What DSLR brand do YOU have, and why? [Archive]

RBMaraman

Mar 18, 2006, 07:38 AM

I was all set to buy a Canon Digital Rebel XT. I'd read reviews online, read what people were saying on MR, checked different sites for prices, and so on. But, I'd made up my mind that I was going to buy it from my local camera store.

So, I went into the store, asked to see the Rebel XT, and as soon as it was in my hands I realized I hated it. I didn't like the layout of the buttons or menus, I wasn't very impressed with the kit lense, and the camera just didn't feel right. I explained to the woman that this was my first dSLR, actually my first SLR period. She pulled down the Nikon D70 and said she thought I would like this better. It was perfect. Loved the button and menu layout, thought the lense was better than the Nikon, and it just felt right.

That's how I ended up with my Nikon D70.

Moral of the story: ALWAYS hold all options in person before buying.

edesignuk

Mar 18, 2006, 08:04 AM

I got a 350D, simply because at the time it was the best in my price range. Although I haven't actually used it as much as I had hoped I would, I am always pleased with the results when I do.

mjstew33

Mar 18, 2006, 08:07 AM

Well, I don't have a DSLR camera, but if I had to get one, it would definitely be a Cannon.

Clix Pix

Mar 18, 2006, 08:33 AM

I've been using Nikon cameras for many, many years.... Nikon N90 film SLR, several Coolpixes, Nikon D70, Nikon D70s, Nikon D200.... and of course the necessary lenses.....

In stores I've handled both Nikon and Canon, but have never shot with a Canon. I definitely dislike the plasticky feel of the Digital Rebel and rejected it out of hand at the time I was deciding on my first DSLR. I've also handled the 10D and the 20D, and while they don't seem as uncomfortable to me, I just prefer the way the Nikon feels in my hands and I definitely prefer the placement of the various controls and the way they do their menu system. True, because I was already famiiar with the basic layout of a Nikon camera, this might have something to do with my preferences.

Cameras from either Canon or Nikon will do a very fine job in making the image. Ditto for those from other manufacturers. What's more important is the person who is holding that camera body and lens and what he or she does with it. Someone can have the most expensive camera and the finest lenses and yet still not produce particularly good images, while in the right hands, even the least sophisticated camera can produce surprisingly good results.

Benjamindaines

Mar 18, 2006, 08:37 AM

I have both a Canon 20D and a Nikon D200, they are both amazing cameras.

EDIT: Does anyone have a Pentax?

Grimace

Mar 18, 2006, 11:34 AM

I have a Digital Rebel XT and LOVE it! A lot of preference comes from the feel of cameras you've had before. I had a Pentax 35mm and a Sony point-and-shoot, so I would have had to learn a new layout regardless.

If you decide to go with a Rebel XT, get the camera body alone. Or, if they can package it with an IS (image stability) lens, go that route. They are more expensive, but the results are phenomenal.

rasp

Mar 18, 2006, 11:45 AM

Having not read the thread, I'm not sure how much this question really matters. My vote is Canon, simply because I like the handling better. Each system has pros and cons which can be important in specific situations, but, for general photography, I doubt there is much difference. In the end, pick a system, and learn it. It's far more important to be there and able to see, than what gear, just as long as you have a camera along.

bousozoku

Mar 18, 2006, 11:48 AM

I have an Olympus E-1, for a couple of reasons.

It's all digital, which of course, limits the lens choices but maximises compatibility. There are currently about 15 available and they cover everything pretty well.

It doesn't suffer from dust because it has a patented device to shake it off the sensor and trap it.

I've always had great luck with Olympus SLRs and ZLRs since the late 1970s. While I sold most brands at one time, only Olympus, Nikon, Fuji, and Pentax felt right in my hands. The alternatives weren't all that great when I bought my E-1 around two years ago. I'm sure you've seen that I didn't mention Canon. You don't want to get me started talking about Canon. :D

djbahdow01

Mar 18, 2006, 11:50 AM

Went from a Canon Rebel film camera to a Nikon D70 Digital. One of the main reasons was that the Digi Rebels seemed cheaply made and the D70 was solid. Also after reading many reviews of both I went with the D70 and have had no problems, and some great shooting experiences.

Kirbdog

Mar 18, 2006, 12:04 PM

I use a Nikon D70s, the best reason I can think of is that's what my brother uses. He's a professional and I am amateur if I use the same stuff its easy to get advice and share lenses. I had a Coolpix 5700 before I got an DSLR, it was a good camera but I needed more than it could offer. I have always felt Nikon makes good quality products. IMHO they make the best lenses.
Now if only my backordered Nikkor 18-200mm VRII would arrive before summer.

150hp

Mar 18, 2006, 12:05 PM

I just picked up a Nikon D70s w/ 18-70 kit lens.

I have been shooting since high school (circa 1989) with a Pentax K1000. I had wanted to pick up a Nikon N90s when they first came out but I couldn't justify spending that much on a 35mm as I had moved up to medium format with a Rolleiflex TLR & a couple of 4x5 view cameras. I just love the large negatives.

Well, I thought about trying digital & was given a Nikon Coolpix 2500 as a Christmas present. I enjoyed it & decided I needed a dslr as I got frustrated with the lack of manual controls on the 2500. So since I had wanted a Nikon slr since the early 90's, I just had to get the D70s as I just had so much monentum internally that all other makers were out of the question.

So now I just need a couple more lenses. My next one will be a Lensbaby 2.0

That is all.

OutThere

Mar 18, 2006, 12:10 PM

I've had my Canon D. Rebel for a little more than a year now...just passed 6000 exposures last week. I know some other people with D.Rebels and so I was comfortable with the button layout and operating procedure, plus I could borrow lenses...so it was an easy choice.

NinjaMonkey

Mar 18, 2006, 03:24 PM

I went with Olympus for a lot of reasons. The 4/3 mount is the most modern and is all digital, and Oly makes very high quality lenses. Since I wasn't tied to Canon or Nikon because I never had an SLR I decided Olys all digital system was the way to go for me. The only downside to 4/3 is noise at high ISO speeds but for me and most prosumers that isn't an issue.

The EVOLT series also has the dust reduction system which is nice.

For me it came down to the Rebel XT which I hated from the moment I saw it in person, it got even worse when I actually picked it up. And the Nikon D50 which is a nice camera but I got a better deal on the E500.

joepunk

Mar 18, 2006, 03:42 PM

If I had a DSLR it would be a Nikon as I already have lenses.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 18, 2006, 03:49 PM

[Sorry for the long post - but working in a camera shop, I too get bitten by the "buying" bug. But I hope that my thoughts will help, and give pause as others decide "which way" to go.}

I started with having a Canon Rebel Ti when I was ready to jump to digital. So I got a 10D, and then followed that up with the Rebel XT. All because I had some lenses already. That grew into a system with a 12-24, 17-40, 28-135IS, 28-75 Tamron (for speed), the 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 for low light) and the 75-300IS. Along with two 420EX's and the ST-E2 for wireless flash.

Come late last year/early this year, I was thinking of getting a "super zoom" camera like the Panasonic FZ series for my planned trips this year - to have a light weight one lens solution. That was until our Nikon rep came in with the Nikkor 18-200VR just before Christmas. Man, such a sweet lens. Sharp, good close focusing ability, and a super VR/IS capability. In the store I was able to shoot at 5.6 @ 1/30 fairly consistently!

Had the chance to buy the 18-200VR BEFORE the popularity made it go on back order. And had the $150 rebates available for buying the PictureMate and the D50 together. So I jumped at it. Add to that Nikon has the 10.5 fisheye (that can be corrected for distortion in Nikon Capture), so I splurged for that lens too - always liked the semi-fisheye effect.

So I now shoot both Canon and Nikon. Its been only three months in having the Nikon D50 in my gear box. And I love it. JPEG images are truly ready to print. The 18-200VR is a truly great travel lens.

I will probably be paring down my Canon kit. Already swapped out the 12-24 Tokina for Canon to Nikon. Most likely will sell off the 10D and the Ti, they don't see much use - though both are great cameras. As well as thinking of the 28, 50, and 75-300IS. Why? Cameras are tools. You get the tools that will best do the job that you need it to do.

But for me the Nikon D50 and the 18-200VR replaces my need for the 75-300IS to a degree. And in some ways because of the 4 stop ability of VR, the 28 and 50 Canon lenses. Though I have sights on a great Nikkor 35/2.0 for really low light.

