[Audio-gd]

I've only heard the first gen/test version of the Compass but will be hearing the final version soon. That Ref 1 is a beast though, at least it looks like it.

I can say that while you might deal with a bit of rough English their service is really second to none.

[Digital SLR Recommendations]

I disagree. Once one has calibrated how nuts and biased K-Rock is, it's possible to subtract that quantity from his reviews and extract some meaningful information.

Sometimes, but he can be wildly inconsistent and unclear at times so I always recommend people either ignore the site or look to it for giggles.

The thing he does best is confuse and hamper the progress of inexperienced photographers.

[Digital SLR Recommendations]

FWIW, frothing Nikon fanboy and general purpose nutjob Ken Rockwell loves the 18-200 VR.

He really is useless though.

[Digital SLR Recommendations]

The nikon folks I know eventually tired with this lens and stopped taking it out for just this reason (this is a problem with most of both nikon and canon VR/IS consumer-class zoom lenses), and it's a bigger issue with the newer bodies, because the 12MP+ resolution really lets you know when your lens isn't quite sharp enough. These lenses are great for casual shooting and family photos, but if you're a detail lover (architecture, landscape photography), it will drive you to swap out eventually.

However, both companies are upgrading all these lenses because of these complaints, so it's good to keep an eye on the reviews.

The 18-200 VR AF-S is an impressive achievement for what it is and what it does compared to all the other 18-200 lenses. But you pay a price and for that price the performance just isn't there so unless you value that convenience very highly and don't mind a slow lens I don't think it's a very good value or wise choice.

That pretty much mirrors my impressions, maybe it's because of my big hands but the XSi just didn't feel right to me at all. I really didn't expect ergonomics to play that much of a role but they've pretty much ruled the XSi out for me. The 50D was much better ergonomically and is built extremely well but it's out of my price range. The D90 felt great, has a little more weight than the XSi which I liked and overall seemed to fit my hand better.

Not an uncommon complaint towards the Rebels although something which many people seem to find is fixed by using the vertical grip Canon sells for the Rebel. Not all the Nikons can use a vertical grip technically because Nikon doesn't make one, but there are third party options.

[Digital SLR Recommendations]

It's a rather convoluted thing though, Nikon's lens history. Certain modern bodies will work with most older lenses however lower end modern bodies will lack certain features and may not be compatible, in fact damage due to mounting is possible. Similarly Nikon's T/S lenses may not work on all modern or older bodies either.

In terms of in-production lenses (Nikon's lens history more or less thouroughly pwnz Canon's) Nikon is better than Canon at the wide end for exactly one reason: the 14-25mm F/2.8 zoom. It's sharper than Canon's 14mm F/2.8 (II) prime, and costs the same price or less. It's so good that well-heeled Canon owners are buying a GBP150 adapter that allows them to use it with their full frame Canon bodies. (The adapter is that expensive because the 14-24 is a "G" lens and lacks manual aperture controls and requires an electric interface.) Apart from that, Canon wide lenses are quite good. The EF 16-35mm F/2.8 II is a killer lens, if quite spendy. The EF 17-40mm F/4L is basically as sharp, but not quite as wide, and a stop slower. It's much lighter and cheaper, however. I own one and love it. For cropped sensors, Canon makes the best ultrawide, period. The EF-S 10-22mm is a ridiculously good piece of glass, and none of the competing models are anywhere close to it.

The 14-24 is an unusual and stellar lens. Likely outperforming many Nikon wide primes as well from what I've seen. The 16-35 and 17-40 from Canon are very good as well, and price wise (always a factor) are very competitive with anyone else. The 10-22 is an amazing lens for the money, too bad I cannot use it on my main camera. Like you the 17-40 is my lens of choice at the wide end, I do not need the speed generally and the size and weight savings means I can carry that much more other crap.

The 14-24 is a powerful argument for going with the Nikon system (provided you are getting a full frame sensor) and it illustrates Nikon's real strength: specialty glass. Nikon's fisheyes are pretty much universally better than Canons, and their best (the absolutely bonkers 8mm F/2.8 ) is in a class by itself. Nikon also makes two brilliant portrait lenses, the 100mm and 135mm F/2 "Defocus Control" primes. Both have a secondary control to adjust spherical aberration and adjust the quality of the bokeh (out of focus area) of the shot. Only the even more insane Konica Minolta 135mm STF is better in this area. [Warning: latenight tangent] The STF is F/2.8 but it's transmission factor is equivalent to F/4.5, a stop and a third slower than its maximum aperture. This is due to a special conical element it has designed to product gaussian distribution of out of focus highlights. It's such a cult lens there's a site dedicated to it. [end tangent]

I'm not sure I'd say the 14-24, Nikon's defocus controls, Canon's T/S or any of the other lenses are strong arguments for either system in most senses. If you need them you're essentially an outlier in the photographic world, a unique case, and of course you will acquire the equipment you need and it may dictate the system you choose. I for example have been shooting Canon for a long time and up until a few years ago lens-wise it wouldn't have mattered what I used. However the Canon 24-105 4L IS and 17-40 4L are perfect lenses for my needs, I don't need or want their faster counterparts. The IS on the 24-105 allows handholding at lower speeds at the apertures I use which are generally not wide open but two stops down ore more, the 2.8L would be a worse lens for me. Nikon for instance has nothing that really can match the two of those lenses, and yes i know about their 24-120 VR.

