Looking for some positive responses. I've got an older Canon dslr, a 350d with just a kit lens and a 55mm-200mm zoom and are looking at upgrading this year.

I have no particular brand loyalty but my dad has. He has quite a lot of good/expensive Nikon gear (4 dslr bodies inc a D3x? And a dozen or more lenses) thing is my dad is quite happy to lend me some of his kit as and when needed so if I go the Nikon route I'd just be looking at a dslr body(maybe a kit lens)

What to do?

Keeping in mind that by going on "Nikon way" you can get your hands on some good lenses( and good lenses are expensive ) I'll say... go for it.

I have/had a similar position. 

 

I brought into Canon on the 300d and a couple of ok lenses. They dye was then set. I've not sprung for L glass, but I have sprung for 300+ ok glass since.

 

I then had the use of a nikon from a friend... I was very very close to trading it all in. Don't know why, the nikon felt nicer, seemed to make more sense. In the right hands; not mine, I'm sure they perform equally as well.

 

In your shoes, I'd go nikon.

 

Not sure how true this is now... in canon terms I stuck at a 40d, it was regarded as being better than the next replacement model up 50 and 60d ( if you didn't want video ) on your dslr. My sister is also canon, so plan B was to gift her my 40d... her 40d broke this year, so I tried to be a good brother, she didn't want it, wants a big full frame one :( Maybe your dad needs something new

 

So it maybe worth looking at a previous generation to maximise your investment!

I had a 350d with a couple of lenses (17-55is (kit), 55-250 and 35mm f2) and wanted to upgrade.  I went for a 7d in the end.

 

However as you have access to decent lenses I'd say switch to Nikon.

 

A good mate of mine has Nikon stuff and there is little between them in reality even if we do rib eacother that Canon / Nikon is better.  It's just a running joke.

If you have access to quality lenses, get a body that can use them.

Don't spend £1000's on a body, spend it on training to be able to get the most out of what you have got.

Photographer first.

Lenses second.

Camera body third.

(Some put 'light' between the first two, but I see that as being part of being a skilled - trained - photographer.)

Get a Nikon and milk the free lenses for all they're worth!

 

Unless you prefer the feel of a Canon. Then decent glass might not be enough to keep the enjoyment up.

 

I can't stand Nikons to use. Sure, I could probably try and get used to them, but I preferred Canon so I went Canon. Regardless of the specs they're pretty evenly matched for the most part. But you've got to use them to get better and to take shots - so whichever you like using is the better brand in my eyes.

See how the Nikon feels to use - I didn't like the controls so ended up going Canon (also had a few friends that had Canon so we occasionally borrow each others kit).

 

Quality wise and feature wise there is nothing between them.

I bought my first DSLR last year, Christmas 2012.  I was looking at only Canon or Nikon and wasn't sure which to go with.  Some pro's like Canon some like Nikon, depends who you talk to.

 

I found that that Nikon controls/menu's were easier to understand but friends who have a Canon say the opposite. 

 

One thing I have read time and time again, at the lower end, the Nikon lenses are better than Canon lenses. don't know in practice if this is true, when I tried them, both looked good to me.

 

Although I went Nikon and I am just an amateur still learning, because your father has a nice array of Nikon lenses you can use, seems a no brainer not to go with Nikon in all honesty.  Good lenses are very expensive and if your father can lend you them, go Nikon.

 

Which body to choose is another matter though, from what I have read recently, depends on your budget, gotta to have a look at a D610 FX body, tried one and they are brilliant. 

 

Your father sounds as though he may have a number of full frame lenses therefore a full frame camera body would be the way to go IMO.

My suggestion is this.

If you father is prepared to lend you some lenses.

Why not twist his arm and borrow his camera and a few lenses and head off for a day, see how you get on.

Then decide.

i run Nikon's - D3, D3s, D3x - Other pro's run Canon's - 6 and 2 3's to be honest - i'm considering a change... to a Fuji X-T1 as they are believed to be excellent... as the current pro-nikon stuff is disappointing; £5200 for a D4s! pff, Naaa! 

 

Al. 

My suggestion is this.

If you father is prepared to lend you some lenses.

Why not twist his arm and borrow his camera and a few lenses and head off for a day, see how you get on.

Then decide.

Very good plan! Even take him along for advice on what the menus do etc

Thanks for all the comments most echo what I was thinking.

As a further twist my dad has now offered me one of his dslr bodies, a D5000 for £50. This will not come with a lens but the offer still stands to borrow any as and when needed. I'll almost certainly take him up on this but if so will want a lens for general snapshots and to avoid having to borrow all of the time.