But based on my experiences recently, I would be very tempted as new purchaser to go with any Nikon DSLR with the 18-200VR for "general" shooting. I say "general", for while the 18-200VR is a sharp lens, it is not like the 17-55/2.8 or the 70-200VR/2.8; or the Canon equals.

Add your choice of an ultra-wide zoom (my choice is the Tokina 12-24), a 35 or 50 f/2.0, and for adventure the a semi fish-eye (hope that Canon offers one soon for the 1.6x factor). As a person that loves wide angle, these are my choices. Otherwise if you are more telephoto, a 200 to 400~500 zoom lens would be of more use than the semi fish-eye.

Abstract

Mar 18, 2006, 03:59 PM

I have used Canons all my life, and my current P&S camera that I use very regularly is still a Canon. I'll also buy another Canon P&S in several years. I have around 4 friends with Nikon Coolpix cameras bought within the same year, and they were all crap. Even after 2 years, they just completely stopped working. I really didn't think much of Nikon at the time.

Anyway, I now have a Nikon D50. :D I was all set on buying a Canon 350D/Rebel XT, and it felt like junk in my hands. It was uncomfortable to hold, and after shooting with a Rebel XT for an entire hour at a picnic, I think it's horrible to use. The menu system is easy for me to understand because my family and I have always bought Canon, even film cameras (although we had a Minolta SLR, I think), but the button layout, feel, quality, and just my experience using the camera left a bad taste in my mouth.

Like I said in another thread, if you're going to buy Canon, make sure it's a 20D.....bare minimum. Although I used a 20D last Wednesday for the first time and thought the button layout and overall ergonomics was still not nearly as good as on a Nikon. :)

Oh, and since I didn't have any lenses, I found that Nikon had everything I wanted, including that 18-200 mm VR lense that I can't afford yet.

The Nikon D50 has been a dream so far, though. :)

@Chip: THe 28 mm and 50 mm lenses still have use in your Canon, so unless you're switching to all-Nikon, why bother? THe 50 mm lense you have isn't even an expensive one to buy when brand new.

homerjward

Mar 18, 2006, 04:03 PM

i have a d50. i bought it because it was a) the cheapest dslr at the time and b) i LOVED the handling compared to other dslr's. the 350d felt like a toy, and the e500 had an awful, tiny viewfinder. i didn't even look at pentax, which, after looking at it was kind of stupid because the DL and DS are very nice cameras. sure, i wish it had CF cards, more info in the viewfinder, etc. but it's a great camera that makes great images. i'm starting to suffer from lens lust :o so i need to get a job :D so far i have the kit lens and a 50 1.8D but i'd really like to get a decent telephoto zoom and the 10.5 fisheye :eek:

revenuee

Mar 18, 2006, 04:15 PM

Nikon, i've shot Nikon for several years, brand loyalty ... just like buying an apple

Clix Pix

Mar 18, 2006, 06:17 PM

I went with Olympus for a lot of reasons.

Since I haven't really used any of Olympus' digital cameras, not going to comment on those one way or the other, but just am going to say that, yes, Oly does make nice lenses. One of my favorite film cameras was the IS-3 DLx. It was a "bridge" camera not unlike what we see today in many digital prosumer cameras. I really loved that camera and it did give me some very nice results. I've still got it, actually, but it hasn't had a roll of film in it for at least three or four years. One day I had a look, realized that oops, there was still a roll of Fujifilm 400 or something in it, never exposed, but took that out, as it has been at least eight or nine years since I've shot with film.

Anyway, yes, Olympus does do a nice job with lenses....

The 18-200VR is a truly great travel lens.

Isn't this just the greatest walkaround/travel/all-purpose lens? I think it has so much appeal because it can fulfill so many purposes for many people. For those who are coming right from a P&S to a DSLR but who aren't quite sure about this whole interchangeable lens thing or who don't have a lot of money to immediately plunk down for various lenses it fits the bill. For those who have other lenses but who don't necessarily want to carry a heavy bag full of gear for a trip or even a walk around the neighborhood, this lens fits the bill.... I am just so pleased with the results that I've been getting with mine. Yes, an image is not going to be the same with that lens as when I slip a faster or a longer lens on, but it sure does cover a lot of territory! For travel, IMO it cannot be beat.

Though I have sights on a great Nikkor 35/2.0 for really low light.

I've seen some really fantastic results that people have gotten with that lens.

I would be very tempted as new purchaser to go with any Nikon DSLR with the 18-200VR for "general" shooting. I say "general", for while the 18-200VR is a sharp lens, it is not like the 17-55/2.8 or the 70-200VR/2.8; or the Canon equals.

I have to second this! While I love my 18-200 VR, it definitely is not a substitute for either the 17-55 or the 70-200. On another forum I saw a post where someone was considering selling off their 70-200 f/2.8 VR because they now had the 18-200 VR. Um..... I guess they aren't really cued in to the fact that while the 18-200 VR is a wonderful lens, it is nowhere near as fast as the 70-200! I spent some time last week doing some shooting around my neighborhood with the 18-200 VR and while it does really well, there's no way that it can take the place of the much faster 70-200 VR under certain shooting conditions.

Add your choice of an ultra-wide zoom (my choice is the Tokina 12-24), a 35 or 50 f/2.0, and for adventure the a semi fish-eye (hope that Canon offers one soon for the 1.6x factor). As a person that loves wide angle, these are my choices. Otherwise if you are more telephoto, a 200 to 400~500 zoom lens would be of more use than the semi fish-eye.

Yeah, one of these days after I've finished sorting out some financial stuff I need to handle and evaluate and compare the 80-400 and the 200-400 lenses.... I'm really fine as far as the wide-angle and fast lenses for shooting in low light end of the scale but I want to have something that reaches beyond 200mm in order to shoot the local wildlife/wildfowl around here.... From what I understand, while the 200-400 is an outstanding lens, it also is a bit heavy, so I'm concerned about that vis-a-vis trying to wrestle one of those on to the tripod.... I really prefer hand-holding and shooting without a tripod.

That 10.5 fisheye would be a lot of fun and maybe one of these years after I've built up my "must-have" lens collection, I'll have one, but right now my priority is focused on lenses with which I can do a lot of shooting under various conditions, either wide-angle, low-light or telephoto....

Mike Teezie

Mar 18, 2006, 07:02 PM

Canon all the way! :)

I have a Rebel XT. I added a battery grip to make it feel better, and I love my camera.

However, I'm about to about to order a 30D (it'll have the battery grip as well), so the XT will be moving into a backup camera position.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 18, 2006, 07:04 PM

Anyway, I now have a Nikon D50. :D I was all set on buying a Canon 350D/Rebel XT, and it felt like junk in my hands. It was uncomfortable to hold, and after shooting with a Rebel XT for an entire hour at a picnic, I think it's horrible to use. The menu system is easy for me to understand because my family and I have always bought Canon, even film cameras (although we had a Minolta SLR, I think), but the button layout, feel, quality, and just my experience using the camera left a bad taste in my mouth.

Good reason to go to a local dealer and pay the price to feel and see how the camera feels in your hands. Many dealers even have easier "return" privileges if gear does not meet your needs.

Having both the XT and the D50, I come from a different place. Yes, the XT has a "cheaper" feel; but that does not mean it is any less of a camera. Personal feel is a different matter. For myself, I love the light weight body of the XT compared to the rest. For I tend to heavier lens (like the 17-40, the Tamron 28-75, and the such), and have found that I prefer the balance of the the lens being primary, verses the lens and body trying to out weigh each other.

The only issue I have with the XT is the ability to turn on the self-timer without knowing it. Otherwise I prefer the menu structure of the XT over the D series cameras.

Like I said in another thread, if you're going to buy Canon, make sure it's a 20D.....bare minimum. Although I used a 20D last Wednesday for the first time and thought the button layout and overall ergonomics was still not nearly as good as on a Nikon. :)

To each his own. That is why I suggest to my customers that they try each camera out for ease of use. As much as I am used to "pro" cameras; I love the ease of use of the XT. I put up with the D50 interface for the ability to use lenses that makes sense for me.

Oh, and since I didn't have any lenses, I found that Nikon had everything I wanted, including that 18-200 mm VR lense that I can't afford yet.

The Nikon D50 has been a dream so far, though. :)

There is a technical difference between CMOS (Canon) and CCD (Nikon). That lies in the tendency of the CCD to look at a joining pixel sites in high light situations and "blend" that highlight information to a joining "cells". Not something that everyone will see, but it can cause a casual user concern when they see it.