It wasn't until a little over a year ago that I bought the 24 TS-E and 90 TS-E that I really had something that Nikon couldn't even approximate let alone match. Now they do have equivalents but I don't feel personally the very large price increase is worth it for theirs anyway so I'm quite happy with what I've got.

Nikon announced a bunch of new super-expensive teles a while back, and I must admit I've paid virtually no attention to them. $6000 400mm F/2.8 image stabilized primes are of no interest to me. Their release is a sign that Nikon wants back into the pro/sports market, where they haven't had much of a footprint in 20 years. I think Canon still has the edge in the long (witness the 800mm F/5.6L) but Nikon is definitely encroaching on their territory.

Nikon has regained most of that ground. They are very competitive with Canon on the super-teles but as with every other part of the focal length range each one has the upper hand in certain cases in performance, as well as cost.

To get back to the original point of this thread: Nikon makes much better kit lenses (Canons tend to suck), and has some select specialty models that best Canon by a wide margin. Canon's current line of glass is better than any other company's and Canon is able to introduce more new models more often and get them to market faster than anyone else. Witness the new 17mm full frame tilt shift lens, which wasn't even though possible until Canon pulled it off.

For what it's worth many of Nikon's kit lenses are generally a bit more expensive than Canon's and while sometimes technically better, they're still not terribly good. However for most people if they're sticking with the kit lenses they're likely going to be the kind of shooter that's fine with either.

Realistically, I'd suggest a Nikon D60, D80 or D90, and VR version of both kit lenses (the 18-55 and uh, 50-200?) Don't skimp on the VR. Later look at the 35mm F/2 or the new DX-only 35mm F/1.8. Also consider the 50mm F/1.8 and 85mm F/1.8. That's all any sane person is likely to need.

That would be a good way to start however you'd also have the Rebel XSi, an older XTi or the 30D or 40D to consider on the Canon side with similar lenses. Ultimately your best way to decide is to try them all out. Just like shoes or cars, cameras from different manufacturers (or even models from the same manufacturer) work, fit and feel differently.

In the Canon world, a new old stock 30D is quite a bargain if you can find one, and the 40D is heavily discounted as well. the X0D bodies are built like tanks and have very nice ergonomic controls. At least for someone with ginormous hands like myself. I do not like the Rebel series. I find them to be cheap feeling, and they have fiddly controls and dim viewfinders. The EF-S 17-85mm IS kit lens is not perfect, but it's lightyears beyond the 18-55. It makes a great one lens solution. The EF 35mm F/2 is the best deal in the entire Canon lineup (and cheaper than Nikon's 35mm, to boot). The 50mm F/1.4 is not a great lens, but it's the cheapest way to get F/1.4. The only way under a grand, in fact. The EF 85mm F/1.8 is best bang for the buck, if you care about bokeh (PROTIP: life is easier if you don't.)

Ergonomically the Rebel series and the lower end Nikons are both compromises. They both have small and dim viewfinders and both have focusing screens that make determining real depth of field very difficult if not nearly impossible. The XSi is a brigther viewfinder but like the other lower end Nikons and Canons it's still on the smaller side. Still for a casual shooter that may not always be something that concerns them.

Controls, layout, size and overall fit and finish of the lower end cameras are not as good as the higher end. The Nikon D60 may feel a bit tougher but it isn't any tougher than the XSi and feature wise they differ some so look at features if they matter, however more important in most cases is whether the camera works for you and whether you have specific needs for certain optics.

Pentax beats Canon and Nikon on lower model build quality and ergonomics IMO but falls behind on the features. Very nice cameras regardless.

Regarding fast lenses to choose from. The Canon 50 1.4 is a fine lens, better than the older Nikon 50 1.4 but certainly probably bested by the new one but I haven't used the new Nikon 50 1.4 (or the new Sigma 50 1.4). The Canon 50 1.8 is an amazing deal and a very solid performer for all of $80 or $90 so if you want something fast on a budget consider it. I'll second the 85 1.8 suggestion and I hear the 100 f/2 is very good but I've never used it. I've got the f2.8 USM macro myself.

So my suggestion as always to someone looking at jumping in to a new system with cold feet is to go to a store that has a variety to choose from and try everything in your budget out. Never just take one person's advice to buy from camera x or brand y, decide for yourself because one camera might fit your hands better or you'll like the interface better. If you do it right you'll have a system you'll be happy to grow in to and grow with, if you do it wrong and you get in to it you may find yourself losing money in a change to another system. Major players in the DSLR business are Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and trailing somewhere behind with the 4/3 system is Olympus. Personally the 4/3 system is not worth it generally but if it feels right don't run away from it.

If I weren't getting Canon or Nikon I'd go with Pentax. That's just me though.

[Post the last thing you bought!]

I've never heard of the Z1 being used for IR photography but that's interesting. I know the Canon G1 was popular for that.

I got a new video card recently. EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 55nm superclocked

[Feline hum]

Never had that happen but my cat is quite zappy during the winter.

[World of Goo]

It's a lot of fun although the controls can be frustrating at times. In total it has better polish and more to it than say Fantastic Contraption but in some ways I like the challenge of creating a functional contraption in Fantastic Contraption better.

[Battlestar Galactica]

I'm holding off to watch the special and the final two episodes in a lump if I can over the weekend. I've enjoyed the whole show very much although it has had its ups and downs and has certainly been painful (deliberately and usually in a good way) to follow their stories given how tragic they can be. I only hope they pull off the right ending.