[saikatmandal04]

Originally Posted by M35

Gone bankrupt, but bought a new Nikon D7000 [body only].

Congrats and Welcome to the club of D7000. How much did the body cost you? Heard that the prices have gone up.. true?

Do post some pictures clicked through the 150-500. With an already bigger and heavier body of the D7000, it must be super heavy to hold and compose a shot especially if you are trying to hold it super steady by controlling your breath.

[M35]

Originally Posted by saikatmandal04

Congrats and Welcome to the club of D7000. How much did the body cost you?

Thanks.
I bought it in CHINA for CNY=4200 [=INR 40,000].

Originally Posted by saikatmandal04

Do post some pictures clicked through the 150-500. With an already bigger and heavier body of the D7000, it must be super heavy to hold and compose a shot especially if you are trying to hold it super steady by controlling your breath.

One picture shot with D3100+Sigma 150-500 here

It definitely is heavy, close to 3kg [D7000+ Lens], if I am not wrong.

[swiftnfurious]

Originally Posted by ksmrsm

...Professional photographers preferred the Nikon whereas the others preferred the Canon...

Originally Posted by ksmrsm

...The difference was explained very simply by one professional photographer - "Saaar, the Canon shows black as black and white as white, whereas the Nikon shows both as white and our people prefer that". Fact of the matter - a lot of tamilians go to a great extent to be shown with a fair skin...

Well, that a very small sample size to deal with. I thought professional photographers prefer to show the black as black & white as white - so they should ideally go with a Canon right? If the pros (world wide) are choosing Nikon, wouldn't that be better?

Wherever I noticed Nikon preference was actually in international websites, so the "preference for white skin" doesn't hold I suppose. NOT intending to pick on you, but would really like to know the difference.

Edit:: Was talking to friend on the difference as he mentioned the exact same thing as highlighted above. He is specializing in wedding photography.

[ksmrsm]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

Well, that a very small sample size to deal with. I thought professional photographers prefer to show the black as black & white as white - so they should ideally go with a Canon right? If the pros (world wide) are choosing Nikon, wouldn't that be better?

Wherever I noticed Nikon preference was actually in international websites, so the "preference for white skin" doesn't hold I suppose. NOT intending to pick on you, but would really like to know the difference.

No offence taken. Do go ahead and pick on me, if I get to learn some more by our discussions, why not?

Have a look at the following sites:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/niko...anon.htm#prefs

Apart from those, you could just type Nikon vs Canon in google and get a host of explanations.

Why did I choose the 550D, simply because that was the best "prosumer" camera at that point in time.

Interesting observation.

[govigov]

Well, it is just a point of view. Some people prefer Nikon, while others prefer Canon. If you have some friends who are Canon users, it is better to go with canon as you can share lenses. Almost all my family is on Canon which great when going on trips.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

Well, that a very small sample size to deal with. I thought professional photographers prefer to show the black as black & white as white - so they should ideally go with a Canon right? If the pros (world wide) are choosing Nikon, wouldn't that be better?
.

I think by professional he just means wedding photographers in India.

The reason wedding photographers stick to Nikon is entierly different.

When Canon shifted from FD to EOS mount more then 20 years ago it created a bad wibe among the wedding photographer community who loves to stick to the gear.

Also since everyone uses Nikon it is easier to borrow / rent midrange zoom and flash. From Wedding Photog's point of view flash is more important then prime lens. In fact you will hardly come across any wedding photographer trying out changing lenses.

[tsk1979]

Will all due disrespect, Ken Rockwell is like a Tantrik Baba of photography. Lots of talk, very little walk

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by ksmrsm

I had the same dilemma before I choose the Canon 550D. Professional photographers preferred the Nikon whereas the others preferred the Canon. Did a lot of searches on the net and found them to be similar.

Canon's L series lenses are quite popular with Professionals.

At this point, entry level DSLRs from Nikon have an edge in terms of picture quality since Nikon introduced new sensors with higher resolution / light sensitivity but Canon has not upgraded its sensors in last few years.

Don't think we can pick either of these two as "better" in general. Though in specific budget range, either might have an edge.

[condor]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Will all due disrespect, Ken Rockwell is like a Tantrik Baba of photography. Lots of talk, very little walk

He doesnt go deep .. is oriented towards the consumer / amateur.

[ksmrsm]

Originally Posted by amitk26

I think by professional he just means wedding photographers in India.

Not just wedding photographers, I have a friend who is into portfolio's for leading models and landscapes. He seems to be of the same opinion.

I really have not gone into depth with these differences. I am happy with my 550D.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by ksmrsm

Not just wedding photographers, I have a friend who is into portfolio's for leading models and landscapes. He seems to be of the same opinion.

I really have not gone into depth with these differences. I am happy with my 550D.

Is he Vikram ?