@Chip: THe 28 mm and 50 mm lenses still have use in your Canon, so unless you're switching to all-Nikon, why bother? THe 50 mm lense you have isn't even an expensive one to buy when brand new.

Other than sheer size difference between the 28/2.8 and the 18-200VR, there ends up to be just one stop difference in lens speed. The 50/1.8 is not something that caught on as I would have hoped for.

The Canon kit is down to the 17-40L and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 with the ST-E2 for multiple flash work. Tools for the right reasons.

POHeerwig

Mar 18, 2006, 08:23 PM

A few reasons:

(edit - pushed too soon..)

1. Months of research on DSLRs
2. Battery life. Had (still have) a Canon G4 that I took into the Amazon basin for a week of solid shooting. The battery lasted the entire week. I loved that camera. Canon battery life is great.
3. 5 frames per second, virtually instantaneous start-up, 8.2 pixels, 9 point focus
4. It was described as a baby EOS-1D (I think that was the clencher :-) )

ChrisA

Mar 18, 2006, 09:08 PM

I am curious to see how many people use the various DSLRs on the market, not because any one brand is better than an other, just to see why people chose what they did.

The decision was easy for me. I have three Nikon film bodies (F2, N2020, N90) and a collection of Nikon Lenses both manual focus and auto focus. So I bought a D50 (and another lens, the 18-70 f/3.5-4 People who already own a lot of Canon gear would likely by a Canon digital body.

I notice when people are starting from scratch with little experiance with SLR camera what they get depends on how they go about choosing. If you read specs Canons looks better but if you hold the camera and play with it you buy Nikon. OK there are exceptions

I think the Nikons have better usabilty they have better meters and better flash exposure systems and nikon's low end lenses are betterthen canon's low end. At the Top end they are both very good. (and expensive)

One thing that made me switch to Nikon (from Minolta SLRs) was that Nikon has never and will never change the lens mount. All Nikon lenses mount to all bodies. Canon switched mounts and so did Minolta.

In the end either will work fine differences are minor.

... I'm really fine as far as the wide-angle and fast lenses for shooting in low light end of the scale but I want to have something that reaches beyond 200mm in order to shoot the local wildlife/wildfowl around here.... From what I understand, while the 200-400 is an outstanding lens, it also is a bit heavy, so I'm concerned about that vis-a-vis trying to wrestle one of those on to the tripod.... I really prefer hand-holding and shooting without a tripod.

WHen you get past a 200mm lens you are talking about using a tripod. That 1/(lens focal lenght) rule will get you. At 400mm you are limited to shooting at 1/400 and faster unless you are using a tripod. and even 1/400 is slow if you want very sharp shots.

Get a tripod head with a quick release plate built into it. Then it will be easy.

Dagless

Mar 18, 2006, 09:22 PM

Canon EOS 350D :)

I just googled Digital SLR, or something, and pow! There it was. top result. thought this must be good. did some research and found it had rave reviews. Talked to my mum about it. She put towards £200 on this camera site and the rest is history.

I'm no pro though. I just love experimenting with lights. My sister is always willing to help out too, so shes top. Someday I'll get to grips with f. numbers, lenses and all that. I did learn a couple of days ago that flash's (at least the built in one) drowns out warm colours, resulting in extreme white/blue-heavy images. Now even you non-photographers knew that, but I love learning. and teaching myself new things.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 18, 2006, 09:42 PM

WHen you get past a 200mm lens you are talking about using a tripod. That 1/(lens focal lenght) rule will get you. At 400mm you are limited to shooting at 1/400 and faster unless you are using a tripod. and even 1/400 is slow if you want very sharp shots.

Get a tripod head with a quick release plate built into it. Then it will be easy.

The 1/(focal length) rule is based on the 35mm format.

So in order to have a "sharp" image at 200mm; one needs at least 1/200 shutter speed.

I agree in the digital format one might need a tripod or monopod for something past 200mm. But with IS/VR 200mm in digital (close to 300mm) is very doable. Anything above that might need some sort of support.

More to the point, if one had a 400mm lens on the more popular DSLRs; one would need at least 1/600 of a second shutter speed to match the capabilities of a 35mm camera at the same focal length.

Abstract

Mar 19, 2006, 12:00 AM

For Chip (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=187528#22)

This is the worst display of quote-usage I have ever seen in my life. :p

Kingsly

Mar 19, 2006, 12:38 AM

Canon 10D
If it has either a Canon or Apple logo, Im a happy man. :D
Seriously, Canon pretty much invented digital, and I like the quality they bring to whatever field they manufacture in.
P.S., I also have the PIXIMA ip4200, Powershot SD200, and XL-1 and I love all of them.

njmac

Mar 19, 2006, 12:38 AM

When I have the money to buy a DSLR, I will be getting a Canon. :)

ksz

Mar 19, 2006, 03:08 AM

I have a Nikon D200 which complements my Nikon F100 film camera. Film has never been as good as it is today, so I continue to use the F100 with films like Fuji's Sensia and Provia, both of which are simply extraordinary and outshine even the Canon 1Ds Mark II. On a recent trip to Japan I purchased Fuji's new Sensia III and shot a roll last weekend in the mountains. Can't wait to see the results next week.

The D200 gives me instant results and offers a lot of imaging flexibility. It is brimming with features and very well designed and built. It is a very good complement to the F100.

Canon makes excellent digital cameras. My PowerShot G2 is an amazing photo machine and I have no doubt that their DSLRs are superb. However, I do not like Canon's ergonomics or aesthetics. But Canon is the undisputed winner in two categories:

1. Extremely low sensor noise even at high ISO.
2. Excellent per-pixel sharpness.

There is generally a tradeoff between noise and sharpness: As noise improves, sharpness falls. But Canon has managed to produce the best of both worlds: Low noise and high per-pixel sharpness. Most pundits believe this is due to Canon's proprietary sensors which are designed and fabricated for extremely low noise.

But in the final analysis, I am very happy with my D200 and superb Nikkor optics.

sjl

Mar 19, 2006, 06:25 AM

Given that I already had three lenses for my EOS 30 (the 75-300 [since sold], a 28-105, and the 50mm f/1.8), going Canon was a no brainer. Had I not had those lenses, I probably would have gone Nikon, since that's what my parents have.

There's really very little between the two companies. It comes down to personal taste more than anything else; I'd not argue anybody out of buying Nikon, nor into buying Canon.

As for why the 20D: the feel was much more solid than the 350D. If I were to buy today, I'd go the 30D, but the 20D is well and truly adequate for my needs, so I see no point in spending more money on what's really a very minor upgrade (especially for the cost).

Next camera purchase: probably a battery grip, then the 100-400, then the 100mm macro, and finally, an underwater housing. Money, money, money ... (several years later ...)

kwajo.com

Mar 19, 2006, 12:23 PM

wow no respect for Pentax, one of the greatest imaging companies ever, they're not even in the list :(

I have a Pentax *ist DS and it is amazing. I won't get intoa long list of details, but it was a great price, I had several Pentax mount lenses already, uses the same sensor as the D70 yet is smaller, lighter and feels better to hold (IMO), option to use AA batteries so I can grab backups at just about any store if I'm away from home and I lose power, pentax makes some of the best lenses in the world, and there are thousands of used lenses for reasonable prices that equal any glass made today by any company, the metering system is probably the best you can get in the price range, it is very solidly built (much better frame and plastics quality than Canon) and the viewfinder blows everything else in the price range out of the water.

as an example, he's a comparison of the D70 viewfinder and the one on my DS. the D70 is the smaller one overlayed on the larger Pentax
http://www.caerphoto.com/stuff/vf_ds-d70.jpg

viewfinder size and brightness is very important to me because I manual focus most shots

Clix Pix

Mar 19, 2006, 12:42 PM

Nikon responded to the many complaints photographers had about the "tunnel-vision" viewfinder on the D70 by coming up with a much better one in the D200. So, yes, there are other cameras which have bette viewfinders than the D70/D70s.....

kwajo.com

Mar 19, 2006, 01:41 PM

yeah but when I made my purchase the D200 didn't exist, and even now the DS viewfinder is still better, probably the best you can get for under 2500 USD. the photo was just an example

Clix Pix

Mar 19, 2006, 01:58 PM

yeah but when I made my purchase the D200 didn't exist, and even now the DS viewfinder is still better, probably the best you can get for under 2500 USD. the photo was just an example

Oh, right, I realize that.... just was adding the comment that many photographers had complained about that viewfinder in the D70 and that Nikon did listen and did finally respond....