The Nikon kit lens seems fairly commonplace on the bay and the VR version goes for £50/£60. However buying the body cheap actually frees up a bit of budget and I could stretch to about £200. This has got me thinking about alternatives to the kit lens. Any have any thoughts or suggestions.

Hi

If you are happy with how Nikon and You interact, by which I mean does the camera fit you...your gander, how you want to take control, then the consideration for your question is probably: what do you want / like taking pictures of?

£200 will get you a 50mm 1.8 easily and on a DX camera that equates to a good portrait lens. Or you could go wider but still large aperture....I suspect you could find 3mm f2 on ebay for that money.

Or a flash.

Matt

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

My thoughts would be to buy the camera at £50 (absolute bargain btw), buy the kit zoom and start shooting. That way you keep your initial outlay to a minimum and keep the extra until you know what you want.

 

Shooting a DSLR is idfferent to shooting a p&S so take a while getting used to it before you buy heaps of gear. Once you get the hang of the basics, then you will start to think about what additional kit you want and/or need for what you want to shoot.

 

A few examples:

 

For landscapes - shorter is generally better to fit wider scenes in so a 10-20 is a great lens. Also a tripod and some filters are pretty much essential

For sport, wildlife etc - longer lenses  such as 70-200 or longer are better to get you close to the action.

For portrait work, still life, auto shoots etc - the mid sized lens works pretty well but ways to modify light (ie flashes etc) are more required

 

My kit, evolved over a few years (ignore the fact that it is Canon as Nikon have equivalent lenses in almost all sizes) is Canon 50D, Sigma 10-20mm (wide angle), Sigma 18-50 f2.8, Sigma 50-500mm (longer lens for airshows, sports etc), Sigma 500 flash, fold up reflector, tripod, remote shutter release, various filters and a number of bags for carrying it!

Edited 27 March, 201412 yr by kilted

Thanks for all of the advice. I've bought the camera body off my dad. And I'll look for a 2nd hand kit lens next.

Don't bother with the kit lenses unless that is all you can afford.

Go onto the 'Camera Price Buster' website and find the best price for the lens you really need.

You can't really lose with either imho. I'm a Canon girl and started my Digital experience with the 350D which a friends daughter still owns and uses extensively. It hasn't missed a beat ever Canon have a slightly larger lens selection, but I don't think that matters to us amateurs. I'd say stick with Canon, but if you went over to the dark side, it would be an equally valid move

Don't bother with the kit lenses unless that is all you can afford.

Go onto the 'Camera Price Buster' website and find the best price for the lens you really need.

I would disagree with this unless you know what you want to shoot prior to buying the camera. The kit lens is that cheap it makes sense to get one and use it. DavidF will struggle to find another lens with the £200 he has left that will allow the options he has open with the kit.

 

Using the kit lens gives you an idea of what you can do without too much outlay (ie another £50-60) so DavidF gets to try out the camera for a few months for £100 learning what he wants to shoot and without blowing money on a lens he might decide he doesn't need at the end of the day.

 

Fair enough upgrade it after a while shooting (and you can probably sell it on the Bay for the same price it was bought for give or take a couple of quid).

As has been said in this thread already, there is nothing really between Canon and Nikon and in all honesty I think the first camera brand you handle is the one you will stick with!

 

I picked up a Nikon D40 with the 18-55mm kit lens off a car forum classified section about 5 years ago because I wanted a step up from compact shooting and couldn't afford to buy new. Since then I have owned 3 Nikon SLR bodies (2 of which I still own) and Fuji S2 Pro (as a backup when I started to shoot weddings but sold when I upgraded one of my Nikon bodies).

 

But it really does all come down to the glass! As said above, stick with the 18-55 kit lens that would have come with the D5000 and learn what you are shooting and what you really need from a lens. After a year I ended up buying the 18-105 VR Nikon Lens (Kit lens with the D90/D7000/D7100) as I found I needed a bit more zoom however its not the sharpest lens of the bunch and I know use that for holidays and family days out which it makes light work of. 

 

I would highly recommend the 50mm F1.8 Nikon lens, can be picked up for around £80 on eBay and its expanded aperture is fantastic aswell as it taking pin sharp images. Recently I have purchased a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 which takes fantastic images and is my go-to lens for weddings, portraits and day to day use BUT it has been in for repair twice since September last year so I am currently questioning its reliability and durability.

 

The main thing is to get out there, take some photos then judge what you need - Always glass before body thou! 

Recently I have purchased a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 which takes fantastic images and is my go-to lens for weddings, portraits and day to day use BUT it has been in for repair twice since September last year so I am currently questioning its reliability and durability.

