Narrowing the field - Nikon D90, Canon 40D, Canon 50D

[cdgephart]

Thanks for helping me narrow the field based on your experience with the Nikon D90, Canon 40D and Canon 50D. I want to choose the one that would be best suited for me to do outdoor photography. One of the managers at my local shop said the Nikon D90 would do the trick. However, I want to be sure I get a camera that will do well in low lighting, since I really would like to do early morning and evening shooting, and I just don't know if the Nikon will cut the mustard (I'm also wondering if the lack of post editing software should be a concern with the Nikon). So, here are a few more questions I'd like to ask the community here. Thanks for bearing with me...

Again, the choices: Nikon D90, Canon 40D, Canon 50D

Q. Which would you choose as being most ideal for a variety of outdoor photography (landscape, early morning/evening/sunrise/sunset, and potential for some wildlife shooting).

Q. I have heard about Canon's having better color and shooting better in low light (important if I'm doing morning/evening) but I have heard that Nikons are better with contrast and sharper in their images. Your thoughts?

Q. Why you are recommending the one out of these three that I'm considering (again, you have no brand loyalty)?

Thanks for helping me narrow my search. This may be the post that helps me decide!

Craig

[RichardTaylor]

I own a Canon 40D & 5D and a friend who has a 40D & 50D (shoots motor sports) and another on who uses Nikons (again for mostly motor sport).
I mostly shoot urban wildlife, motor racing and the usual flower/scenery/travel and people pics.

All the cameras you are looking at are good ones, and are capable of taking great pics.
Two things to consider;
(1) What feels best for you when you have it in your hands.
Does it look good through the viewfinder?
Does it feel "right" and not too heavy?
Are the controls easy to use?
If a camera doesn't feel good then you won't use it.

(2) All the cameras make a good start to a great system, both with thier strengths and weaknesses (for example I believe Nikon has a better flash system, and the Nikon owner looks enviously at my Canon 100-400 and wishes Nikon made a good similar lens)
However when doing the numbers look at the total cost of an entire system including lenses.

For the landscape photography any of the cameras will be fine along with almost any of the lenses available.
For urban wildlife (birds) and a 100-400 or even a 70-300 is ok even around dawn or dusk. However if you are shooting real wildlife in low light fast, long, expensive primes are almost a necessity.

I use Lightroom and CS4 for my post processing (I almost always shoot RAW) so colour and contrast etc are under my control.
However high quality lenses (read expensive) do help.

I would not worry about the relatively small cost of any software you may need (for the Nikon) as you may spend at least 2-3 times the price of the camera body on lenses for a reasonable lens setup; (1) Wide angle zoom) (2) Standard zoom (3) Long Zoom) (4) Fast prime(s) or Macro
I havn't even mentioned flash guns/tripods/filters etc.

The friend who has the 40D & 50D likes the 50D better because the extra mega pixels allow him to crop more (he only shoots with Canon 400 F5.6 and 200 F2.8 primes)

I can't make a specific recomendations for you because the reasons stated in point (1)

I am happy with the gear I have now - however I did make a lot of mistakes by buying "cheap" lenses early on.

Hope this helps
Riohard

[Edd]

Hi Craig,

I shoot with a Canon 40D mainly wildlife and landscapes and the camera works fine for me.

As Richard has already pointed out for the body see what suits you best when holding the camera, but it's the lenses that are going to really make the difference when shooting low light and getting the camera to record a high quality image.

Sorry Craig your choice alone, but I'm sure you will be pleased whichever path you choose.

Ed

[cdgephart]

Thanks guys. I actually found it quite interesting to see that, over at CameraLabs.com, in their photo gallery for each of these cameras, the 40D seemed to give what struck me as the best results. Has that been your experience?

Anyone out there have any experience with the Nikon D90, especially for early morning or late evening photography? It was the camera that was recommended by my local shop for outdoor/landscape, but they also noted the Canon's are better in low light. I liked the feel of the D90 (they didn't have a 40D or 50D to try) but I don't want to end up with a camera that is weak when I'm shooting in lower light.

I checked out some sample pics for the Nikon D90 at CameraLabs.com and the low light pics did come across as being underexposed compared to the Canons but they were indoor and I don't know how different that is from outdoor low light.

Craig

[RichardTaylor]

DPR Reviews

D90
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/

See section 20 & 21 for noise tests. - Looks good at ISO 800 and ok at ISO 1600

Keep in mind at in lighting conditions where you need ISO 1600 & above a lot of pics can look pretty awful especially if it is just a lack of light and not the direction the light is comming from. For example when shooting motor sport or birds in most extreemly low lighting I am only just trying to "catch the moment" and not "the light".

Here is an example where there was a reasonable amount of light but is was not good light. (I


Link to picture page.
http://richardtaylor.zenfolio.com/p1739 ... #h393defc0

and
(40D) ISO 1600 - 1/160 & F7.4 (very late in the afternoon (the sun was just going).


Link to picture Page.
http://richardtaylor.zenfolio.com/p5543 ... #h1113caf6

Keep in mind a lot of pics you see on the net may not have come straight out of the camera, post processing makes a huge difference.
Richard.

[Edd]

Richard - you took the keys out of my keyboard (or the words out of my mouth ) that post processing can do alot to images these days.

I can't be 100% sure but does the D90 have a higher pixel count that the 40D ???? in which case you may get slightly better detail on images with the D90.

Ed

[cdgephart]

Thanks guys. I pulled the trigger and ordered a Nikon D90 yesterday!

[RichardTaylor]

40D = 10.1 MP

D90 = 12.3 MP

I the real world I doubt if it makes that much more difference.

[Edd]

Well Done Craig, I'm sure you will have loads of fun with it.

We look forward to seeing those first images

Ed

[RichardTaylor]

Congratulations.
You will love it.
Richard

[philven]

I own a Nikon D50 that has built in noise reduction. I've taken some great night shots, with little noise using an ISO as high as 1600, and not had to resort to using Noise Ninja. That said, I'm planning on upgrading to the D90. The reports I've read has the D90 having the lowest noise at higher ISO than comparable Canons, and the Nikon D300 (I don't know why. The D300 and D90 are similar). Good luck with your D90. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I prefer Nikons over Canons having used Nikon since I bought an F2 Photomic in the mid 70s while in the service.

Phil