I've never handled the camera you have but next time I'm in a store where they are available I'll have a looksee. Sounds as though you're very happy and satisfied with it, and that really is the bottom line.

Jon'sLightBulbs

Mar 19, 2006, 02:05 PM

Only Canon produces full frame image sensors. This fully trumps "ergonomics," plastic v. magnesium, silver v. black, my viewfinder is so much brighter than yours, etc. Instead of getting a large percentage of the outside edges of your picture cropped off compared to a 35 mm. sensor, you get the full image.

Yes, 35 mm sensors are only availible on Canon's $3000+ dollar bodies. Yes, they are getting cheaper, and will be availible increasingly on cheaper Canon bodies. No, Nikon and Pentax have no full frame sensors in the pipeline. But if you're stuck with anything other than Canon (non apsc) lens when the Canon fullframe bodies become cheaper... we'll see what your black magnesium body with beautiful viewfinder is still worth to you!

Lau

Mar 19, 2006, 02:13 PM

...pentax makes some of the best lenses in the world, and there are thousands of used lenses for reasonable prices that equal any glass made today by any company...

***noob question alert....***

I've been a manual SLR Pentax user for years, but haven't made the jump to a digital SLR yet. Does that mean I could use second hand Pentax film SLR lenses on a digital SLR? :o <--- embarrassed by general digital inexperience.

Though I'd still have to buy it all anyway - my film SLR takes screwthread lenses. :eek: :p

homerjward

Mar 19, 2006, 02:19 PM

whocares

Mar 19, 2006, 02:39 PM

Nikon 'cause I already had some Nikkor-branded glass. ;) :D

ksz

Mar 19, 2006, 03:06 PM

FF images are prone to vignetting and soft-focus at the edges. The DX format allows lenses to be made smaller, lighter, and less expensive without affecting image quality. New sensor designs are in the works that will increase light sensitivity and reduce noise appreciably while packing more megapixels into the same DX size.

So if you can have all the benefits of digital in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package, why wouldn't you?

bousozoku

Mar 19, 2006, 03:18 PM

Only Canon produces full frame image sensors. This fully trumps "ergonomics...

If you can't use it because the controls get in the way, you're not going to get much of anything, full frame sensor or not.

***noob question alert....***

I've been a manual SLR Pentax user for years, but haven't made the jump to a digital SLR yet. Does that mean I could use second hand Pentax film SLR lenses on a digital SLR? :o <--- embarrassed by general digital inexperience.

Though I'd still have to buy it all anyway - my film SLR takes screwthread lenses. :eek: :p

I wouldn't even bother trying to use Pentax screw mount lenses today. Pentax K-mount lenses are supported by the latest Pentax and Samsung digital SLRs.

DerChef

Mar 19, 2006, 03:20 PM

Nikon dont seem to be nearly as popular in Europe as they are in North America.

Not sure about the far east

Lau

Mar 19, 2006, 03:32 PM

I wouldn't even bother trying to use Pentax screw mount lenses today. Pentax K-mount lenses are supported by the latest Pentax and Samsung digital SLRs.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether non digital lenses could be used on digital SLRs. As for my camera, I'm quite happy with my screwthread SLR and it's 2 lenses at the moment - but I know it's hideously out of date. It's done me good, but I'll be upgrading when I've graduated. :)

homerjward

Mar 19, 2006, 03:38 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether non digital lenses could be used on digital SLRs. As for my camera, I'm quite happy with my screwthread SLR and it's 2 lenses at the moment - but I know it's hideously out of date. It's done me good, but I'll be upgrading when I've graduated. :)
iirc pentax screwmount lenses can be used on pentax digital slrs, i think even with metering capability, though i may be wrong about the metering. either way you'll need a screwmount>>k-mount adapter.

Lau

Mar 19, 2006, 03:53 PM

iirc pentax screwmount lenses can be used on pentax digital slrs, i think even with metering capability, though i may be wrong about the metering. either way you'll need a screwmount>>k-mount adapter.

Interesting, thanks. I think if I did upgrade I would think about selling the whoel screwmount kit, but it's certainly good to know that older lenses can be used on a digital SLR. I've always bought older second hand lenses in the past, and if I could continue doing that with a dSLR that would be great.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 19, 2006, 04:06 PM

FF images are prone to vignetting and soft-focus at the edges.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Though these issues are with wide angle lenses mostly.

The DX format allows lenses to be made smaller, lighter, and less expensive without affecting image quality.

Well, yes and no. They are smaller and lighter when comparing like field of views; in particular when looking at the telephoto end. The only lens that I think meets the expectation of being smaller and lighter is the Nikon 10.5 semi-fisheye lens.

New sensor designs are in the works that will increase light sensitivity and reduce noise appreciably while packing more megapixels into the same DX size.

True, but a test in American Photo IIRC, did a test with the Canon 1D and a comparable MF digital back. The results showed that larger sensors will help resolve finer details.

While the need for that type of resolving power maybe limited for most photographers, unless one regularly produces prints larger than 16x20.

So if you can have all the benefits of digital in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package, why wouldn't you?

Yes, DSLR cameras are getting smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But there is no technical reason that a Digital Rebel FF could not be built. It too would be lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the 5D. In due time I think.

The holy grail of an affordable FF sensor DSLR is to answer the need for those of us that have shot 35mm for a long time. We know the type of perspective and depth of field we will have when shooting lets say a 35mm lens at f/2 at 10 feet.

One would need about a 23.5mm lens on a Nikon DSLR at f/1.4 focused at 10 feet to get the same DOF. But the perspective in the resulting image will be different.

Malfoy

Mar 19, 2006, 04:08 PM

My friend told me to.

bousozoku

Mar 19, 2006, 04:24 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether non digital lenses could be used on digital SLRs. As for my camera, I'm quite happy with my screwthread SLR and it's 2 lenses at the moment - but I know it's hideously out of date. It's done me good, but I'll be upgrading when I've graduated. :)

Hey, I'd probably still be using my Fujica SLR with screw mount lenses, if someone hadn't pinched it and a lot of other kit. Too bad he hadn't taken the dead Minolta instead.

We were more worried about getting decent light readings back then. Who had auto focus or auto exposure? No one and then suddenly, everyone. Of course, the first auto focus camera I saw was a Polaroid. Imagine that. :)

drlunanerd

Mar 19, 2006, 05:31 PM

I had some experience using Pentax ME Super film SLRs which I coveted for their tank-like build and nice optics, but felt the brand had lagged behind in the digital race.

Like many people who have posted in this thread I was/am a Canon fan, having owned several Ixus point and shoot digital cameras, printers etc. So naturally when looking to progress to a DSLR it was a dead cert I'd remain loyal and buy Canon.

That was until I used a 350D and was shocked at how cheap it felt next to my puny little Ixus that cost a quarter of the price. The ergonomics sucked too much and the cost was taking the mick with a sub-par kit lens, so I went back to the drawing board and took a look at what Nikon had to offer. Having used some Nikon P&S cameras in the earlier digital days and not been overly impressed I wasn't expecting much, but to cut a ramble short I bought a D50 and have not looked back. What a great camera - the stunning deal I got on it just sweetened the experience. So much so that I have an 18-200 VRII lens coming down the pipe soon, and I'll certainly be buying a D200 in the future.

ksz

Mar 19, 2006, 05:39 PM

True, but a test in American Photo IIRC, did a test with the Canon 1D and a comparable MF digital back. The results showed that larger sensors will help resolve finer details.
Do you mean larger sensors or larger pixels? I haven't seen the article you're referring to, but in general smaller pixels resolve finer details. In the same way, conventional film with RMS 13 (very small grains of silver halide or other emulsion) resolves finer detail than the same film with RMS 20. Packing density and fill factor contribute to resolving power.

Yes, DSLR cameras are getting smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But there is no technical reason that a Digital Rebel FF could not be built. It too would be lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the 5D. In due time I think.
Sensors can be made of any size. Even large and expensive ones can be driven down in cost over time. The real question, however, is not about sensor size, but about the entire system. Smaller and lighter is generally more practical and more usable by more people in more situations.

