Nikon D60 or Canon 450D?

I want upgrade to dSLR but with limited budget.

So, I'm considering one of these but still can not decide which one.

1. Nikon D60 + S&S RDX-D60 housing or 2. Canon 450D + S&S RDX-450D

I don't have any experience with SLR before and definitly want to add 60mm macro & tokina 10~17mm lens also.

Any advise will be appreciated, Thanks in advance.

Hi partner,

You might want to take a look here http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24887 and see if you can narrow down your choice. Both are very good systems that can make some great images. You're definitely on the right track with a macro lens and the 10-17.

By the way you have some very nice stuff on your Flickr page. Sure seems to me like you're ready to make the jump if you want to.

There are lots of paths to the treasure .

Good luck,

Steve

The lack of AF on the D60 sucks, but IMHO Nikon has a better choice of lenses.

I am a Nikonian, I would recommend Nikon in the long run.

Nikon has a better choice of lenses.

Hey Marcelo,

I'm going to have to ask you to back up this opinion. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Steve

I second that :-)

My opinion is that for "beginner" DSLR shooting the lens arsenal is exactly the same. Both brands have 60mm and 100mm macro lenses, both have a 10-20mm range WA zoom, both have the Tok 10-17 option, etc.

If you roll in a full kit for both topsides and uw shooting then Canon has a leg up.

Cheers

James

After long considering I think ill go for 40D instead 5D MKII. I believe in Steve`s judgment that 40D can produce excellent images and I think it is more than enough for now. 5D is big investment (change all lenses, housing...huge money). I`ll invest in one or two new lenses (some 60 or 100 and maybe tokina 10-17),maybe replace one YS110 with 250, and next year ill go for 5D:) What do you thing is it smart move or you would go for FF? Steve?:=)

I want upgrade to dSLR but with limited budget.

So, I'm considering one of these but still can not decide which one.

 

1. Nikon D60 + S&S RDX-D60 housing or 2. Canon 450D + S&S RDX-450D

 

I don't have any experience with SLR before and definitly want to add 60mm macro & tokina 10~17mm lens also.

 

Any advise will be appreciated, Thanks in advance.

Doesn't the D60 require that the lens have a focus motor? If so, the 10-17 won't work.

How much more for a D-90?

I think you may be making a mistake to spend for less. You'll just spend for another sooner. Underwater pictures with a dSLR is a journey, not a single purchasing event.

I would recommend that you save money NOW by deciding which lens you want to start with and purchase only that lens and port. Being a Nikon macro guy I started with the AF-105-VR but many would suggest the 60MM as a starter. The 60 is cheaper so that may be a consideration. My understanding, from others, is that the 10/17 should be in the future.

My logic is that one learns faster by focusing on a single lens and strobe setup. You will need to learn the camera, how to position the strobe(s), how to change F/stop depending on the shot. More importantly, the quick shutter action of a dSLR will give you the opportunity to (attempt to) catch the subject in the perfect pose. All this takes time to learn.

My second piece of advice is to shoot in RAW from the get-go. This negates the need to learn how to change many of the settings on the camera underwater. You can change them on land instead. Much easier.

I recently went through the same decision making that you are. I was looking at the D60 and 450D because of S&S announcing their new housings. Between the two cameras the 450D seemed to have marginally better reviews evn though it was thought to be a little overpriced. I've used Canon cameras in the past and finally decided on the 450D after handling them both in a store. I had 2x Inon D2000 to use with the new setup so I had a little head start. When it came time for the housing purchase I had several more options to choose from than just the S&S. Watershot and Seatool. My mind was made up about the Canon 60mm macro and the Tokina 10-17 after reading many threads. Neither lens is cheap and rarely seen used for much less than a new price. I did get the 60mm for $400 and the Tokina for $515 with free shipping. Not much more than you could get then used from what research I did. After tallying up the costs so far for the camera and those lenses and the money I would spend to get it housed with all the bits and parts needed I asked myself why I was concentrating on the cheapest (money wise) even though I know S&S make quality eqp. In the end I decided to go with the Seatool housing. It cost me a little more but I thought that the housing deserved the same attention to detail and quality that I put into buying my other equipment. Having had the opportunity to play/practice with the set-up (won't get wet till Sept in Bonaire) I feel I made the right choice. It is an entry DSLR but it is surrounded by quality. The size and weight make it good for traveling and I should have no problems getting it all onboard with a carry-on and personal bag. You really have to add up all the bits and parts after you make lens choices because different housings require different types and numbers of parts. This is part of why I chose the Seatool.