Any way meet wildlife ,birding , Video guys they swear by canon due to same reasons of lens availability

Nikon has taken a lead in FF and there are better Full Frame options which matter a lot to people in model portfolios. but frankly speaking for janta with D7000 , D5200 , 550D , 600D etc who are not investing a lot in specific glass or flash it really does not matter

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by M35

Just received Sigma 150-500mm. It came with a carrying case, lens hood, front & rear caps and a couple of straps [one for the case and the other to be used with the Tripod. It is very heavy and huge. The lens itself is close to 2 kg.

Congratulations. It is a pretty light lens to carry around for flower shots, isn't it?

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Reason I say it is not incremental is because these advances over 10 years have multiplied capabilities of the camera (DSLRs as well as Mirrorless)

Very true. Whether incremental or not (semantics), the latest cameras have significantly better low light and AF capabilities.

This is a recent ISO 1600 shot with the D7100. Excuse the over sharpening effects that are visible due to extreme resizing.

Originally Posted by Aroy

The differences are mostly in the added conveniences in terms of more physical control options - wheels, buttons and card slots. As far as the images are concerned, there is hardly any discernible differences in the three series at each generation.

Well, those buttons and dials make a world of difference for some including me. But yes, all three have similar sensors.

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

And somehow I feel that Nikon enjoys a better reputation in the DSLR space while Canon has a better grip in the point & shoot categories. Is it just my perception or a reality?

Originally Posted by ksmrsm

I had the same dilemma before I choose the Canon 550D. Professional photographers preferred the Nikon whereas the others preferred the Canon. Did a lot of searches on the net and found them to be similar.

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

Well, that a very small sample size to deal with. I thought professional photographers prefer to show the black as black & white as white - so they should ideally go with a Canon right? If the pros (world wide) are choosing Nikon, wouldn't that be better?

Wherever I noticed Nikon preference was actually in international websites, so the "preference for white skin" doesn't hold I suppose. NOT intending to pick on you, but would really like to know the difference.

You guys want to start that debate again?

There is nothing like 'pros prefer Nikon or Canon'. Canon has a slightly higher marketshare in the interchangeable lens camera segment for many years now. The Nikon/Canon pros and cons balance out each other, and relative lead keep changing with new launches.

Though, DXOmark claims that Nikon sensors usually have better dynamic range than the competing Canon ones. Doesn't make much difference during actual shooting unless you are doing extreme stuff.

As you build up your system you get locked into it. Some do switch, but most of the enthusiasts and semi pros/pros stick to what they are comfortable with.

Originally Posted by condor

He doesnt go deep .. is oriented towards the consumer / amateur.

True. When I bought my first DSLR - the D90 - I set up the picture controls as per his recommendation. When I started shooting RAW later, those same settings appeared overcooked to me.

Originally Posted by amitk26

Any way meet wildlife ,birding , Video guys they swear by canon due to same reasons of lens availability

Not sure about video, but the only unique reasons to go for Canon for budget wildlife/birding folks are the 400mm f.5.6 and the 100-400mm which is much cheaper than the new Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S. Many leading wildlife/nature pros shoot Nikon. D4S is the new king of the hill in the action/wildlife world, but differences b/w that and the 1DX are minimal.

Having said that, the Canon long primes are a bit lighter than their Nikon counterparts. And the built-in TC with the new Canon 200-400mm has no Nikon equivalent. However that lens will cost the same as a top end Swift on the road.

[condor]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

The Nikon/Canon pros and cons balance out each other, and relative lead keep changing with new launches.

Though, DXOmark claims that Nikon sensors usually have better dynamic range than the competing Canon ones. Doesn't make much difference during actual shooting unless you are doing extreme stuff.

IMO, I am not sure if it is about respective strengths, or balancing out.

DXOmark seems to have it's own particular way of rating & Reviewing lenses. Their highest rating seems about 31 & otherwise decently rated lenses score about 15-16 with particular camera bodies .. If this is out of 100, then does it mean that the reviewed lens is bad , or do they have something that will score 100 of 100 ?
From what I read, their reviews & ratings seem quite subjective, and not necessarily the apply-able truth.

With ref to Canon vs Nikon, and all those "benchmark" numbers, I dont think most of us are going to use all of that. Lot of so called best-in-class features, or better-than-competition-features are more applicable on paper than in the real world we shoot in.

[M35]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Congratulations. It is a pretty light lens to carry around for flower shots, isn't it?

Thanks.
Went in search of some birds, came back home with a couple of lotus flower shots instead.
A ISO 800 shot with D3100 @500mm. A bit soft, sorry.

BTW, thought you were using a D7000, but I realize its D7100 instead. Assuming you to have shot with D7000 earlier, how does it fare against D7100 especially shooting wildlife?

P.S: Got a new D7000 body yesterday.

[ksmrsm]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Is he Vikram ?

No. His name is Ramesh and is based out of Chennai.