flashes (sb600's/800's) off camera using the nikon CLS system.

Canon STE2 will fire any flash remotely... I use it for the 580EXII's and studio strobes.

[samuijimmy]

I have the Canon EOS 500, & have been very pleased with it. I really considered switching to Nikon at time of purchase, but because I have Canon Lenses, stayed with Canon. As said there is not a whole lot of difference. I also have Canon D30.

Also there are no Nikon Shops on Samui, who had stock to "Touchy Feel" the cameras, one shop whould bring in, if purchased... I don't think so!

I like the screen on the 500, where you can actually read the controls... and set things up easily.

Canon also has a Serivice Centre in BKK, I sent up all my lenses & the D 30 by Mail, (well packed) for cleaning and checking. They repaired one lense, cleaned the rest & all was returned within two weeks... The cost was reasonable... cannot remember now, how much.

The problem with all Cameras, if you have lenses, it a huge chunk of change to replace them... therefore that is a consideration...

Edited December 17, 2009 by samuijimmy

[aidenai]

Thanks for all your posts.

[astral]

Please let us know what you finally decide and post a few photos.

[Portlandstone]

I hereby swear under oath and the faith under god that, if you can at all afford the slightly higher prices across the board in general, to go NIKON rather than Canon. Nikon does almost everything better, from the build which you can witness, ergonomics, viewfinder, menu screens, and now even the censor noise-levels are on par with or exceed Canon, not to mention they are now cutting edge in other ways while Canon is still sticking around with their archaic mindset (i.e. Nikon first to implement HD movie mode, to name one). I have a basic canon setup with three lenses and what I can say is, while the camera doesn't greatly impress me, as long as you don't need anything then the camera is fine. If you need something like excellent afterservice, expect to deal with real dummies even at their HQ offices. (See my "100% orig Canon battery anywhere?" thread in this forum). The only one real compliment I can saw about Canon is that, as long as your exposure levels are well set and you use the proper white balance for the shot, Canon 400D does offer some rather impressive low noise levels even at say 4, 8, and sometimes 1600 -- however this is negated if your settings are off.

Without a doubt, Nikon seems to cost 20 - 30% more for just about any accessory, but if you are well employed, go Nikon is what I have to say. My 2 c.

[Portlandstone]

As well as getting a feel for the camera try and anticipate accessories that you will need to buy as your skills (and needs) improve. What lens will you want, what external flash? What prices? Will they be compatible with the next model up (i.e. when you upgrade from say the 500D to a 7D). Also look at after sales service (locations and costs) for repairs, calibrations or sensor cleans etc.

As a professional photographer I changed from Nikon to Canon at the start of the digital era simply because at that stage Canon were far more advanced but now they are much of a muchness. Once you start investing in a system it's an expensive excercise to change so don't look back!

Right, I think overall good comment. Sounds like what I was reading about a few years ago, the source said that in the 'film' days, Nikon was in the lead, but when going digital Canon was more sought after, namely by wedding photographers because supposedly Canon had more 'flawless' pictures (an exaggeration) with the CMOS sensor, while Nikon was sticking with their CCD, so from about 2002 ~ 2007ish Canon was in the lead and had the brains behind their sensors. Then Nikon did a "no duh" and switched to CMOS as well. What I read was that the D90 and the D300 (both Nikon) actually performed better than their rival at the time the Canon 50D. Also there were many complaints that the 50D actually performed worse than their previous 40D. With that on top of many other things, like for example Canon is still using the exact same body make as what, the 10D? Talk about no creativity. Makes me think Canon these days have no brains. They probably still have the genius with sensor development for awhile, I guess, but I think Nikon is so more on the ball in every other way. Anyhow I'm just an average Joe user, I will defer to you and other more professional types!

[astral]

That must be why, whenever you see a large group of professionals, there is a predominance of grey Canon lenses........

[VerbalKint]

That must be why, whenever you see a large group of professionals, there is a predominance of grey Canon lenses........

you mean these?

......oooops isn't that a nikon logo i see there

[jandtaa]

Hi Folks

It's all bullshit really nowadays, but boils down to the fact of who has the best build quality of the body and who makes the best glass they may not be compatible unfortunately but thats life !! Do you prefer to drive a Porsche or a BMW ?? It's horses for courses my friends and at the end of the day it's more about the ability of the the artist behind the equipment and not the equipment itself to create a winning image. So unless you're the Schumacher of photography (but then I guess you'd be shooting with Hasselblad and a digital back) don't worry about the brand (canon v nikkon is like comparing the aforementioned cars and bears no relationship to the F1 models) it should be about what feels comfortable in your hands,with a menu system that feels intuitive to yourself and enables you to get the shots off.

Just cuz the Pros use one or the other is pretty much irrelevant they'll likely just stick with the kit they first adopted (it's a costly thing to change after the initial investment ) and are most familiar with that allows them to do the job in the most efficient manner.

Cheers for now J

   

[svenivan]

at the end of the day it's more about the ability of the the artist behind the equipment and not the equipment itself to create a winning image.

So true! You can have a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus or whatever but the guy behind is the most important!

Thanks jandtaa!

[SantiSuk]

at the end of the day it's more about the ability of the the artist behind the equipment and not the equipment itself to create a winning image.

So true! You can have a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus or whatever but the guy behind is the most important!

Thanks jandtaa!

'More about' is correct, but that's not to say that equipment is unimportant. All the great photographers have had their own favorite camera that fitted their style. Us mere mortals never get the chance to work with enough cameras to be sure we have got the best in our price range.

I read a lot of camera mags prior to my buying first SLR Digital camera earlier this month. The consensus view in the mags seems to be that the lead has been stolen back by Nikon over Canon in recent years. However I bought a Canon (5DII) - too much invested in good lenses to even bother picking up a Nikon in the store. I must say it was comforting to find that I understood the menus and operations pretty much after half a day of playing with it, based on owning film-based EOSs before.

Canon's standard photo enhancement package ('Zoom Browser') - which is probably what you get with a 500D is horribly clunky compared to Nikon's package ('Picture Project') though, based on my ownership of good compacts from both manufacturers I liked both my compacts incidentally, though the Nikon was more intuitive to use. If you plan on buying a photo editing package this is an irrelevant comment, but if you are just a casual editor (re-sizing, brightness, coloration, sharpness) then I would strongly advise against Canon. It will take you 3 minutes to edit a Canon picture against 1 minute for Nikon.

[Yes - before any of you camera geeks comment - I know I can use Canon's digital pro software when shooting in RAW with my 5D; I just haven't had the time to switch over to trying that yet]

[endlessimage]

Canon's standard photo enhancement package ('Zoom Browser') - which is probably what you get with a 500D is horribly clunky compared to Nikon's package ('Picture Project') though, based on my ownership of good compacts from both manufacturers I liked both my compacts incidentally, though the Nikon was more intuitive to use. If you plan on buying a photo editing package this is an irrelevant comment, but if you are just a casual editor (re-sizing, brightness, coloration, sharpness) then I would strongly advise against Canon. It will take you 3 minutes to edit a Canon picture against 1 minute for Nikon.

[Yes - before any of you camera geeks comment - I know I can use Canon's digital pro software when shooting in RAW with my 5D; I just haven't had the time to switch over to trying that yet]

We professionals don't even look at the software that comes with the cameras. Get a copy of Adobe Lightroom II if you're bulk editing, or Adobe PhotoShop CS4 if only ocassionally editing.