I second this suggestion. The Sigma is a great lens. Had the Canon version for a few years and it never skipped a beat. A little noisy focussing but my copy was pin sharp.

 

Sold it for the Canon 17-55mm (which has now cost me over £300 in repairs on top of the actual lens in the last couple of years, whereas the Sigma was faultless). I still believe that the Sigma was of equal image quality though. Just a pity the zoom turns the wrong way

 

 

Sold it for the Canon 17-55mm (which has now cost me over £300 in repairs on top of the actual lens in the last couple of years, whereas the Sigma was faultless). I still believe that the Sigma was of equal image quality though. Just a pity the zoom turns the wrong way

Isn't the 17-55mm an EF-S lens? I thought you were a full frame chap (if you see what I mean ) I have the 17-55mm and so far it's been pretty good, although the zoom sometimes feels a little less than sturdy. It was my first 'proper' lens for my Crop sensor Canon

 

Don't forget DavidF, the nifty fifty is one of the all time bargains in Canons catalogue. 50mm f1.8. It's a great cheap and fun way to see what a fast lens can do for your images, plus you can also get a handle on the problems it causes as well as the many benefits

I wish I had a full-frame, but alas I'm still on my 50d. Every time I've saved enough for a 6d something unexpected comes up and I need to spend the cash :'(

The 17-55mm first lost the gyro for the stabiliser - replaced. Then the focus motor went - replaced. Then the helicoil for the zoom cracked - replaced. Save the actual glass I'm not sure there's much left inside that's not new. But if I get the funds to go full frame I honestly will be happy to see the back of the lens. I'm sure it's just a lemon in the QC net, but it's a lot of added stress whenever I'm at an event wondering if it'll go and mean I'm stuck being 'arty' with the 10-22 and 70-200!

 

And I know everyone's jumping on the 'learn to be a photographer first' train. But I was doing photography for around 10 years as a hobby before I bought 'good' glass. The day I owned (2nd hand) my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS was the day my photography points went up tenfold. It's great being able to see a good composition or having a mental image of the shot you want to take, but actually having the equipment to realise that vision took my photography to a whole new level. If I somehow had the resources to have some 'L' glass at the start of my photography journey I honestly believe it would have taken years off the time it took to learn what I know now. Not that money will make you a better photographer, but it will mean you can experiment more. Real world bokeh with the nifty fifty at 1.8 is nothing compared to 2.8 at 200mm and that's not something you can play with without the money or a rental.

I hear what you are saying, but you are obviously beyond 'beginner' if you know / can see the difference between the bokeh at 50mm / f1.8 and 200mm / f2.0...

 

Training does't have to cost anything: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/01/13/10-camera-techniques-to-master-in-2014/

 

Training doesn't have to cost much: I run training course that cost £35 pppd to attend.

 

Training can be free: practice is (almost) free.

 

Digital Rev also did a series called Pro Photographer Cheap Camera (PPCC) which shows more about how pros work around camera limitations than it does about the quality of the cameras themselves.

 

Yes, good glass can make a big difference, but only if you know something about how and why, e.g. why shooting at maximum aperture may not be the best way to maximise image quality.

I hear what you are saying, but you are obviously beyond 'beginner' if you know / can see the difference between the bokeh at 50mm / f1.8 and 200mm / f2.0...

 

Training does't have to cost anything: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/01/13/10-camera-techniques-to-master-in-2014/

 

Training doesn't have to cost much: I run training course that cost £35 pppd to attend.

 

Training can be free: practice is (almost) free.

 

Digital Rev also did a series called Pro Photographer Cheap Camera (PPCC) which shows more about how pros work around camera limitations than it does about the quality of the cameras themselves.

 

Yes, good glass can make a big difference, but only if you know something about how and why, e.g. why shooting at maximum aperture may not be the best way to maximise image quality.

Such a true statement - good glass can make a huge difference to image quality but only if you know how to use it.

 

In the digital age there is nothing to stop anyone firing of hundreds of images to learn how to shoot (both from a personal skill and best use of the equipment point of view). I reckon with the right guidance and enthusiasm for learning (no point trying to describe the exposure triangle or diffraction to someone who simply wants to point and shoot), you can transform someone's skill level in a matter of hours.

 

Picking up a good "training manual" such as Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" can make a huge difference. It certainly did with me.

I think you must have a lemon Mort. My 17-55mm is about 8 years old and has never let me down (I think I might have let it down a few times though ) It does feel quite 'worn' these days, but it's still fine. When the time comes to replace it, I think I'll look at the Sigma (assuming it dies and is un-economical to repair) I keep reading the Sigma is at least as good.