First of all, there's the arch-rival; Canon. Canon is basically just like Nikon, in that it is also highly successful in the market place, has a long-standing history in camera making and is large enough to have a wide line-up of models. At this point, it may be somewhat more successful in sales and has a bit of an edge, stemming from a perceived reputation amoung advanced amateurs of higher image quality. Of course, I've already espoused my opinion on the topic that:
- Actual image quality at the levels that are being discuss isn't enough to measure much less as a deciding factor.
- In general, the real difference are few and not really worth discussing either.
The main thing to remember is that in the Canon system, the "Rebel" branding is used in relation to their strictly consumer line and is considered an entry level product. Where this comes to bear is that there are some actual feature which are crippled so that those models can be differentiated from the "x0D" "prosumer" line. From what I can tell, the main issue being that it is much more difficult to over-ride the automation in the Rebels than the number series cameras. Many reviewers who actually shoot with both tend to stick with the Canons for ultimate image quality and the Nikons for speed of "in-the-field" use. To paraphrase one reviewer; I use my Canon when I'm going to have my tripod out and all the time in the world.
As far as glass is concerned, it's a "pick-em" situation. Each has some lenses that are better than the other and some that are worse. It was a no brainer for me since at the time that I made my decision, Canon didn't off an "Image Stabilization" (VR in Nikon speak), 18-200mm super-zoom so I bought Nikon. Now Canon has that same lens. And of course, Canon changed their mount when they went auto-focus, so you don't have the luxury of simply mounting an old lens. Of course Canon does have the advantage of a shorter flange to film-plane distance so you can just get an adapter that's let you mount even Nikon lenses. You do lose ALL automation, but it can be done.
In a nutshell, there's precious little to give between the two brands and it comes down to which you prefer the handling.
Now, on to short descriptions of other possibilities that are out there that I find to be reasonable alternatives to the "big boys".
First of all, there is Olympus. This was the system that I almost bought into instead of the Nikon. The cameras that are most likely to fit the bill are the "E-xxx" series. In the U.S. they began with the E-410/510/420/520, all with essentially the same 10Mp sensor. Their professional/semi-professional unit E-3 has a similar sensor as well. These (especially the E-4/510) will sometimes fall into that $350-450 range as well, however, they don't sell as many units as Canon/Nikon so there won't be as many that appear on the used market. At the same time, it must be said also that they don't tend to sell as well for various reasons so the price is usually somewhat lower than a similarly spec'd Canon/Nikon model.
There are two very seductive features (at least for me) on these Olympus', the first being that they have sensor self-cleaning system built-in and 2nd being very traditionally Olympus that they are significantly more compact than either the Nikon or Canon. One feature that many people like is the "Sensor Shift" technology which is what Olympus calls their version of IS/VR. The kicker here is that theirs is built into the body of the camera so ALL lenses get the benefit of it. So, what's not to like!?! Actually among the engineering community, it's a little controversial (note that neither Canon or Nikon chose this route). The issue is that it's another electronically controlled, highly sensitive, moving part that central to the actual camera vs. in the lens, so therefore, if it fails, you're "dead", where-as, on a lens-centric system, you switch lenses and continue to shoot (without that lens, but hey...). I think the differences is that both Canon and Nikon have a LARGE population of professionals to think about who can't afford to have their camera fail. From my standpoint, it's really a bigger problem for an amateur since most of us don't have an extra $500-1000 camera body sitting around in case one fails!
And of course, another difference is that Olympus uses the four/thirds sensor size which is physically smaller so their conversion factor in lens focal length is 2x, instead of the ~1.5x of Nikon/Canon. This is a non-issue with the exception that there are less wide-angle options to work with.
I'll address one other manufacturer today and that's Pentax. Much like Olympus, it's an old-line and well-thought-of Japanese company who has a lot of history and although don't sell a lot of units and don't do a lot with professional is considered every bit the equal of Canon or Nikon in the consumer field. Their offering in the range that we've been discussing is the *ist DS" or K100D cameras. Their models are excellent and quite often winning international awards. Their lenses are outstanding and pretty much the equal of Canon, Nikon or Olympus....so what the issue? They are a dickens to find!
Pentax just doesn't sell that many units, in fact, their Korean partner (Samsung) is rapidly catching up to them. A big plus for them is that they can use all of the old (even pre-auto focus) lenses back to the first K-Mounts. I strongly considered them when I switched to digital since I had 12 K-Mount lenses at the time, but I was determined to down-size BECAUSE I didn't want to carry all those lenses around.
So, I've touched on Canon which in my eyes is pretty much a personal taste issue between them and Nikon. And then there were the two "also rans"; so what other factors are there other than they are hard to find? A big one for me is that, since they are small (relatively speaking), many independents (such as Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.) don't make products for them. In my world, this translates to mean that there are less options which translates to mean higher prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment