HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,901
- Age
- 42
- Location
- The sunshine state via NY.
Well, it looks like at least on the noise argument I am once again (like on a lot of other topics) going to have to raise the white flag of defeat. 
Overall it looks like a good year for people who want to buy great amateur DSLR's.
For me, both cameras are great, but if I had the choice I still would rather have the Canon. Why?
#1: Availability. When Canon announces a camera you can have it in your hands within a couple of weeks. With Nikon you generally have to wait a couple of months (or even more as was the case with the D200). Now I do admit that Canon had a supply issue with the 1D Mark III but that was an exeption.
#2. Lens choice and the inclusion of Image Stabilizers. After using a Panasonic camera with IS, I refuse to buy a camera if it does not have IS on either the lens or body. Canon is putting IS on all their new lenses, not just the telephoto lenses like Nikon (true, they do have a 24-120mm lens with "VR" but from what I heard it's pretty crappy). Canon's 17-55mm F/2.8 lens has IS, Nikon's 17-55mm lens does not. And it's around $300 more expensive.
#3. $500 lower cost.
Overall it looks like a good year for people who want to buy great amateur DSLR's.
For me, both cameras are great, but if I had the choice I still would rather have the Canon. Why?
#1: Availability. When Canon announces a camera you can have it in your hands within a couple of weeks. With Nikon you generally have to wait a couple of months (or even more as was the case with the D200). Now I do admit that Canon had a supply issue with the 1D Mark III but that was an exeption.
#2. Lens choice and the inclusion of Image Stabilizers. After using a Panasonic camera with IS, I refuse to buy a camera if it does not have IS on either the lens or body. Canon is putting IS on all their new lenses, not just the telephoto lenses like Nikon (true, they do have a 24-120mm lens with "VR" but from what I heard it's pretty crappy). Canon's 17-55mm F/2.8 lens has IS, Nikon's 17-55mm lens does not. And it's around $300 more expensive.
#3. $500 lower cost.
