12/22 There hasn't been a camera thread in a bit. I'm lazy, can someone help
me decide that a dig SLR is better for me than a "prosumer" one,
and if so that the Canon dig. rebel at $770 after rebate is the best
deal? It appears to be $500 less than a Nikon D70.
\- the +$800 non SLR digitals are for rich morons --psb
and if so that the Canon dig. rebel at $770 after rebate is the best
deal? It appears to be $500 less than a Nikon D70.
\_ It really depends what you want to use it for. I think for most
semi-serious photographers, you're probably better off spending less
money on a fixed-lens camera than more money on an SLR+lens. A
number of prosumer cameras have lenses which are quite acceptable,
although there are some compromises to be made. If you don't
already have a bunch of lenses, and don't know exactly how much
photography you're going to be doing, I'd definitely look at a
manual-control prosumer camera with a decent fixed lens. -tom
\_ yes, I agree with tom that prosumer lenses have their
advantages. I'd say price and portability are the two
main ones. Have you seen how bulky those Digital SLRs are with
those long lenses?
\-nikon d70body is $1k - $100rebate = $900. although unless you have
a lot of nice lenses you probably do want to get the kit lens. --psb
\_ yea I was comparing basic kits. the canon body is $670. So is the
Nikon kit lens worth the extra dough over Canon's? Getting the
black body on the Canon amusingly seems to add $40. The Nikon lens
is a DX which I recall you bitching about.
\- whether the lens is worth it to you obviously depends on
what you are sitting on and what you plan to shoot. nobody
is saying "oh it is a piece of shit lens" ... independent
of how it may fit your needs, the general consensus seems
to be "it is fairly priced". i have a nikkor AF-D 18-35
but i bought the kit lens because i have a second body and
the pix i care about are often paroramics so i didnt want
to keep swapping lenses. BTW, a huge factor in cameras are
operational issues that cant be expressed in single number
statistics like pixels or flash sync speed etc. if one camera
has something 3 deep on a menu and another camera has a button
that can immediately control that setting, that kind of thing
can make a huge difference. --psb
\_ ok, agreed... I'm sitting on nada, I've kind of followed the
market for a while now though. I suppose I wonder why the
Canon kit with similar specs ends up $500 less than the
Nikon. I think I understand the usability concerns with this
Canon camera. Are the lenses different in just "general
optical quality" or am I missing something else... ok thx.
\- there are a lot fo comparisons on http://photo.net, dpreview
etc. if you post non-anonymously i would be more inclined
to send you the links.
\_ if you dont' have any lens at first place, then, go with whatever
you want: Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Pentax. All of them are pretty good.
the key is control, as post earlier. Make sure the camera you use
has easy access (e.g. hardware button) for 1. white balance, and
2. exposure compensation. If you know anything about photography,
then, you probably want seperate dial/control for apature and
shutter speed as well. Canon Digital Rebel combines apature and
shutter speed into one control. For person like me who tend to
fiddle with both on every picture, that is some serious usability
issue. As for lenses, I would ditch the kit lens and get a better
one, and get as wide as you can afford.
\- the DX format "G" 18mm lens is going to be much
cheaper than anything else which will be an option
if he goes with the nikon. otherwise you are talking
about a lens with a much more limited range like the
18-35 [an AF-D lens] or you are talking about +$800
lenses. --psb
\_ I would go with the Canon 300D (Digital Rebel). Not only is it
cheaper (w/ 18-55mm lens) than the D70 (w/o lens), it also uses
a CMOS sensor rather than a CCD. The upshot for a non-pro is
that the 300D will produce better photos with less fiddling than
the D70 (a cmos sensor gets a RGB value at every "pixel" whereas
a CCD only gets one value at each "pixel" and then interpolates
the others from adjacent pixels). Some of the limitations of the
\_ This is SOOOOOO Not true. I hope no one is buying the 300D
based on this lie. All sensors, CMOS or CCD, records only
one color per pixel. The bayer pattern then merges the colors
to form one final pixel. What you get is a slight loss of
sharpness. For the record, only the foveon sensor is physically
able to record all 3 colors at a single pixel location.
300D are that it takes a while to boot from standby whereas the
D70 is instant on, that makes some difference, but I set the
standby to 30 mins on my 300D when I need to do quick shooting
and this doesn't reduce my battery life noticeably. The 300D
also doesn't have some of the pro features that the D70 and
10/20D have, but if you are looking at a pro-sumer camera, then
the 300D will be more than sufficient.
The other big advantage I find is that Canon lenses are cheaper
used than Nikon lenses and also Canon's lower end lenses are of
much better optical quality than Nikon's lower end lenses. And
you could always get yourself a Canon "L" series lens (generally
consider the best lens you can buy from any vendor).
\- the canon 20d vs d70 is a serious question if you
take out $$$. i think the d70 is pretty clearly
a better camera than the 300d. the only justification
for the 300d would be large investment in canon lenses
in which case you would probably be looking at the 20d
anyway. i would take the cmos/ccd stuff above with a
grain of salt. --psb
\_ The noise levels of the 300D/10D sensor at the
same ISO and shutter speed are lower than the
D70's:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page14.asp
\- focusing [NPI] on a couple of percent difference
on laboratory condition, blownup shots is silly.
there is a giant difference in noice between
physically smaller sensors with same #pixels
but suggesting a signficant difference in
noise between the d70 and 300 is "noise" ...
it's better to look at more significant
differences [like camera functionality and
interface] than these marginal qualitative
ones. d70 vs 300d: 1/500 vs 1/200 flash sync.
d70: better metering. 8000th vs 4000th for
top shutter speed. much much larger buffer
for continuous shooting in d70. better whitebal
control. come on. this is not a serious contest.
with the 20d it is a serious comparison. --psb
\_ Yeah they have a rebate deal where you get extra $100 rebates
on lenses bought with the drebel. I have a hard time determining
the value to me of some of these though. The 17-40 f/4 L one
could be interesting, could get with camera for <$1100.
Adding a tele this gets pretty pricey although I suppose the
lenses are a better long term investment than the camera.
One other thing about the SLR is the sensor size:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp
\_ I don't remember which lenses qualify for the rebate,
but if the 75-300 IS or the 28-135 IS qualify, I would
recommend getting one of those.
\_ while they are good lenses, don't forget that
dSLRs have a cropping factor of 1.3x to 1.6x (some).
So that means a 28mm becomes a 44mm (example only) |
http://csua.com/feed/