I am putting this in both nikon and canon discussion rooms as I am not sure how people if the other users will see.
Basically, I am wondering on whether to switch from nikon (i would be buying the d90 as an upgrade to the d50) to canon such as the 50d.
I only have a couple of lenses for the d50 which arent fantastic - i am planning to go to the serengetti-kilimanjaro-zanzibar on holiday this year and want the best i can get. I generally shoot wildlife and landscapes - i'm not really into sports.
Last year I went to namibia and rented an 18-200mm VR and 70-300mm VR of which i got some decent pictures, but the d50 is fairly limited in what it can do now. if any one wants to see some i am happy to post a few.
I have read good things on the d90 (especially on shots from mountain climbing), and good things on the 50d (like the frame rate) - i am planning to rent lenses again for this trip but this is the time when i will make the final decision and stick to either nikon or canon depending on what i buy.
and i have no clue which might have the edge which is why I'm posting this to all you wonderful people in the hope of some advice.
I am personally partial to Nikon, partly for colours, partly for autofocus, partly for the layout of the controls, so I would recommend that if you want something more than a D90 (which is a really nice camera), save up for a D300 in really great shape, used.
The 50D is another great camera, a friend of mine has one, but I am not so keen on the layout, and partly the lenses I am interested in are often better on the Nikon side (14-24, 24-70, 70-200VRII). There are other lenses which are better on the Canon side, like the 35L, 85LII and 135L, so if you prefer primes, maybe consider Canon. Keep in mind that Canon's lens designers seem to allow more CA in their designs, which I find off-putting.
Well, IMHO you are not going to the right path! In order to get better pictures you first need better glass - only when you will see that your camera with some good glass is not enough then you can think to a camera upgrade. Going to D90 or D300 and shooting around the year with some poor lenses is not the wise solution, even you plan to rent some zooms for your trip. Even these zooms are not the best kick.
I suggest you, instead to spend your money for a new camera, go and purchase two lenses: Tamron 17-50mm/f2.8 VC and Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8. This kit will improve a lot the image quality and you'll not need to spend your money on rentals.
I was a Canon guy for 20+ years. My last Canon was a 50D. Honestly, I think I got better
shots with my old 20D. The 50D pushed me over the edge into NIKON land. Wish I had switched
to NIKON sooner. YMMV.
The D50 isn't going to limit you. If you buy a newer body and use the same glass you are going to get the same results in a higher resolution. I also recommend the Tamron 17-50 as a good quality starter lens. Add a 70-300VR and a 35/1.8 and you'll have a solid trio of glass for less than you are planning to spend on a D90.
50D vs D90 isn't a very fair/equal comparison. A 50D vs D300/D300s is a better comparison. The bodies are mostly the same size and performance matches up more.
I am well aware that I dont have fantastic lenses, and renting is not always a great option. The zooms that I rented last year were great and I was really pleased with what I got. I also have to take into account that I will be trekking them 6000 miles up the top of Kilimanjaro so weight is a problem with those amazing very big pieces of glass. I know that the 70-300vr may not be the best for wildlife but its the weight thing again. I was planning on taking a wid(er) angle, the 18-200vr and the 70-300vr to cover all occasions.
As I am travelling alot these days and will be next year too, I was looking for an upgrade that had things like a dof button but most importantly a better dust removal system as i find it very difficult to clean sensors and not sure where to send it to for that. slightly better weather sealing would also be a plus. I dont want to heavily invest in lenses for one type now until ive considered whats out there and how it would work for me.
if anyone has any recommendations for lenses that suit the above needs too that would be great.
Saad Syed wrote:
50D vs D90 isn't a very fair/equal comparison. A 50D vs D300/D300s is a better comparison. The bodies are mostly the same size and performance matches up more.
Actually the 50D and D90 are a perfect comparison. And spec wise you will find that the D90 wins in almost every area, even though they are both very awesome cameras for the money. My main reason for using Nikon, is ergonomics. Almost all new cameras these days will let you take amazing photos. Don't let anyone tell you that one is soo much better than the other. So to me, the ergonomics are one of the most underestimated aspects in buying a new camera. Maybe take that bit into consideration too.
Don't believe me that the D90's specs are a little better? Here is a good site to compare camera sensor quality at a very technical level. http://www.dxomark.com. Scroll down and choose the 50D and D90 as two cameras to compare. Then click between the tabs for more info.
Some key points between the two:
- The Nikon has better low light, dynamic range and color depth.
- The Nikon is a bit cheaper.
- The Nikon has larger photosites (image receptors) which is what allows better low light characteristics.
- The Canon has a larger image size which is a result of the smaller photosites.
- The Nikon has a slightly larger cmos sensor.
- The Canon has a higher ISO range (whether or not that's usable is your call)
- The Canon has a slightly faster max fps.
Also, to the guys saying that buying good lenses will give you better images. That's not entirely true. It will help the lens aspects of image quality. It will NOT help with dynamic range, color depth, low light sensitivity, etc. Yes good lenses will help with overall image quality but they will not solely give you better images.