Good luck!

Jeff

Hey Marcelo,

I'm going to have to ask you to back up this opinion. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Before it starts a Canon x Nikon pointless debate, I want to point out that given the choice that was posted I would just go Nikon because I am a Nikon user and I know a lot more about Nikon system then Canon. Camera wise between the two the Canon has the advantage, but as I was taught and believe that photography is about lenses, I have the tendency to put more emphasis in that.

But this is a brief personal view of the development of both systems (they leapfrog each other every time):

Nikon started out as a "lens" manufacturer, while Canon started as a "camera" maker... we had Canons with Nikkor lens at the time.

Nikon got ahead of the game then with sturdier and more reliable cameras in the start of SLR era. Today they are about the same.

But Canon leapfrogged Nikon when it adopted the AF a lot sooner, even if at the price of a new lens mount incompatible with older lenses although more advanced than Nikon's F Mount.

This decision alone, and not the higher quality of the lenses, was responsible for the great moment in this fight. When Canon caught up to Nikon, and I can say that Nikon never recovered from that mistake of not going AF in the 80s.

Both manufacturers have amazing lenses, the Canon "L" series (even thoug L stands for nothing technical, just a great care in the manufacturing process, finishing and better optical elements) are really good. I would say at one time better than Nikon. Now we see Canon users buying adapters to use Nikon lenses... the 14-24/2.8 regarded everywhere as the best 35mm format wide-angle ever, I think Nikon got up to the same level.

Underwater Nikon use to dominate the market only because of the Nikonos system (again with the espectacular 15mm for NV and the amazing zoom for the RS), and the TTL circuitry. Just because of that...

When the digital came, even though Nikon started ahead with the D1, Canon very soon took the lead with better cameras for the good first years.

Today the situation is inverted I think (DxO), I reckon that Nikon got ahead of the game again. And again because (as Nikon did in the past) Canon made a few mistakes, and they were in my oppinion:

1)Canon did not settle for a definitive sensor format... having Full Frames, 1.3x, 1.5x and 1.6x (something like that) lead Canon into 2 corners:

- Created a compatibility lens table the the Nikon users never had, and quite franquiily I never really understood that.

- Made impossible for a Canon digital fisheye, like the Nikon 10.5mm.

Yes the 10-17 is a lot more versatile.

But the 10.5mm still has an edge on IQ. And there is people (like me) that still frown on third party lenses (quite stubborn, I know... I can talk about that also, but mainly I just buy third party to add something that the Nikon line-up does not give me. Ex: 10-17, 8mm circular and a 10mm rectilinear WA - until now!!!).

2) It rushed in these last moments of the race and slipped... the 50D with less IQ than the 40D it was supposed to replace is the clear example on that.

The 400D scoring more than 450D on DxOMark's website is another one.

In DxOMark website for:

Full Frame: The 3 Nikons FX are 1-2-3 positions and running against newer Canons.

APS-C: All current Nikon DX (40x, 60, 90, 300) are ahead of all Canons, even the D200 is. The only exception is the D80, still from the time when Canon had better cameras.

Still I tend to consider the 450D in a slight advantage because of the AF motor.

"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution." DPreview was just one of the sources to say so.

Even more personally speaking the apparent lack of compromise with the heavy user in Canon, abandoning a lens mount and leaving millions of lenses behind, and the different digital formats and compatibility issues within the current generation is something that makes me think I am better off with Nikon...

"UWP'speakingly" the 10.5mm, the 105VR is something that Canon lacks.

Canon has great glasses, but the Nikon DX fisheye and the macro lenses (which are what we use underwater most of the time) are better on Nikon.

To Canon credit: the amazing 10-20 is something that made me envious, but I think the Nikkor 10-24 will cure that, let's see.

Wush!!! That's my reading of the market... others might disagree, I respect.

And of course, I lean heavily towards Nikon...

Oh, and all that can change as close as tomorrow!!!

IQwise, which is not absolute at all, I read the APS-C market as:

Canon dominated the market with the 10D, 300D and the 20D up to end 2006.

Then since the Nikon got the D200 Canon never got back up to it and today with the 50D and 450D is trailling all others including Sony.

