JFO Loc: Oregon

Ah, here we go again. As you should know, Mr. Pigott, the reason Canon lenses stand out in a sea of black lenses is simply their color. I suspect Canon originally chose the color for that very reason; to make their lenses stand out in a crowd for no other reason than a fancy paint job. Also, a rumor has been circulating for years that Canon gives the pros those lenses, either outright or on an open ended 'loan', just for the product recognition value. That said, both companies make suburb optics and cameras. Granted Canon does a little better job marketing to the non-pro market but don't get hung up on a particular brand. I have a nephew living in Manhattan who is a well paid professional photographer and whose bag contains both Canon and Nikon equipment.

The new member who initiated this thread should 1) join a local camera club where will be found photographers of many levels of experience, 2) take a few basic courses at a community college or 3) sit down with a friend who has as many years as a serious amateur as he can find in his community. No pro or serious advanced amateur should espouse the notion that either N or C is better than the other. I have been using Nikon since 1960 when I got a model F in Japan. I've stuck with the brand for 54 years simply because all the lenses still fit all the bodies. Same could probably said by a long-time Canon owner. (BTW: That Nikon F is still alive and well and has never needed any maintenance in its life.)

canon Lee

I understand the Canon's long zooms are white to keep the lens heat down when shooting in the sun. I have a canon EF70-200mm as well as other zooms, & having it white does in fact draw attention. Maybe it is white for heat issues or not , but I will give Canon the benefit of the doubt.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

I have been shooting for a long time with Canon, white to keep the heat down, anyone else ever heard that? I have never heard it. Can always be educated but that is the first time I have ever heard that.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

That sounds familiar. :lol: :lol: :lol:

rbfanman

All major brands-Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, etc-are pretty much the same as far as general capability, and overall quality, are concerned. What separates any cameras from one another is their feature sets. One camera will have a faster shutter speed, but fewer Megapixels of resolution. Another will have more Megapixels of resolution, but have less light sensitivity (lower ISO numbers). No one camera make / model is always the best for every kind of photography under all circumstances.

What matters to you-feature wise-will be different from what matters to others. I wanted: good light sensitivity, in camera image overlay capability, in camera panorama capability, less noise at high ISOs, longer battery life, great color depth, 1080P movie capability at 60 fps, at least 20 Megapixels of resolution, little start up delay,and a wide variety of available lenses....and I did not want to spend a lot of money on it. The 24.2 MP Nikon D3300 suited my purposes.

Other cameras were better than my D3300 in some ways, and worse in other ways. The Sony a55 has faster continuous shooting capability, and takes 3D images, and has more focus points, and GPS, and a flip out screen. None of that interested me much. The Pentax K-50 had a faster top shutter speed, and faster rate of continuous shooting, but cost a hundred dollars more than the D3300 while only offering 16 MP of resolution.

The Canon T5i has a touch screen, and HDR, but less color depth, more noise at high ISOs, a smaller sensor, more start up delay, and fewer lenses available. The Nikon D5300 has: in camera HDR, more focus points, a flip out screen, slightly better image quality...BUT has less color depth, is noisier at high ISOs, has no in camera Panorama capability, and costs more than the D3300.

Study the available makes, and models, and features, and decide what features you need for the type of photography you will do. Then, find a make & model of camera which has your desired features at a price you like. Get the best, most feature laden, system you can afford.

The Nikon D3100, and D3200, are entry level models from recent years. The D3300 is a slightly updated version of the D3200. One of the upgrades is to the Continuous Shooting rate. The D3200 could shoot one picture after another-for sports images, etc-at a rate of 4 Frames Per Second. The newer D3300 can do the same at a rate of 5 Frames Per Second (FPS).

If you already have a D3200, you may as well keep it, since the D3300 feature upgrades are not worth the hassles, and expense, of trading in your D3200 on a new D3300. However, if you do not already have a D3100, or D3200, the D3300 will make a great first DSLR. At around $500.00, the D3300 with 18-55mm VR lens, is a good bargain. If you have more money to spend, and don't mind spending it, consider a D810, or D4S, instead.

A fast top shutter speed...of at least 1/4,000 of a second would be good to have. If you prefer it, go for a faster top shutter speed...1/6,000, or 1/8,000, of a second. You might prefer a larger FX format system which has about the same size sensor as a piece of 35mm film. It will be more expensive for the camera, and for the lenses. The smaller DX format (APS-C sized) cameras, and lenses, will be less expensive. I would not go with less than 20MP (MegaPixels) of resolution, but you might be willing to settle for less..16MP, or 14MP, or 12MP. It is up to you.