The holy grail of an affordable FF sensor DSLR is to answer the need for those of us that have shot 35mm for a long time. We know the type of perspective and depth of field we will have when shooting lets say a 35mm lens at f/2 at 10 feet.
Good point. Since I shoot with both my F100 and D200, this statement rings true.

kwajo.com

Mar 19, 2006, 08:33 PM

Interesting, thanks. I think if I did upgrade I would think about selling the whoel screwmount kit, but it's certainly good to know that older lenses can be used on a digital SLR. I've always bought older second hand lenses in the past, and if I could continue doing that with a dSLR that would be great.

sorry for being slow to reply, but yes you can use those lenses for the most part. I have at least 3 screw mount (M42) lenses that I use on my *ist DS all the time. They work with full metering too, it's really quite impressive considering that they are 40 years old. I have a 30mm 1:1.7 screwmount that is perhaps my clearest lens, I love using it. Now it should be noted that you need a piece of metal to adapt the screw mount to the k-mount, but they are cheap, around $10-30. The only ones worth using are the genuine Pentax ones, as some others do not allow you to focus to infinity.
almost all previous k-mount lenses since the 70s work as well, without adapters and with full metering support. basically they work just like any manual focus lens you would buy today. Pentax has therefore achievd perhaps the best legacy support of any manufacturer, this was a key part of my decision to buy my current camera body

I know what you mean about second hand lenses, I buy them too, and there are lots and lots of pentax ones around, especially with people selling them as they move digital. for whatever reason people think Canon and Nikon are the only options, but there is still a very large Pentax market as well, so there is no danger of them disappearing any time soon.

if there are any more questions about this I'll be glad to try and help, I'm almost as much of a Pentax freak as I am a Mac freak :p

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 19, 2006, 09:24 PM

Do you mean larger sensors or larger pixels? I haven't seen the article you're referring to, but in general smaller pixels resolve finer details. In the same way, conventional film with RMS 13 (very small grains of silver halide or other emulsion) resolves finer detail than the same film with RMS 20. Packing density and fill factor contribute to resolving power.

The article tried to compare equal megapixels between the two systems. TheMF showed better detail than the 1D camera from Canon.

Sensors can be made of any size. Even large and expensive ones can be driven down in cost over time. The real question, however, is not about sensor size, but about the entire system. Smaller and lighter is generally more practical and more usable by more people in more situations.

I keep hearing about smaller and lighter systems. But the laws on optics get in the way. Maybe not for telephoto lenses; but the 12-24 optics are no smaller, lighter, or maybe sharer than the 17-35 optics for 35mm film.

kwajo.com

Mar 19, 2006, 09:36 PM

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 19, 2006, 09:46 PM

to me the smaller and lighter thing is silly, the 4/3 system bodies are no smaller than any other dSLR, and the lenses aren't really either, especially since there aren't any 4/3 pancake lenses that I'm aware of

I was thinking the same in this discussion. Though one needs to look at the the likes of the Olympus 300/2.8 lens; and think about what a 600mm f/2.8 lens would cost and its weight and size.

revmac

Mar 19, 2006, 09:49 PM

I love my D50. Just got it, paid $600 w/lens, and it is better than I ever thought it would be. I contemplated going with a higher MP, but this suffices. I intend to get a 35mm camera body also so my lenses will interchange. For somethings, you can't beat the look of film.

BTW, I have an extra D50 Nikon that I bought to get the $600 price for mine. If anyone is interested, I will sell for $575. It has not been opened, and comes with a Nikon 28-80mm Lens.

kwajo.com

Mar 19, 2006, 09:49 PM

i suppose that is a good point, I don't think in terms of telephoto very often, but that would be a significant savings in size and weight in many cases

mchendricks

Mar 19, 2006, 09:50 PM

I shoot with two Nikon cameras (F-100 and D-100). I like the build of the cameras. I added the vertical grip to both bodies and have decided that I will NEVER buy a camera without this feature. I went with these models as I didn't need the pro models with the pro prices. Both cameras have served me well over the years.

I found that the glass is as important (if not more important) as the body. I've started replacing my glass with faster, sharper glass and the results are obvious. I have not given in to the Nikon DX format since I still shoot film. I'll stick with full frame lenses for the time being.

Nikon and Canon make great cameras, just remember that you are choosing a system, not just a camera body.

Happy shooting,
Mike

bousozoku

Mar 19, 2006, 10:46 PM

I was thinking the same in this discussion. Though one needs to look at the the likes of the Olympus 300/2.8 lens; and think about what a 600mm f/2.8 lens would cost and its weight and size.

It's still something like $6500. However, I suppose a 600 mm lens is something where I'd want to have some help carrying.

Considering the actual focal length, the Olympus lenses seem about the same but for the effective focal length, they're quite a bit smaller to me. I'm not sure the lenses I have are that much lighter than their equivalents but that's mostly what I have.

Have you had a chance to deal with the constant maximum aperture zoom lenses Olympus makes? I'm just wondering if there is a huge weight difference. I would expect so.

fuzzwud

Mar 19, 2006, 11:19 PM

I've a Canon Rebel XT and it's been pretty good. I chose the Rebel XT since I was just starting to get into digital SLR. To me, #1 is lighting, #2 is lens, and #3 is the body so I spent my money accordingly. With an extra $300-500 available that I would have spent getting the Canon 20D, I have 3 lenses: Tamron 28-75 (fast, light, and macro), Canon 100 mm Macro (love the USM, focus and quality), and the Tokina 12-24 mm (my least favorite). If I had to change a lens, I would try something else like a Sigma, Tamron, or Canon for a wideangle. The pictures aren't bad, but I don't like the push pull ring for auto/manual focus.

Yes, even with small hands, the Rebel XT is small, but the difference in features between it and the 20D and 30D just isn't enough for me.

My last SLR was a Nikon FE which I love. I was utterly disappointed and angry at Nikon for the Coolpix 5000 (many years ago - it cost $1000 then). Two months after I bought my Canon, Nikon came out with the D200. I would have reconsidered Nikon, but oh well.

Clix Pix

Mar 19, 2006, 11:48 PM

I was utterly disappointed and angry at Nikon for the Coolpix 5000 (many years ago - it cost $1000 then).

The first Coolpixes were really the best -- the 995 was outstanding. The 4300 was also a pretty good little camera. When they changed the form factor it seemed as though everything else changed as well, and definitely I was most disappointed in the CP 8700 and the CP 8800. The more recent smaller P&S Coolpixes I haven't bothered with because I knew that there were still issues with shutter lag, response time, etc.

cgratti

Mar 20, 2006, 12:04 AM

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

Clix Pix

Mar 20, 2006, 12:34 AM

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

Well....there are the Nikkor professional-grade lenses....

kwajo.com

Mar 20, 2006, 12:44 AM

...and some crystal clear, very fast Pentax Limiteds .... :p

ksz

Mar 20, 2006, 01:13 AM

I was thinking the same in this discussion. Though one needs to look at the the likes of the Olympus 300/2.8 lens; and think about what a 600mm f/2.8 lens would cost and its weight and size.
Given a 1.5x crop factor for the DX sensor, a 300mm lens in 35mm equates to 450mm in DX, not 600. Regardless, a 450mm f/2.8 lens is larger, heavier, and costlier than a 300mm lens.

But more than this, it seems to me that in order to focus light onto a smaller DX sensor, the diameter of the glass compared to FF can be reduced. Smaller diameter should equate to smaller weight.

However, there is a contravening factor: the lens mount on the camera body is backwards compatible with older lenses and keeps the outer diameter of a DX lens from shrinking as much as it could.

Look at lenses on point-and-shoot digital cameras -- they are proportional in size to the image sensor. So the potential for smaller and lighter is there, but backwards-compatibility is keeping manufacturers from realizing the potential, at least for now.

bousozoku

Mar 20, 2006, 01:36 AM

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

You can get them much less expensive refurbished, too.

homerjward

Mar 20, 2006, 02:18 AM

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.
if you want to get serious into photography you need to have skills. amazing glass won't help a bad photographer.

oh yeah, and there's all that "nikon," "olympus," and "pentax" stuff i've heard about--i bet it sucks just like macs :p ;) :rolleyes:

valiar

Mar 20, 2006, 02:35 AM

And I am a proud owner of a Sigma SD9.
At the time I was buying it (2.5 years ago or so), I chose it over Canon 10D not only because the Sigma was taking better pictures, but also because it was (and still is) one of the few cameras that can be operated without *ever* navigating a menu.
Sigma cameras (SD9 and SD10) use a different kind of sensor than anyone else - it is made by Foveon, and registers all 3 colors in every pixel with no color filters. Foveon sensors do not suffer from color moire and many other annoying defects. Unfortunately, the sensitivity is also somewhat lower than that of comparable Bayer pattern sensors, and long exposure times are not practical.
I am still very happy with my SD9.
For me, its main drawbacks are slow autofocus, and Apple's lack of support for Foveon X3F RAW files.
The pictures still look terrific - even compared to what comes from the latest Canon offerings.

