dem beats

I $500 P&S would probably destroy a $500 DSLR and lens. Seriously.

Nice point and shoot or call phone is fine for $500.

Sean explained the situation much better. I get caught up in the weeds on comparing items. :-D

Shops were closed but I should have a chance to go into a store quickly tomorrow. Some of the problems don't make sense to me. Nikon is using a really nice sensor for a body at this cost. What is crazy is the lower cross type AF points and why it has problems in the dark despite a higher dynamic range. Small buffer too? They may have put all the $$ into the sensor and not the processor. I don't know. Maybe when I talk to a sales guy or get it in my hands things will make more sense.

So the Nikon will not perform in the dark as well as the Canon, if you need snappy focus even in ideal situations it is less responsive, and the Nikon isn't as good with RAW as the reviewer expected. If you shoot people or things that move the Canon is on top. If you love to shoot landscapes that do not have motion you want to capture, the Nikon will do amazingly well sitting on the tripod and allowing you to really get in there with manual focus. When you have time to set up the perfect shot, it will be better due to the finer detail and dynamic range. This is the opposite of how I shoot. I would be looking for a 7Dmk1 on the cheep, or whatever Nikon equivalent is. That would be amazing. It can take the landscape shots, but when you want to snap birds, kids, whatever, it will be a wonderful tool. As Sean said a slightly older body with better glass will go a long way.

Nikon Excellent image quality with lots of fine detail; Very good high ISO performance; Good dynamic range; Good print quality; Deep buffers with JPEGs; 1080/60p video; Uncompressed HDMI output. AF struggles in low-light; Contrast-detect AF in live view is slow; Buffer depth is shallow with RAW files; No AE bracketing; No built-in Wi-Fi.

Canon.... Excellent image quality; 9 cross-type AF points; Stereo microphones; Built-in touchscreen; Multi-shot modes; Improved kit lens; Even more affordable. Little-changed from the earlier T4i; Slow Live View and video autofocus; High ISO performance is unimproved; Below-average battery life; No dedicated AF illuminator

If you shoot still objects the Nikon might do better. Both of these are not pro so loose features. The Canon is better in low light and when you need to focus quickly. From the review page on a side by side.

Knowing what you plan on shooting would be super awesome. There is a huge difference in what you want in your bag depending on what you shoot. Sean can travel with a wide and maybe standard prime and be GTG for any travels. Then he wants to shoot the kids and my big white lens turns into the best choice. Maybe a 24-70 since he is using a crop. Knowing the style of photos you like also changes what you pick. If you like color and isolation, you can fake a shallow DOF by Using a longer zoom rather than just a really wide aperature. Tons of tricks you can exploit so you can make your experience better. If you have a budget and expectations I'll give you the best options from all the big brands.

I know you are keeping your brand choices close to the chest but if you tell me the bodies you like, or the dollar amount you want to spend I can give you a lot of input on how the body will work when actually having to use it VS what it says on paper. So often in camera bodies what looks good on paper is just bad design when it comes to actually Using it. I'll go to the shop I keep the doors open on and I'll bet they have a pro who owns it and can walk me through. Then I can get you 2 opinions on the product before you spend $$$. I don't care if you pick Nikon or Canon. For nearly anyone they will all be the same. For me it would nearly all be the same. The deal breaker for me was the much superior glass for the exact lenses that I use for a huge portion of my shooting.

Despite Nikon being able to deal better with ISO it has a harder time hunting for focus at night. Sony beats both of them with ease. The Sony feature set and sensor wizardry destroys Canon and Nikon. If you want the best features its all Sony. They win. Back to glass... The 70-200 from canon is actually 70-200. Nikon shorts you and it's not like a 90-180. It also has much worse distortion fringing, and the shots are harder to edit. I can pull the datasheets for you. Wedding and other photogs that blend glamour and action left entire established collections of bodies and lenses because the 70-200 is that good. Also Nikon doesn't have a 50mm that can hold candle to the 1.8 or the 1.2 from Canon. The 1.4 is an unknown to me and I think Canon has a new version in the works.

