ABBPhotography the photo gear practical mini-reviews:

Canon 40D	with Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lenses
Images:
Specs:	10 Mp (3888 x 2592) CMOS, metal body, 1.6x FOV crop, 9 AF areas Multi-BASIS TTL, digic III image processor
Pros.:	Nine auto focus selectable areas, fast AF, high ISO very good, it is a fast machine: 6.5 fps and high ISO (1600) for usable results. Fits excellent in a firm hand (no grip needed). Good built-in flash. Sensor dust auto-cleaning. Live-view can be helpful sometimes. WB fine tuning, RGB histogram. CR2 RAW file format is an excellent 14-bit image that is more malleable than D50's. Price is OK for what it is.
Cons.:	Rather heavy (822 g w/o lenses!), LCD is not that helpful. Need expensive lenses to get the best from it. Live-view, could be more helpful if LCD is vari-angle (most situations for Live-view requires that).
Conclusions:	Very good & fast auto focus, capable to get good low light (w/o tripod) shoots. This is a superior 30D with extra facilities some may need or not. (Read: 30D may be enough for some, considering also the budget.)
Samples:

Nikon D200	with AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 4-5.6 VR
Images:
Specs:	10 Megapixels: 3872 x 2592, CCD Sony sensor, metal body, DX 1.5x FOV crop, 11 AF areas Multi-CAM 1000, min. shutter 1/8.000, 3D Matrix metering II, 5FPS
Pros.:	Very versatile, customisable with many external buttons, nice handling (above Canon 40D under these ergonomic aspects), Auto ISO / min. shutter speed function (still missing in Canon systems). Good dynamic range. Handles well the highlights.
Cons.:	CCD heats at high ISO: results more noise/dead pixels on the sensor. This is a battery sucker gun. Tendency to underexpose a 1/3 step. Bulky and heavy for all around. The outer AF points hunt. AF speed is a bit outdated. The rubber finishes will partially un-stick. Still a specific nikon/fujifilm softness at 100% crop level (I think this has pretty much to do with the DIP algorithms & sensor type), Canon 40D images looks better at this aspect.
Conclusions:
Samples:

The eternal debate (is for beginners?)

There's always a debate about which system is better (Canon vs. Nikon is the most known debate) and a hard decision to make when buying. I think, with a bit of thinking you can get the good parts from both worlds, because they are tools in the first place and should be used that way. The one behind the camera is important. (A debate is more a beginner issue, I think, it passes...)

After more than a year usage I found so far the *subtle* differences between the two systems, please do not take this for granted and as advices, these are just my personal findings regarding the two systems and I try to summarize them in a few phrases:

1. it-is-doing-less(perfect)-so that-you-have-to-do-(with)more

Canon: the camera with a smooth edge feeling, fits well in hand, solid, has bigger numbers in technical characteristics, but you're not 100% sure WYShootIWYWantedTG from the first try, you have try more to feel you're in control, to buy (or you're always tempted to) expensive "L" lenses and you have to work a bit more to get perfect results. But for some, and I find the challenge interesting, the end of the day, may lead to more creative results - because you have to focus more, makes you wonder about some technical aspects too, you have to judge, to combine, to balance. Actually the idea from a Canon perspective is: it-is-doing-less(perfect)-so that-you-have-to-do-(with)more. "You can? Try, and you'll be successful! Unmistakably."

2. it-is-doing-more(perfect(?))-so that-you-have-to-do-(with)less

Nikon: compared to Canon camera, it is a camera with a sharp edge feeling, it can be also solid and fast, not that big in characteristics sizes, but this is not the supreme concern, actually the idea at a micro level is: it-is-doing-more(perfect)-so that-you-have-to-do-(with)less, you can get nice results with less expensive lenses, it is more balanced (tries to keep image aspects under control), having a bit clever image processing algorithms - applies more sharpness and colors, a specific control (you can say "this photo is taken with a Nikon"). "At the heart of the image? Yes, you'll find 'em there (too much?)."

Bear in mind, these are very subtle ideas and subjective, the differences between the two are not that visible as it may seem. More of, the most important is the one behind the camera...

Our timeline setups

The end of this article keeps track of the gear that was in our hands for a longer period, and some impressions.

2010-present period:

Still using 40D and got D200 from Nikon. Some new lenses: 28-135 IS, 70-200 F4, Tamron 90 mm Macro, 16-85 VR and SB 600 flash.

2008-2009 period:

Currently we are using 40D for more demanding works (close portraits, some street work and studio, macro). 30D is a back-up and wide-angle (landscape, architecture, fun) camera setup while the D50 is used as a handy, light camera for all-around play, it is a great and cheap setup for 'stealing' far away shoots (with the 55-200 VR lens attached) and for the right out of the camera usable photos.

2006-2007 period:

Using the Fujifilm S6500fd - a good bridge camera, CCD sensor, 6 Mp. But soon found the limitations: slow AF, MF confirmation a pain, poor ISO performance, image details unsatisfactory, otherwise a good zoom, nice skin colors, histogram during shoot.

past-2006 period:

First shoots with grandpa's film camera: Zenit. I brought my fist personal camera the Konica Z-up 118, in 2001, 35mm film non-SLR camera. It stopped functioning in 2005, but only took about 20 rolls of film with it. Shoot sometimes at -20 C and had no problems with it until someday died.

Things you can do next...

Get article's images as prints... Have something to share: Forum. Want to sell/buy gear: Market. Want to buy a new camera: Shop. Write your article? Register now!

Latest Articles... Challenges & Articles Images Shop Gear Help For Publishers Past Articles... Shop Gear Challenges & Articles Images Help For Publishers Glossary All Articles