If I were buying today, I would have bought a Nikon D200.
What a terrific camera... Pity Sigma did not release anything at the latest PMA!

Abstract

Mar 20, 2006, 03:41 AM

True, but a test in American Photo IIRC, did a test with the Canon 1D and a comparable MF digital back. The results showed that larger sensors will help resolve finer details.

...but in general smaller pixels resolve finer details. In the same way, conventional film with RMS 13 (very small grains of silver halide or other emulsion) resolves finer detail than the same film with RMS 20. Packing density and fill factor contribute to resolving power.

The sensor size isn't the biggest factor when picking up detail. If you have a large sensor, say FF, and you have another camera with a smaller DX sensor, and they both have the same number of horizontal and vertical pixels, the FF sensor will only be better because it picks up more light, making it less noisy if you wanted to take night shots or something. But if the pixel density (say the # of pixels per cm or cm^2) between the FF and smaller sensor is the same, you're going to get more pixels overall with the FF since it's larger, and resolve more detail in your photos compared to an dSLR with a smaller sensor when shooting the exact same object where the subject covers the same amount of area in your viewfinder (if that's a good way to put it).

Blong

Mar 20, 2006, 03:44 AM

Cannon 20D - at the time, the 350D had just come out and I thought the price was just right to get into DSLR photography - but when I held it, and then compared it to the 20D, the 20D just felt soooooo much better in my hands. So then I bought the 20D.

Hold a camera and have a good play with the controls before choosing.

I chose Cannon over Nikon because I thought the sample images taken with the Cannon were warmer and more silky smooth than the Nikon.

I just picked up a Nikon D70s w/ 18-70 kit lens.

So now I just need a couple more lenses. My next one will be a Lensbaby 2.0

That is all.

The only thing I can say about the Lensbaby is .... get one :) . The most fun you have ever had with a lens - but only if you like blur, nice bokeh and like it when focusing is a challenge.

Check my lensbaby gallery at http://lensbabies.com/phorum/profile.php?1,673

Cool

Rob

kwajo.com

Mar 20, 2006, 09:40 AM

oh yeah, and there's all that "nikon," "olympus," and "pentax" stuff i've heard about--i bet it sucks just like macs :p ;) :rolleyes:

lol! best line I've seen on MR in a while. funny and oh so true. ;)

TheMasin9

Mar 20, 2006, 11:27 AM

i got the d50 due to superior build quality and the shallow differences between 6 and 8 mp. The canon rebel feels like a plasticy toy compared to the d50.

ziwi

Mar 20, 2006, 11:45 AM

I graduated to a canon DSLR in part due to the triple rebates last October and the familiarity with the controls since I had a canon P&S powershot camera.

ksz

Mar 20, 2006, 11:55 AM

The sensor size isn't the biggest factor when picking up detail. If you have a large sensor, say FF, and you have another camera with a smaller DX sensor, and they both have the same number of horizontal and vertical pixels, the FF sensor will only be better because it picks up more light, making it less noisy if you wanted to take night shots or something. But if the pixel density (say the # of pixels per cm or cm^2) between the FF and smaller sensor is the same, you're going to get more pixels overall with the FF since it's larger, and resolve more detail in your photos compared to an dSLR with a smaller sensor when shooting the exact same object where the subject covers the same amount of area in your viewfinder (if that's a good way to put it).
You've effectively described "packing density." Sensor technology of today is a good start, but it is just that: a start. Today, it is generally true that larger pixels have less noise than smaller pixels, and thus one can say that larger pixels resolve more detail by virtue of less noise. Fuji's SuperCCD is a step in the right direction. The SuperCCD is composed of an interleaved mix of small and large pixels, providing the industry's best dynamic range.

Another limiting factor is what I called the Fill Factor. Simply stated, this is the percent of the sensor's surface area that receives light. If you look at a high-res image of an image sensor, you will see that the circuitry for a single pixel consists of a light-sensing element and routing (wiring). Both are exposed on the chip surface. If the surface consisted 100% of the light-sensing elements, you would have a perfect fill factor. The larger the interpixel gaps, the less fine detail you can resolve.

fuzzwud

Mar 20, 2006, 12:28 PM

The first Coolpixes were really the best -- the 995 was outstanding. The 4300 was also a pretty good little camera. When they changed the form factor it seemed as though everything else changed as well, and definitely I was most disappointed in the CP 8700 and the CP 8800. The more recent smaller P&S Coolpixes I haven't bothered with because I knew that there were still issues with shutter lag, response time, etc.

I went from a manual SLR that did everything I needed it to do - except easy importing of pictures into the computer - to a digital camera with limited functions. I actually got a defective camera. It taught me a lesson not to ever buy from a gray market or a dealer that sells at the lowest price. I didn't want to believe I bought a defective camera. All my pictures has a faint strip was yellowish hue on the left side. I thought it was because of sunlight or stray light somewhere. After tinkering with the office setup, I sent the camera in to be fixed twice. I kept thinking it must be something wrong with my skills ... but it was actually the camera. It would have saved me a lot of frustration and time if I just returned the camera.

ChrisBrightwell

Mar 20, 2006, 12:28 PM

I bought a Digital Rebel XT for one reason: I could get my hands on one.

The other ~$100 DSLRs I was considering were all chained to kiosks or under glass, so I couldn't take any of them for a spin. Most of the pro and amateur photographers I know use Canon hardware, which is also a plus.

-hh

Mar 20, 2006, 02:36 PM

dabirdwell

Mar 20, 2006, 05:28 PM

with their 14-54 2.8-3.5 weatherproof lens. 28-105 equivalent, fast enough, sharp edge-to-edge, no dust or moisture problems, Oly classic contrast/tonal range.

law guy

Mar 27, 2006, 04:11 PM

I'm shooting Canon, partly because of the "inertia" from existing 35mm equipment.

Around ten years ago now, I was looking at finally moving up to an autofocus SLR from a fully manual Pentax K-1000, and I had the "no significant legacy" luxury of being able to compare Pentax, Minolta, Nikon & Canon on pretty equal footings. There were a couple of things that nudged me to Canon, including:

- I preferred Canon's ergonomics (mostly, the left wheel selector)
- This was after their adoption of the EF mount
- there was some 'rumbling' of if Nikon was going to change mounts
- The choice really seemed to be Nikon vs Canon (vs others)

In hindsight, I've been happy with my choice, and having since learned what a hodgepodge mess the backwards-compatible Nikon lens familes are, so I'm just as happy to not have to learn all of the nuaces of what lenses fits/doesn't, what sorta works, etc, even though intellectually I know that it theoretically narrows my choices. As far as I'm concerned, there's plenty of lens choices within Canon's EF line, which is similar to the Win/Mac debate of "Just how many word processor Apps do you really need?"

Fast-forward ten years to 2005, and more seriously looking at dSLRs. My prior investment in Canon glass really wasn't all that great ... maybe only $1500 ... but the question of having common glass for film+bits is pretty compelling, so I added a 20D as well as my first L lens (70-200 IS f/2.8) for a planned Christmas trip, which has locked me in tighter with Canon for the next several years.

And while digital is on the rise, I figure that I'll probably compliment this all by picking up an EOS 3 film camera in the next few months, so assure myself of having a good 35mm camera to last for the next decade or two before the choices narrow too much.

-hh

It's an interesting post -hh. I'm back in the decision process again. I did get a D50 for a bit and liked several things about it. Moving from an N80 film slr, I didn't like some of the control limitations of the D50. So I thought perhaps a D70s would do it, but then I was also moved to look at the 20D, but really the 30D. I've not clicked as much with the Canon layout but I think this stems from years with the N80 and could be overcome with a little time.

On the point of the systems - that's actually the issue that makes it more difficult. I'm just not sure which system. I see pros and cons in each.

