Torn between cameras?

So you'd like to start DSLR photography and you are spoilt between camera choices? Specifically you are thinking of either Canon or Nikon? A bit tight on budget too? And what's all about this different models they offer?

Erm... How should I put it? Okay, lets assume that your starting budget is 3k. For that amount and excluding second hand units, you'd actually have few choices of consumer DSLRs for you.

Canon or Nikon? If your budget is not limited, there's actually a lot I can write about brand choices. But since we are deciding the most suitable beginner DSLRs, lets look at two particular giants and the options they have for you. Bear in mind that both has a long history in this business and I consider bodies and lenses of both makers to be equally varied and impressive. As such, my initial choices could've been both ways, and I let my skills justify my buy.

Canon 350D/400D

The 350D, if you could still find one new, is the mother of all budget DSLRs. In fact, a lot of photogs still owns and uses one. Its probably dirt cheap nowadays. The 400D is an upgrade of that fine model by a new processor, bigger LCD, DOF preview, better firmware, and dust cleaning system. Of course, the pixels went up to 10.1, but thats probably nothing for a lot of serious amateurs. The pro model 1D mk2 (RM10k something) that probably shot most of the ad images you see in Petaling Jaya has only 8.2 megapixels. The 400D is a functional camera. My only complain was its tiny grip. That is a price you pay for smallness. It could do everything, given a decent lens. The kit lens, 18-55mm, is not that good for a lot of choosy 'pros'. It is unsharp and has distortion at the edges wide open. But I don't find that a problem. If you are the creative kind, you'd not mind.

Canon 450D

The new kid in the block. I haven't tried one, but based on reviews, it's not a significant upgrade from the 400D. As I said, pixel count is only for kids. 12 megapixel is a marketing stint. I shoot with only half of my 10.1 MPs these days. It saves space and since my pictures would end alot on monitor displays, I really don't need that much. Live view is certainly helpful, but only slightly. It is not a feature that you'd use even 70% of the time. It takes a lot of juice if you were to do that. It takes a lot of fun away too. Besides, the LCD does not swivel. You'd still need to work your head for that low angle shot. On the other hand, processing is slightly better than 400D. The biggest and most important addition is a spot meter. Using spot meter gives a more accurate exposure to subjects in difficult lighting. But I use manual exposures most of the time, so it does not matter. Do some research on the net and there are lots of ways to get over this with the 400D. Finally, at RM3200 with the kit lens (Image Stabilized though), it's way much expensive than the next choice.

Edit: It is every bit improvement from 400D. A less sensitive sensor (less noise) being one of them. The performance is now closer to 40D. But given the price cuts on 40D, I would choose the latter. Beg someone for another 1500 bucks (RM) and get the better 40D, or get a Nikon.

Nikon D40

This was one of my options when I was deciding. Its smaller than the 400D, has spot meter, does everything the 400D would, and comes with the excellent kit lens. The debate was the exclusion of the internal focus motor. All Nikons prior to D40 has internal motor to drive the autofocus mechanism. Canon EOS system's motor are on-lens. The D40 relies on new lenses with autofocus built-in. That means legendary Nikon glasses are mostly out of bounds (they can be focused manually). But the newer internally-driven lenses are good as well. Trust Nikon, there's no worries actually. Besides, I'd doubt you want to use the D40 forever. The prosumer and professional bodies all have focus motors built-in. The D40 also lacks a DOF preview. I use this feature sparingly, it's nice but not entirely a necessity. The grips were still not that great, but better than Canon's. That aside, the D40 triumphs for its larger, brighter viewfinder. The 400D ones were tiny. Another great feature was the max flash sync speed. At 1/500 seconds compared to 1/200 sec. for most other makes. This means that on a bright sunny day, you'd have enough flash to fill up your subject while keeping the bright background at bay. Color-wise, Nikon tends to favor saturation. You'll love the blue skies and greens. Canon's standard are more natural colors akin to what the eye sees. Oh, did I mention the 6 megapixel resolution? Like I said, megapixel are irrelevant. Nikon knows that. The D40X is a ten megapixel brother featuring all the same specs as the D40, but flash sync is reduced to 1/200.

Nikon D60

If you want a Nikon, this is it. At RM2295 (shashinki.com) including the excellent 18-55VR, its a steal. With your 3k budget, you'd still end up with enough cash to option the 55-200 (If you want a one-lens-for-all, Tamron has a 18-200 for RM1495). Its a steal. On the surface, its pretty identical to the D40/D40x, but inside is a whole new EXPEED processor and a slew of functions. Its 10.2 megapixeled too. Sadly the flash sync remains at 1/200. Although its performance is only slightly improved over the D40, it's still a better buy. D40 sells for about RM1700, the X was about RM2300. All these comes with the nice but non-VR 18-55. The 18-55 VR alone is sold at RM800. You do the maths. Lastly, Nikon might have a slightly inferior low light noise control than Canon, but on this level, it is hardly any difference.

Made up your mind?

Looking at the present situation, I'd hard pressed to go for Nikon (hard pressed, because I'm already on Canon). I still believe that the 400D, body-wise, edges the D60. But I'm impressed by the other new Nikon offerings, the D300 and D3. The D300 is a great advanced camera that I think outperforms all the Canon prosumer models (ie. 40D). Check out the Ah Long Pte Ltd promo shots. Those are all done with a Nikon. And then there was the D3. The D3 is Nikon's flagship DSLR and in my opinion, the godsend of all DSLR. It has only 12.1 megapixel (see, it doesn't matter), but in full frame. In comparison, Canon's RM27 grand, full frame 1Ds MKIII has 21 MPs. It also has a useable ISO6400 film speed. That is huge low light capability. All this greatness is priced well below 16k. 

The thing is, if, in the foreseeable future, you'd like to expand and upgrade on this hobby, it doesn't matter what camera you buy now, its what system you decide to invest now. Which system has the potential to develop and maintain its offerings. This is also why I don't consider Sony nor the other four-thirds systems. I have bad experience from Sony's PDA business. Four-thirds sensors are too small to my liking. For this account, Nikon's future featuring the D300 and D3 is bright and worth it. I for one, was hooked with Canon's 5D and crosses my finger for Canon to produce something like what Nikon did. Additionally, I like the current crop of EF/EF-S lenses, particularly the L series. That's why I stick to Canon, since the 400D itself wasn't bad at all. So is Nikon's. Start off with a nice beginner model and expand your skills and lenses while working up for the big thing.

On a note, I convinced The Girlfriend to buy Nikon's P5100 few weeks ago. My first digital camera was also from Nikon. See how supportive I am towards the Dark Side;)