Nikon D90 vs Canon

[ncocave]

I greatly appreciate everyone's oppinions. I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject and visited a local store to look at both the D90 and various Canons, including the 50D. I selected the D90 and hope that it exceeds my expectations.

[Roger_Martin]

The Canon shooter obviously messed up the settings of the D90.

I am sure I can make the pictures from a 40 or 50D look awful too.

The only service issue I've had with Nikon is at their Torrance facility 10 years ago.
I understand that if you are NPS or walk into the new center in El Segundo you will be treated very favorably.
I have used Melville ever since and service has been very good.

I took a D90 in partial trade for a lense to use for vacations and hiking.
It has certainly exceeded my expectations. I was forced to use it to back up my D3 while it was in for buffer upgrade and those images sold very well indeed.

I have lots of D90 images in my Nikonians Gallery

[DougAxford]

Originally Posted by Roger_Martin

The Canon shooter obviously messed up the settings of the D90.

Try re-reading my post again. You obviously missed the point. D90 was set for 'normal' everything with color at 5300K (which is correct & besides, color was not the problem). It was a real shoot for real money and I was certainly trying my best to make sure the photos were the best the camera could produce. I don't enjoy spending extra time in pp fixing images that are sub par.

The post was a direct comparison between cameras when shooting people with jpgs. I have no axe to grind one way or another and certainly I have owned just as many Nikons as I have Canons over the years.

Even the owner of the Nikon was pretty upset that I dissed her D90 but she had no answer at all when the photos were shown side by side. BTW, she's also is a salesperson at a leading camera store and knows Nikons exceedingly well.

The point I was making to the O/P was that comparisons in magazines and especially internet reviews rarely ever show decent comparisons of 'real world' shoots that some of us work with every day. I remember many decades ago I had a real laugh when Consumer Reports named Miranda as the best camera to buy.

I will easily grant the fact that everything depends upon what and how you are shooting. For my money, both Canon & Fuji beat the snot out of Nikon for 'in camera' jpg processing of people photos. If I had cranked up the saturation and contrast in the D90 (instead of normal), I'm sure that the images would have been much closer to the Canon.

[Roger_Martin]

Perhaps her D90 copy was a bad one.

I had a problem similar to yours with a D300. It took me a week and many adjustments to get a good (sale-able) picture out of it. But the D300 lovers seem to deny their copy even has one single flaw.

My D90 only needed a few adjustments for my use. Aperture mode, continuous shooting, Large fine JPEG, and spot metering.

I really prefer the people pictures right out of the camera. A simple unsharp mask will really make them pop if you think they need it.
I think the canon's are over saturated and have to much contrast.

However, different customers like different effects. When I had several Canon shooters working for me, their "vivid" pictures sold quite well. I cannot remember, but it seems the better shooter had a 40D.

[DougAxford]

Originally Posted by Roger_Martin

Perhaps her D90 copy was a bad one.

Maybe, but I doubt it considering the info next and the fact that she sells them and could take 'pick of the litter' if it mattered.

Originally Posted by Roger_Martin

I had a problem similar to yours with a D300. It took me a week and many adjustments to get a good (sale-able) picture out of it. But the D300 lovers seem to deny their copy even has one single flaw.

Now we're getting somewhere

Originally Posted by Roger_Martin

I really prefer the people pictures right out of the camera. A simple unsharp mask will really make them pop if you think they need it.
I think the canon's are over saturated and have to much contrast.

However, different customers like different effects. When I had several Canon shooters working for me, their "vivid" pictures sold quite well. I cannot remember, but it seems the better shooter had a 40D.

BINGO - on that I agree 100%. I used to like less saturated shots but have gone to the dark side and sell what people want. From my limited exposure to Nikon in the past few years (I wanted to re-visit after they finally moved to CMOS) it appears to me that Nikon is aiming at less saturated and Canon more saturated.

To be fair, if I were shooting product shots, I'd most likely be a Nikon man. It also depends upon what people shots are being taken. Younger kids (where I make my money) you've just got to have extra saturation in my region (kids are bloody pale). For adults, I need to turn Canon 'normal' settings down. For my workflow, it's way easier reducing saturation in post than trying to increase it.

So, we actually are getting to the truth finally. Personal preference.

[Roger_Martin]

I prefer Nikon because they seem to be trying to duplicate the actual image you see with the eye. The pictures are closer to an accurate "photo copy".
Side note* My personal Nikon photos outsold the two Canon shooters put together by about 5 times. Maybe Californians are tanner and don't need a more saturated photo.

[RubenAlonzo]

Congratulations on your new Nikon D90. Here is my viewpoint when it comes to magazine photography gear reviews, they will tend to be biased somewhat and really not be too critical of a product that pays them. Both Nikon and Canon contribute great amounts to magazines for ad space, so it's just basic common business sense that the editor will not allow too negative a review. Just my two cents but I don't think I'm far off the mark.

I started out in photography with a Canon S2 IS, P/S camera, then bought a Sony Alpha 300 (much to the dismay of my Canon buddy who advised me STRONGLY against it) and I loved it! It took wonderful pictures and helped me understand photography in the most basic sense. Recently I sold it and had to decide (mostly out of reasons that my local camera shops did not carry Sony gear as opposed to Canon & Nikon which is readily on display) and was a bit torn between the entry D40 Nikon, D60 & D90 (D90 was a bit out of my price range) and the entry level Canon Rebels.

After much asking about in different forums as to the pro's & cons of each, I decided to stick to go feel them out for myself, the same way I did with the Sony A300, I went to a local retailer and handled each camera. The D40 just felt right to me, it talked to me so to speak in the same way the D60 did. The D90 was more impressive solely because of the added gadgets on it. Non of the Canons spoke the way the little Nikons did.

So I ended up walking out the door with a new D40 from Best Buy for $404.00 and at that price I was ecstatic. I have never believed in the megapixel wars, that you get more, can do more, with more. BS, a 6mp picture composed properly will look much better than an badly composed shot taken with twice or thrice as many megapixels. The D40 does have it's drawbacks in that it won't autofocus older lenses, unlike the Sony it has no built in image stabilization, nor is it as advanced technologically as the D90 or newer Canon Rebels.

And yet, for my newbie hands, it is more than what I can do with it at the moment since I am a beginner in this hobby. It does everything I need it to do, and can grow with me.

So, congratulations on your purchase and I am positive your D90 will be fantastic!!!