In the Nikon system's favor - already like the general layout of Nikons due to use of film SLR. Some loyalty and struck by the cult-like following (hmm which seems to also be the case with a certain computer maker) on sites like nikonians and nikon cafe. Also, it seems I see fewer problem posts with quality control - but that's an impression and I've certainly seen several Nikon issues over the years. Existing lenses aren't a really large issue as I really only ever used a 28-105 lens on my film body, so there's not a large stock pile sitting around.

In the Canon system's favor - have been really struck by the fantastic results I've gotten from my now-inoperable s400 with the original Digic chip; rave reviews about image quality, low noise, across the line (as I'm focused on system still), R&D ability on the microelectronics side, and the number of Canon photos (film and DSLR) that I see in Nat'l Geographic features each month - I think some folks must have moved for FF? - I thought Jim Brandenburg used to shoot with a N90s, but he and folks that used to have Nikon film pics in Nat'l Geo like Mattias Klum, and Michael Melford (has the Glen Canyon feature this month - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature3/gallery1.html) now utilize the Canon system.

There are also some more esoteric (for me) arguments about raw compression techniques and loosing some information with Nikons that aren't with Canon's and raw encoding that makes it more difficult - so some have said, althogh Nikon says it's a misunderstanding - for third parties to decode the white balance in Nikon raw images.

So, as Clix Pix once said in another forum in the past - you're not just choosing a camera, you're choosing a system, no pressure.

I do feel some pressure, but I've enjoyed reading what folks have gone with and why (Although I would like to hear from MR ANDERSON on his choice and why as well). I'll be at the camera store tomorrow with the D70s and the new 30D.

LG

Clix Pix

Mar 27, 2006, 06:33 PM

I'll be at the camera store tomorrow with the D70s and the new 30D.

If you're going to be looking at the Canon 30D, why not check out Nikon's D200? For a bit more money, the D200 has many, many advantages over the D70s..... there's not that much price difference between the D200 and Canon's 30D.

Also, is the Canon 30D yet available in this country? I notice that B&H is still "taking orders." You might have difficulty actually seeing or handling one yet.....

law guy

Mar 27, 2006, 07:48 PM

If you're going to be looking at the Canon 30D, why not check out Nikon's D200? For a bit more money, the D200 has many, many advantages over the D70s..... there's not that much price difference between the D200 and Canon's 30D.

Also, is the Canon 30D yet available in this country? I notice that B&H is still "taking orders." You might have difficulty actually seeing or handling one yet.....

I know CP - the D200 is $300 more, which isn't much and yet the last few hundred hurt a little more. Oh no, the D200 hasn't escaped me. I'm going to give it a serious look (and feel). Thankfully (?) at that point there's a giant price moat.

Yes, some shops - Aust and UK have had them for weeks. Canada had them for awhile and finally Janos in TX, one in Dallas, and a few others had them Friday in the US. My local non-chain in New England had the FedEx shipment coming today, but didn't know how late in the afternoon it would arrive, so I just planned to go tomorrow.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 27, 2006, 08:09 PM

For those that are thinking about Nikon vs. Canon, you might wait till next month. No, no new product - not really need - but some exciting news non the less. It is just days away.

Frank (Atlanta)

Mar 27, 2006, 08:17 PM

Huh?!

Assume it's not a new camera, as those are usually predated by the rumor mill...

Wonder what it might be...

bousozoku

Mar 27, 2006, 08:24 PM

Huh?!

Assume it's not a new camera, as those are usually predated by the rumor mill...

Wonder what it might be...

It's new firmware to make Nikon cameras work backwards...like Canon cameras. :D

law guy

Mar 27, 2006, 08:26 PM

For those that are thinking about Nikon vs. Canon, you might wait till next month. No, no new product - not really need - but some exciting news non the less. It is just days away.

Chip - you can't leave us with just that! Giant rebates? (this is actually my guess for Nikon becuase that would follow a rebates in the spring after a dry period after holidays) Giant price drops? FOR GOODNESS SAKE MAN!

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 27, 2006, 08:34 PM

Chip - you can't leave us with just that! Giant rebates? (this is actually my guess for Nikon becuase that would follow a rebates in the spring after a dry period after holidays) Giant price drops? FOR GOODNESS SAKE MAN!

LOL!

No, it is not a new camera. But IMO it will be just as exciting. Just look at the Canon 20D and 30D lineup and think what would make it even better; and you might be on the right track.

No rebates, but you are close on that one. :) Sorry I can't really say more here, and in the end I may have said too much:eek: . But your local dealer may be able to address the issue more directly than I can here. Just 6 days away. :)

Clix Pix

Mar 27, 2006, 10:01 PM

Clix Pix

Mar 27, 2006, 10:06 PM

I know CP - the D200 is $300 more, which isn't much and yet the last few hundred hurt a little more. Oh no, the D200 hasn't escaped me. I'm going to give it a serious look (and feel). Thankfully (?) at that point there's a giant price moat.

Well, yes, there's a giant price moat between the D70s and the D200, but when you toss a Canon 30D into the equation, the moat shrinks significantly.

Whatever you purchase, you will want to be using and keeping it for a long time and you will want something which does the job for you and also serves as a tool for your own personal growth in photography.

Good luck and let us know what you get!

law guy

Mar 27, 2006, 10:26 PM

Well, yes, there's a giant price moat between the D70s and the D200, but when you toss a Canon 30D into the equation, the moat shrinks significantly.

Whatever you purchase, you will want to be using and keeping it for a long time and you will want something which does the job for you and also serves as a tool for your own personal growth in photography.

Good luck and let us know what you get!

I meant above the D200 there's a giant price moat that keeps us all safe from considering 5Ds and D2x's lest we really go crazy.

Clix Pix

Mar 28, 2006, 12:04 AM

I meant above the D200 there's a giant price moat that keeps us all safe from considering 5Ds and D2x's lest we really go crazy.

This is true...there is a huge price jump between the D200 and the D2x.... but the D200 does amazingly well and has quite a few similarities to the D2x while being lighter and less expensive. It's a fantastic camera!

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 28, 2006, 12:05 AM

More new lenses from Nikon? Some hefty rebates on some of their current lenses? Now me, I'd appreciate a nice rebate on the 80-400.... :D Oh, I just re-read your post and you say, "No rebates..." So maybe you're hinting at some nice price drops. That would be lovely! Again, let's hear it for a price drop on the 80-400....

If it's something to do with Canon, well, that leaves me out.

LOL! Nothing to do with Canon.

No new product announcements, or rebates - as I know of. But Those that love Nikon, will not be disappointed. It may just bring more folks into the Nikon family.

Just 5 days away for me to speak openly. :)

Clix, just say that I wish I could have waited. :)

bousozoku

Mar 28, 2006, 12:11 AM

Clix Pix

Mar 28, 2006, 12:21 AM

LOL! Nothing to do with Canon.

No new product announcements, or rebates - as I know of. But Those that love Nikon, will not be disappointed. It may just bring more folks into the Nikon family.

Just 5 days away for me to speak openly. :)

Clix, just say that I wish I could have waited. :)

Ahhhh.....how frustrating to have to wait five more days to know what this exciting news is!!

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 28, 2006, 12:34 AM

I know! Nikon are embracing the 4/3 digital mount and dumping all their current equipment. :D :eek:

Why isn't anyone taking me seriously? :p

It would be interesting to see the end of their 35mm line turn into something fantastic for the digital line, though.

They may have dumped all but the F6 and the FM10 35mm cameras; but they did just released the 105 f/2.8 VR AFS lens. So there may be hope in the next few years for a FF Nikon.

i know that you support the 4/3's system. And you know that I don't hold the 24x36mm frame size as the end all of be all.But Olympus and Panasonic so need to up the ante in order for the 4/3's system to mean something. The excellent F/2.0 zoom lenses don't mean much till there is at least an 8 or 10mp sensor "pro" body.

bousozoku

Mar 28, 2006, 01:06 AM

They may have dumped all but the F6 and the FM10 35mm cameras; but they did just released the 105 f/2.8 VR AFS lens. So there may be hope in the next few years for a FF Nikon.

i know that you support the 4/3's system. And you know that I don't hold the 24x36mm frame size as the end all of be all.But Olympus and Panasonic so need to up the ante in order for the 4/3's system to mean something. The excellent F/2.0 zoom lenses don't mean much till there is at least an 8 or 10mp sensor "pro" body.

Oh, I know. It's been 2.5 years since the E-1 and I don't know why Olympus is taking so long in finalising the new body. I don't find a lot of fault with mine but it could do a lot of things better if the hardware would change.