May I understand that Zeiss glass will provide no advantage in terms of dynamic range, color depth and low light sensitivity over Nikon 18-200VR ? Wow! What about bokeh, background separation, the ability to shoot in low light, flare, CA, distortions, sharpness across the frame, getting the focus in low light, better coatings, etc?
I really don't understand "what's not entirely true" in this sentence: "better lenses will give better images"?
IMHO in order to improve one's pictures, the direction to go is:
1. Better glass
2. Better knowledge and practice
3. Better tripod
4. Better lights
5. Better camera
Going directly to 5 doesn't help too much.
crewshin wrote:
Also, to the guys saying that buying good lenses will give you better images. That's not entirely true. It will help the lens aspects of image quality. It will NOT help with dynamic range, color depth, low light sensitivity, etc. Yes good lenses will help with overall image quality but they will not solely give you better images.
If you feel limited by "what the D50 can do now", I would say that a D90 is not going to change that much. My advise would be to shore up your lenses. If you want a real bump in "what a camera can do", full frame is the next step.
For starters, since no one has really asked yet, what do you find limiting about your D50?
My thoughts are that you have a lens-related issue with your images. Specifically, the 18-200mm VR. It's a good lens... but it's not great. It's comparatively slow which doesn't stop the action when the light fades, it doesn't offer much sharpness wide open until you stop down to about f/8 (in my ownership of it), and it's prone to flare/ghosting with filters.
For travel, I wouldn't prefer a D90 with an 18-200 VR Though it's an improvement over the D50, it's a small one (1.5 stop ISO advantage, minor focus speed/accuracy improvement).
I'd rather have a D50 with a good ultra-wide lens like the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and a Nikon 70-300 VR, and maybe add a 35mm f/1.8 for the middle in place of the 18-200. If you cover more focal range with sharper, faster, more contrasty glass, I think you will see much better results in your images!
The improved LCD on the D90 over the D50 is a huge bonus for ergonomics. Shooting is a lot more enjoyable when you are working with modern gear. Use the D90 for one day and I really don't know how anyone would be happy with a D50 ever again.
The improved LCD on the D90 over the D50 is a huge bonus for ergonomics.
Agreed, but I don't chimp much on vacation.
Shooting is a lot more enjoyable when you are working with modern gear.
I disagree... My former D2H remains my favorite camera. It plain kicked butt. My D700 comes in close second.
Use the D90 for one day and I really don't know how anyone would be happy with a D50 ever again.
I strongly disagree. The D50 is a very capable camera, and its image quality, autofocus, and ease of use has held up quite well in the test of time.
Once you use good glass, it's hard to move back to kit lenses and all-in-one-zooms... with comparable bodies, it's easy to move between 'em at reasonable ISOs.
The image quality difference between D50s and D90s should be very significant - assuming that D90 is similar to my D300.
I do not consider the D50 to be adequate for what I do. I use them with my students. I find the image quality outdated and the ergonomics (controls) and speed also limiting.
I used to think my D50 was limiting me, until I got serious and starting collecting faster glass. Now my only gripe with the D50 is having to dial into the menu to switch metering modes. A small LCD is suddenly more than adequate with a quick zoom. Sure, a D90 is a nice upgrade, but would you rather have a D90 and a 85 1.8 or a D50 and a 85 1.4? I'm thinking the latter will give better results.
I have been thinking about what i consider limitations on my d50 as people have asked.
1) No DOF preview button
2) More limited removal of sensor dust etc (as I have been travelling alot it would be handy to have something more)
3) 6.1megapixels over something like 10-12mp
4) Better control in low light situations
5) Faster frame rate (i shoot mainly wildlife and 3fps stops short of that interesting teeth shot when your taking burst shots)
6) More autofocus spots for better control (although i'm sure most people will tell me thats down to my inadequacy) (there's five on the d50)
I dont know how the d90 handles exposure differently to the d50 (except that its supposed to be better) but I mainly shoot in RAW so I dont know if this would gain anything.
I will look into renting the lenses that jasoncallen has suggested. if I can I will add some of my shots to flickr or pbase as I cant post pictures on here, and maybe someone will have some advice.
The D90 will address all of the things you list there, except for dust removal. You're still going to have to eventually clean dust off of the sensor, and if you're blasting away at 4.5 FPS on the D90, expect to do so often with a telescoping zoom like the 70-300VR (those things are dust vacuums).
I loved my D90 bodies. I had one for 20k shots before gravity killed it, and another for 50k shots before I sold it recently. They're great cameras with very accurate meters (turn of D-lighting if you're shooting RAW for best results; D-lighting under-exposes by about 1/2 stop to preserve highlight detail).
The D90 is a newer, faster, more capable camera than the D50... but if your problems were limitations created by your optics, upgrading to a D90 wouldn't have solved your issues. You would merely inherit the optical issues that you're currently experiencing.
Between a D50 with fast glass and a D90 with kit lenses or all-in-one lenses, I would stay with the D50. A D90 with fast glass will offer more performance however. Always remember: glass first.
