And why is it that third party lenses are cheaper in Nikon mount? My Nikonian friend did buy his tamron 17-50 for about S$650 last time, and the Canon's was the same price. Even in the Mass order forums, 3rd party mass orders for the tamron 17-50 was S$580 throughout for Canon / Nikon / Sony mounts.
And it would not be very true to say that Nikon's trinity lenses are unbeatable and are the best lenses. There is no best lens ever, because everyone's needs are different. Nikon doesn't have the f/4 zoom trinity that Canon has, and doesn't have specialised f/1.2 primes as well.
From what I'm reading, I think TS already has his mind on the Nikon D90. If you feel that you would prefer that, then just go for it. At the end of the day, when you spend money, you should feel good about it.
Both Canon and Nikon have their benefits, and with Nikon using a CMOS sensor they have levelled the playing field, or maybe put one-up on Canon.
I still feel that Nikon lenses are slightly more expensive ($30-50/lens) for most lenses.
My mind is not made up yet......... I would like to try Nikon........... But then again if changing to Nikon involves too much cost for me, then I may stick back to Canon........... : P
Thanks for all your inputs........ appreciate it all........... : )
640x480 = 307,200 pixel or dot as you call it. take that number multiply by 3--3 primary color make a pixel trio, equal ~920k. the calculation may work for most image capturing sensor but in the display industry, the RGB dots are treated as ONE pixel. like we won't hear the manufacturer claim their full 1080 display have 6.2 million dots but 1920x1080 pixels.
There is always 50D and 5D mark 2 ....
Olympus EP3, OMD-EM5, 14-42mm, 12-50mm, 9-18mm, 14-150mm
I would recommend Canon 40D
I started Nikon DSLR with a D40 and then changed to D200. And quite disappointed with the ISO performance of D200.
So when I was about to purchase D90, I decided to change to Canon instead by getting a 40D.
I used 18-200 VR, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8(coz can't afford Nikon 17-55 f/2.8), and 50mm prime. Lens upgrading plan in Nikon is not quite as broad as in Canon. And Nikon lenses are more expensive..e.g. Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is less costly than Nikon 17-55 f2.8(without VR)..
There are pros and cons in either brand but I'm sure I did a right decision to go with Canon. Never regret
I did not have a chance to use D90 though according to reviews its default output is less likely to meet the 40D quality.
TS..you mentioned about slow focussing of your 300D. why not try 40D...all AF points are cross-type..very fast.. even with a relatively slow kit lens like 17-85 f4-5.6 in low light.
Agree with aungzawwin though I am a Nikon user. Nikon lenses are normally more expansive than Canon ones (similar spec).
Nikon primes are notably cheaper then canon but thats partially cause they are mainly screwdriven. Canon has USM on most of their primes.