In those 3 pictures the only one with a winner was the label with the white and black contrast. I Also don't care about 1:100 comparisons. I don't shoot in a studio. Ever. I use a tripod, 1 in 10,000. Maybe less. The speed of finding focus, what the IS buys you in stability, and the ability to get to the features I want quickly and effectively matter more than everything else. Dynamic range is cool. But not at the cost of a less efficient and less user friendly shooting experience. The 70-200 from Nikon takes ages longer to focus. Especially with the long/short focus bias switch on the 70-200 I use. The IS is so much better. It let's me get more shots at lower ISO. I don't care if at the same ISO the Nikon is better. I have to use a higher ISO On the comparable Nikon.

I make every bit of use of the 70-200 and I can toss on an x2 extender and have a world class 140-400. On a crop.... Lolololol..... The 1.2 was life changing to me. Sean let me use his 1.4 and after confirming I need a 50mm in my life the 1.2 came home. Nikon has nothing as good as these. If I was going to use a crop it might be better. I doubt it however. The 70-200 is so good. Using it makes other similar lenses feel like a brain damaged Chinese knock off of something. Its that good, it's measurably better in every category basically from anything else made. If I used a different lens I would get less usable shots or need more time to edit. I would be forced to rely on machine gun photography. That isn't bad but its nice to have that much confidence in my shots. When I do machine gun, I have the luxury of picking between several great shots of whatever moment I want to catch.

Not that I'm Ansel Adams, but I take decent photos in pretty horrible lifting conditions. Hard subjects with bad light in shitty conditions and usually I have to be dressed formally. I hate qualifying my opinion but it helps me to get across my message. So in these situations Canon offers a better package. Honestly I could "skirt" by with Nikon or Sony. I would just spend more time either editing or disposing of extra shots. When I made the choice to stick to Canon a big part of that was the 70-200 isII and the 50mm selection. I ended up with the 1.2 as it made me happy when I touched it. Had a 1.4 and a 1.8 with it and the 1.2 won. As it should, cost aside.

We got good food and hot chicks. And some nice artillery like machine guns. Also most of the world records for BAC are Polish......

Canon has better glass for the last 4-5 years. I don't know about bodies. I can't imagine much being better than the 7dmkii. Bodies mean dick. They are like receivers. Speakers matter more. Features are usually worthless. How a sensor handles ISO and speed are the only things you need to really care about dynamic range is not that important for 99% of photos. Perhaps Sean would use it for his landscapes but the moment he wants to shoot the kids it goes back to how ISO is handled, in some cases total megapixels matter but I am going to let you know that the DX line up is 12 megapixels and can make images that are poster sized without batting an eye. If you have a dollar amount I can compare bodies for you but the glass from Canon is better. It just simply is. If you care about bodies go Sony. They have the best of everything when it comes to bodies. They kill on video. Low Light stuff is hysterical how good they are. But the glass is horseshit. The system is pucking horseshit. Seriously. pucking crap.

The 1.2 pulls bright usable pictures handheld in places as dark as a movie theater. I just did this on Thursday. Shocked the shit out of me.

In fact, last time I looked the Canon 1.8 is better than the 1.4 when it comes to focus speed. The .4 is a lot of light however. It's just about what you want from the lens. The 1.2 is sharp as a razor like the 1.8, way more than the 1.4 but the reality is that the fast primes aren't for being sharp. They are for isolating a subject, artsy stuff, and shooting in the dark.

I would trust the Canon 1.8. I would not trust the Nikon. Look at the the 1.2. That's a brutal jump in price. For me it is so worth it.

Seth with a crop sensor get a 35mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.4. You will have the most creative room and they will be reasonably priced. You will have the capabilities to shoot in low light and to make beautiful bokeh. I would shop on Craig's list, national camera, or a local shop.

Waiting for my ears to be made is going to be painful...

Good glad is at most rental places. Some good glass is expensive. Most of the expensive glass is usually due to a low fstop potential, fast focusing, and anti vibration. The best glass that is reasonable is getting the 50mm 1.4 from the brand of camera you buy. The Canon 1.8 is just As sharp. Nothing will work your photo skills and creativity like large aperature prime lens in the 35-135 range. 50mm is my fave on full frame. If you are going less than full frame you could go wider and have a similar experience.

And ate the best beef around. And drank enough the wife drive home. Of course she had to hotrod Helga like a savage too.

I was supposed to go shooting for mine also. Instead I started the CIEM process.

My g5 took a shit on me. Mid video it just stopped working. Poof.