I've been looking around for my first DSLR. I've played with a few models, and I like the size of the Canon D400: it sits well in my hands.
But I don't think the Canon D400 has noise reduction. :grumpy:
Whereas the Nikkon D80 does. :)
But the Nikkon D80 feels large in my hands. :grumpy:
And the Canon D400 has the vibrating sensor cleaner thingy (sorry - I know stuff about cheese, computers and snow-related goodness, but I'm a camera nuffy at the moment). :)
And the Canon D400 is cheaper than the Nikkon D80.
This will be my first SLR, so even though I've held different models in my hands, I'm not really sure if that's a good indication of what will feel comfortable when I actually know how to handle/work the camera properly. What would you choose?
I must have translated wrongly what the French guy said to me. I thought ithe said the Canon had no "anti-bruit" (anti-noise)...and the only word that comes close to that is "anti-brouillard" (anti fog)!
anti dust maybe? but dust removal is something the Canon has ...
Hm, and do not trust the qualification of every salesperson or their good intentions ;)
Is there something "anti" that anyone can think of that's missing from the Canon? He seemed to think it was fairly relevant to the comparison of the two models...
could not think of anything anti which makes a difference between those two cameras.
is the Nikon weather sealed? the Canon is not. So maybe something along those lines?
I am thinking more about the D400 because it also has time lapse recording.
But then, I'm concerned that if I get used to the size of the D400, it'll be harder to progress to a larger camera (presuming I do actually progress).
Am I worrying about nothing?
Could be... if you feel most comfortable using smaller cameras, and they do everything you need, then there's no need for you to buy a larger camera... higher-end cameras do tend to be larger, so if you wanted to spend more on a camera with more advanced features, better build etc then most likely it would be larger... but again it's just a question of adapting, rather like adapting from small point-&-shoots to a dSLR... shouldn't be a problem.
Hi and welcome to the forum. The Canon does have noise reduction. In fact (far as I know) all dSLRS have in-camera noise reduction.
Honestly if you feel most comfortable holding the Canon, go with that. You can usually adapt to any camera in time, but a camera that feels right now isn't going to get any less comfortable :)
I am thinking more about the D400 because it also has time lapse recording.
But then, I'm concerned that if I get used to the size of the D400, it'll be harder to progress to a larger camera (presuming I do actually progress).
Am I worrying about nothing?
I wouldn't worry about the anti-dust technology. Reviews thus far say the only dust it removes would come off holding the camera and giving it a good shake anyway.
I second you should go with what feels right. The D80 is bulkier this is a plus in my books because I have big hands. If the 400D feels better to you than go for that.
True, but as you say, you adapt, and I'm wondering if the Nikon is worth the extra dosh or not.
I must have translated wrongly what the French guy said to me. I thought ithe said the Canon had no "anti-bruit" (anti-noise)...and the only word that comes close to that is "anti-brouillard" (anti fog)!
Is there something "anti" that anyone can think of that's missing from the Canon? He seemed to think it was fairly relevant to the comparison of the two models...
 Challenging Books For A 14 Year Old?
 First guitar : acoustic or electric?
|
Nikon/Canon trade-off