Marcelo,

I think that Steve's question was about the lenses. You've spent a lot of time discussing the camera bodies and mixing in the lens comparisons which is a bit confusing.

Based on the fact that the 10-17 won't work on the Nikon body then the choice for the original poster is clear - get the Canon. The 10-17 is not a lens that cropped sensor shooters should ever be without.

Cheers

James

Marcelo,

 

I think that Steve's question was about the lenses. You've spent a lot of time discussing the camera bodies and mixing in the lens comparisons which is a bit confusing.

Based on the fact that the 10-17 won't work on the Nikon body then the choice for the original poster is clear - get the Canon. The 10-17 is not a lens that cropped sensor shooters should ever be without.

 

Cheers

James

Ops, yeah you guys are right. I slipped big time in that.

Not even the 10.5mm would focus on the D60.

Another big reason for me not to like it!

Yeah, the lack of AF motor sucks...

And Sea&Sea did not make the D90 housing, so the first useable Nikon option is a D300 (almost too old and expensive by now).

What a check-mate!!!

After long considering I think ill go for 40D instead 5D MKII. I believe in Steve`s judgment that 40D can produce excellent images and I think it is more than enough for now. 5D is big investment (change all lenses, housing...huge money). I`ll invest in one or two new lenses (some 60 or 100 and maybe tokina 10-17),maybe replace one YS110 with 250, and next year ill go for 5D:) What do you thing is it smart move or you would go for FF? Steve?:=)

Hi Alexx,

Your first potentially fatal flaw is that you're basing an awful lot on the belief that I have "judgement" In this case though I'll stand proudly by the statement that "the 40D can produce excellent images".

The pros here have taught me that it all depends on what you're going to do with your rig and the images you want to make. There are a bunch of threads here where the folks discuss the pros and cons of cropped vrs full frame camera's. A search might be helpful. If you are happy with the 400D you could think about just adding the 10-17 ( a must have for the Canon cropped camera's IMHO) for now if money is tight. I'm guessing you already have the big dome. Add a YS-250 and you'd be dancing. If you decide to go with the 40D later you could still use everything except of course the housing. If you want to see what a 40D can really do check out Gudge's Flickr page. Careful, there are some newer 50D shots in there that will knock your socks off.

Want to go FF and play with video too and willing to pay the price, then the 5DMk II sounds like the way to go. I'm on dangerous ground here since I can't even follow the discussions among the video guys. (I think they make up acronyms just to confuse us old experienced film types) There is a link here if you want to check it out the MkII conversation.

Good luck ,

Steve

Ops, yeah you guys are right. I slipped big time in that.

What a check-mate!!!

So Mariozi,

To answer Enje's original question, given those choices you'd recommend the Canon?

Thank's for your thoughts on the N vrs C question. I've owned some of both and grew up shooting the Nikonos cameras. I like to tweak my Nikonian friends every now and then, it's so easy sometimes it's hard to resist. (see I did it again).

At the end of the day though, I think we should be picking the best tool we can find and afford for the images we want to make, independent of tribal affiliation. Both Nikon and Canon spend enough money on advertising I don't think we need to help them. I'd like to think we are all members of the underwater photographers fraternity first.

Have fun,

Steve

So Mariozi,

To answer Enje's original question, given those choices you'd recommend the Canon?

Have fun,

Steve

Definitely, given the choices, I would Steve

Seeya.

Marcelo,

 

I think that Steve's question was about the lenses. You've spent a lot of time discussing the camera bodies and mixing in the lens comparisons which is a bit confusing.

 

Based on the fact that the 10-17 won't work on the Nikon body then the choice for the original poster is clear - get the Canon. The 10-17 is not a lens that cropped sensor shooters should ever be without.

 

Cheers

James

Excuse my ignorance James- but is that the Tokina 10-17 u referr to? If so, does it work on a D200???

Txs

Damo

Excuse my ignorance James- but is that the Tokina 10-17 u referr to? If so, does it work on a D200???

Txs

Damo

It does, what James is rightly pointing, and that I missed on Steve's post, is that you won't get the AF on newer Nikon entry-level bodies (D40, D60, D5000).

It works with full features in D200, D300 older bodies and high-end ones.

In fact it can be used, since it is a fisheye, you can set it at f/8 and shoot away... I do this when the AF start to hunt.

Hi, guys

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply for my question.

It's really helpful.

HAND