People are always asking me for photo advice. My advice right now is not to buy a Canon Digital Rebel because a new model will be shipped in September, the Rebel XTi. This has a 10 MP sensor and a self-cleaning sensor, plus the instant start-up time that the professional digital bodies have had for awhile.
Canon also announced an image-stabilized 70-200/4L zoom lens that is probably worth owning for those whose backs can no longer handle the weight of the 70-200/2.8L. Finally, they introduced a 50/1.2L to replace the old 50/1.0 lens. A little slower, a little higher image quality, almost surely not worth it for 99% of photographers compared to the superb 50/1.4 (only one half f-stop slower).
[All of this puts Nikon even farther into the shade, of course. I met Ellis Vener at the Hyannis airport the other day. He was the last professional I could remember with Nikon digital equipment. He took some photos from the R44 helicopter with his new EOS 1Ds Mark II.]
re: Nikon — do you really think they are far behind? IMHO they were, yes. But looking at the current situation, the D200 is in many ways superior to Canon’s 30D. Same goes for the D80 just announced by Nikon compared with the 400D/Rebel XTi. Sure, Canon’s still ahead in noise at higher ISO but the Nikons improved much in that area, too. And Nikon does not have a full frame sensor. Only time will tell if FF will eventually be widely adopted though. Sensor technology has advanced so much that the higher noise levels of APS-C sensors aren’t likely to become a big issue and with every new lens that is especially designed for APS-C the smaller format becomes more attractive.
Philip, I guess you don’t know too many professional photographers if Ellis Vener is the last pro you could remember using Nikon digital equipment. . I know only a handful of fulltime pros, and two of them, Frans Lanting and John Shaw are quite happy and content with their Nikon D2x DSLR’s.
Just this past spring John Shaw told me how Canon had approached him and had offered him two new EOS 1Ds Mark II bodies plus $10,000 worth of lenses and accessories if he would agree to switch over to Canon. After thinking about it and doing some math, John declined the offer because he realized that he made more than that in a year just from Nikon licensing his images. Nikon is one of John’s oldest clients.
Personally, John Shaw says that he isn’t wedded to his Nikon equipment, but he doesn’t see any real advantages in switching. Both Canon and Nikon equipment would do the job for him.
Ditto with Frans Lanting. When he switched from film to digital photography about a year ago, he didn’t find any compelling reason to switch over to Canon even though he is familiar with the Canon digital SLR system because a number of his staff shoots with Canon DSLR’s and he was comparing the results from both Canon and Nikon DSLR’s before he decided to stay with Nikon.
What I can never quite understand is why a lot of Canon shooters love to disparage Nikon? Both Canon and Nikon produce fine SLR systems, and when someone claims that one system is superior to the other, it only make me wonder if that person really knows what he is talking about.
For an amateur like me, it seems that both Canon and Nikon are behind the competition when it comes to entry-level DSLR camera bodies. Both the D80 and Rebel XTi seem so… old-fashioned, compared to Sony’s new DSLR for example. How come neither Nikon nor Canon has anti-shake built-in to the camera body itself? How come it took so long for Canon to develop self-cleaning sensors? Olympus have had it for years.
I’m well aware that Nikon and Canon make badass lenses, but their consumer/prosumer cameras seem to be lagging behind competition.
I know a few other photographers who still use Nikon Digital: Mikkel Aaland, Peter Krogh, and Jay Maisel.
The reason I switched from Nikon to Canon was finally based on the images I’ve made over the past four years with Canon, Fuji, Leica and Nikon DSLR cameras. I noticed that for my portfolio I was picking more images made with Canon cameras than the others.
Where Nikon is ahead is with the iTTL flash system and possibly with ergonomics.
Where Leica is ahead is sheer image quality ( lenses and sensor).
One last note will IS in the 70-200 f/4 be worth a 100% difference in price (approx $600 vs. $1200) ?
I am exremely impressed with the image quality of the non IS version.