The Nikon D7100 is more expensive, but is weather sealed...which might matter to you if you will do a lot of photographing in the falling rain, or snow. Some cameras have Wi-Fi built in, so you can send images from your camera to a nearby cell phone, or tablet. Other cameras have the option of Wi-Fi capability built in, but require an add on adapter to use it. Other cameras have no Wi-Fi capability at all. This may, or may not, matter to you. Most DSLRs show in the viewfinder 95%, or 97%, of what the lens / image sensor sees . Others show 100%. Whether that matters to you only you can say.

Whether you can spend $600.00 or $6,000.00, or $60,000.00, or whatever, on a system, is for you to decide. Pick a price, and shop around, and you can find something to fit your budget. It may be a new pro level DSLR, or a new Entry Level Consumer DSLR, or it may be an old, refurbished, Pro Level DSLR which was top of the product line five years ago. Only you can say what fits your needs, and budget, best.

The Nikon D3300 suited my needs, and budget, fine. I bought it with: an 18-55mm zoom lens, and a 55-200mm zoom lens, and a Wi-Fi adapter (WU-1a), and a small SB-300 tilt head flash unit. Such will fill my needs for now. As time goes by, I will be buying some fast prime lenses, and some larger flash units.

Be sure that whatever camera you do buy has the ability to shoot images in RAW. Shooting, and storing, RAW images will make editing easier after shooting, should you wish to get into that. Even if you never shoot in RAW, and never do any editing, someone else would be more willing to buy your camera if it has RAW capability than if it lacked such capability. If you ever want to sell your camera-to help pay for a newer one later-that can matter.

rbfanman

Actually white gets hotter.

Black absorbs IR heat, and reflects UV heat.

White reflects IR heat, and absorbs UV heat.

UV heat is hotter than IR heat.

White absorbs the hotter UV light / heat, and so gets hotter.

Black absorbs the cooler IR light / heat, and so stays cooler.

Visit any desert community around the world, and you will see more black clothing than white clothing.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Gosh, we are going full circle, it reflects, it absorbs, think it is all BS. You start with a system and you become locked in because of the lenses you have purchased.

WmLeeGriffin Loc: PA

The way I look at it, anyone can buy and learn to drive a Chevrolet. It's a good car, easy to love and easy to drive. Same is true with cameras. But, if you really want to learn how to capture life in a camera, go Nikon!! (Okay, I'm ready for what follows :lol: )

JFO Loc: Oregon

On the other hand . . . 42 years ago the purchasing manager of the Ohio Highway Patrol was a friend and neighbor. One day we were talking about the white cruisers to which OHP was transitioning. (There was still about an even mix of black cruisers and white ones on the road at that time.) The good Captain told me that the black cars required about four times more air conditioner maintenance than the white ones. The black cars could only keep the interior comfortable in the hot midwest summer with the AC going full blast while the white cars could do so with a more moderate setting. What this has to do with lens colors is questionable; just a few tidbits about thermodynamics and light temperature. (Wait!! This looks like I'm taking the Canon side. Oh, no!) JFO

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

First, black is the absence of visible light and white is a uniform distribution of visible light. It has nothing to do with IR or UV, which we don't see. But for the purposes of this post I'll assume your Nikon lens absorbs only visible and IR and your Canon lens absorbs only UV.

While it is true that a UV photon has more energy than an IR photon (and is therefore "hotter" ), there are a lot more IR photon in sunlight at the earth's surface. UV is fairly strong in space, but the very energetics inherent in the UV photons make them susceptible to absorption in the atmosphere. And I'm not talking about the air around you, but the atmosphere 100 miles up. The air is pretty thin up there, but it's quite effective at blocking most of the solar UV. Even more effective is the ozone layer around 50 miles up.

Here are two illustrations showing the solar spectrum and the transparency of the atmosphere at the surface. They are from the Handbook of Geophysics and the Space Environment, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, 1985. Note the rapid fall in the intensity of the solar spectrum in the UV (to the left of the visible spectrum) and note further that the graph uses a logarithmic scale. Also, the transparency of the atmosphere is small in the UV while the IR has a number of transparent bands.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

I went with Nikon D3200 {my first exchangeable, lens camera} because it was "RED"......

"OOHHH look so pretty"!!!!!!!!!!! :P :P

canon Lee

Oh my, what have i started? I still don't know why canon's lens barrel is white. I am not a physicist! Canon uses "FLUORITE" coatings on some of their zoom lenses, & that supposedly absorbs solar heat. So is it UV,IS or Fluorite?

JFO Loc: Oregon

Yeah Bill, but can you find red lenses? Perhaps there is a lens painting service out there somewhere where I can get my ugly black Nikkor telephoto painted egg-shell white. Just to see how it looks maybe I'll start with just the huge lens shade so as not to cover up any important markings on the lens (NOT!!). OK. Tongue now being withdrawn from cheek. John O.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I think you got it just to match your HOG! :lol:
SS

gonate Loc: sacramento,calif

:D Go ahead shoot Nikon be sorry foe ever, your choice.