I expected them to introduce an E-1N 6 months ago. I suspect that Kodak is having trouble with creating noise-resistant sensors. It's amazing to me because there is so much noise-resistance in the shadow detail but pump it up past ISO 400 and there is a problem. Noise Ninja and such software may work but that's not like Olympus. Obviously, the E-330 has a Panasonic sensor for the live view, but is it the only reason? I'm beginning to feel a bit like Kodak is another Motorola.

NinjaMonkey

Mar 28, 2006, 10:08 AM

Oh, I know. It's been 2.5 years since the E-1 and I don't know why Olympus is taking so long in finalising the new body. I don't find a lot of fault with mine but it could do a lot of things better if the hardware would change.

I expected them to introduce an E-1N 6 months ago. I suspect that Kodak is having trouble with creating noise-resistant sensors. It's amazing to me because there is so much noise-resistance in the shadow detail but pump it up past ISO 400 and there is a problem. Noise Ninja and such software may work but that's not like Olympus. Obviously, the E-330 has a Panasonic sensor for the live view, but is it the only reason? I'm beginning to feel a bit like Kodak is another Motorola.

There was an interview I read somewhere with someone at Oly where they stated they are speeding up the development of the E-1 replacement. It also said something to the fact that they realize there's demand for prime lenses so more are also in development.

-hh

Mar 28, 2006, 10:33 AM

Just 5 days away for me to speak openly. :)

Hmmm...5 days = 2 April.

And exactly the day after Apple's 30th Anniversary.

Gotta be a coincidence. :D

-hh

bousozoku

Mar 28, 2006, 12:48 PM

There was an interview I read somewhere with someone at Oly where they stated they are speeding up the development of the E-1 replacement. It also said something to the fact that they realize there's demand for prime lenses so more are also in development.

Thanks. :)

I know that something is happening, they've just been taking their time with the big one. Focusing on the consumer market was always a big deal for them. The OLM-10 consumer SLR came out well in advance of the OLM-2, so it's a good thing that the OLM-1N was really good...for a long time.

law guy

Mar 28, 2006, 01:38 PM

Whatever you purchase, you will want to be using and keeping it for a long time and you will want something which does the job for you and also serves as a tool for your own personal growth in photography.

Good luck and let us know what you get!

Thanks CP. I'm "dating" the new 30D as of today. I purchased it at the local camera shop in the kit (the 18-55 MK II is not that bad at all in my early use). I'm adapting to the layout. What I'm struck by is the sheer speed of the focus to picture. I tried the D50 for a few days a week or two ago and the 30D is zippier (which isn't a surprise given its 5fps capability). I imagine the D200 that Clix has is similarly astonishing in its sheer speed.

I'll report more later as I'm supposed to be getting some work done and I have mountains of it to get through.

LG

Clix Pix

Mar 28, 2006, 01:50 PM

I imagine the D200 that Clix has is similarly astonishing in its sheer speed.
LG

Yep, comparing the 30D to the D50 isn't exactly quite fair, as they are different cameras aimed at different markets. Comparing the Digital Rebel to the D50 would be more in the same general target area.

Definitely the D200 is fast-fast-FAST! It is quicker than my D70 or D70s. I've never shot with the D50 so can't compare that one....

When I was using the Coolpix 8800, I was so frustrated by that camera. The first day I went out with my new D70 (a year ago), I was thrilled and delighted beyond belief at the difference in responsiveness. There is a difference between the D70/D70s and the D200, but it is not as marked, of course, since they're all DSLRs.

NinjaMonkey

Mar 28, 2006, 02:09 PM

Thanks. :)

I know that something is happening, they've just been taking their time with the big one. Focusing on the consumer market was always a big deal for them. The OLM-10 consumer SLR came out well in advance of the OLM-2, so it's a good thing that the OLM-1N was really good...for a long time.

I'm happy they are concentrating on the consumer market, that seems to be the biggest area for growth. The same article mentioned that the E330 was selling well and even outselling (though it just came out) the E500 in Japan.

law guy

Mar 28, 2006, 04:50 PM

Thanks CP. I'm "dating" the new 30D as of today. I purchased it at the local camera shop in the kit (the 18-55 MK II is not that bad at all in my early use). I'm adapting to the layout. What I'm struck by is the sheer speed of the focus to picture. I tried the D50 for a few days a week or two ago and the 30D is zippier (which isn't a surprise given its 5fps capability). I imagine the D200 that Clix has is similarly astonishing in its sheer speed.

I'll report more later as I'm supposed to be getting some work done and I have mountains of it to get through.

LG

Updated - my follow up is now in a seperate thread to declutter this one a bit.

drlunanerd

Mar 29, 2006, 04:29 AM

LOL! Nothing to do with Canon.

No new product announcements, or rebates - as I know of. But Those that love Nikon, will not be disappointed. It may just bring more folks into the Nikon family.

Just 5 days away for me to speak openly. :)

Clix, just say that I wish I could have waited. :)

A little bird told me Nikon are dropping the price on the D70s.

Abstract

Mar 29, 2006, 04:58 AM

@Law Guy: Between a Canon 30D and a D70s, I'd probably think about going with a 30D. Between a D200 and a 20D or 30D, I couldn't think of any reason for going with a 20D/30D unless there was a significant reason (ie: large investment in Canon lenses, your rich girlfriend/father/mother/best friend has heaps of lenses that he'd gladly lend you or just give to you freely). The D200 gives you features and build quality and details. The 30D doesn't. Don't know how you feel about the ergonomics and button layout, though.

LOL!

No, it is not a new camera. But IMO it will be just as exciting. Just look at the Canon 20D and 30D lineup and think what would make it even better; and you might be on the right track.

No rebates, but you are close on that one. :) Sorry I can't really say more here, and in the end I may have said too much:eek: . But your local dealer may be able to address the issue more directly than I can here. Just 6 days away. :)

Nikon D50, D70s, AND a D200 with an 18-200 mm VR-II kit lense (if they haven't announced something like that already?). :) And just for shyts-n-giggles, they're going to throw in a 10.5mm fisheye lens for really wide angle shots. Yeah, that's a stretch.

What's up with that new Nikon software that's coming out? Could that be it? Is it going to be bundled with all new Nikon dSLRs?

On the other hand, you told us to wait for news coming up to decide Nikon vs Canon, and yet you just mentioned something missing in the 20D and 30D lineup, so it must not have anything to do with Nikon at all. :( But then you said it was about Nikon, and now my head hurts.

Clix Pix

Mar 29, 2006, 12:28 PM

A little bird told me Nikon are dropping the price on the D70s.

Aha! Kinda wondered if maybe it weren't something like that. They've already been dropping prices on the D50. This is prime buying season for new cameras as the weather gets nice, things start blooming, photographers get out there to shoot away and families start thinking of vacation plans.... so of course Nikon would want to take advantage.

This price-dropping, IMHO, also sounds the death knell for the D70s, so anyone who really would like one should snap it up now. As nice as the D50 is, there are distinct advantages to the D70s for the photographer who wants a bit more in the way of features and functionality but who isn't quite ready to make the jump to the D200. If I didn't already have a D70s as a backup body I'd be tempted to take advantage if the price was dropped significantly, and I'd definitely choose that over a D50....

What's up with that new Nikon software that's coming out? Could that be it? Is it going to be bundled with all new Nikon dSLRs?

I think you're talking about the next version of Nikon Capture, and if so, sorry to say, but no, that would not be bundled with any of Nikon's new cameras. They charge an extra $100 or more for it. I don't use any Nikon software in my computers because frankly IMO it is not all that good and from what I'm told, NC is sloooooowwww as molasses. Nikon makes good cameras and good glass. Software is not its forte. Many years ago I had serious problems with one of my computers and a version of NikonView (the software that was bundled at the time) and ever since then I'm wary of it.

Chip NoVaMac

Mar 29, 2006, 08:32 PM

A little bird told me Nikon are dropping the price on the D70s.

That little bird was right. Our price drops on the D70s lineup came today, a few days early! $200 less for the body and kits!

Nikon D50, D70s, AND a D200 with an 18-200 mm VR-II kit lense (if they haven't announced something like that already?). :) And just for shyts-n-giggles, they're going to throw in a 10.5mm fisheye lens for really wide angle shots. Yeah, that's a stretch.

Yeah, all of that was a stretch. Though I will tell you that IMO the 18-200VR and the 10.5 makes a great travel kit.

What's up with that new Nikon software that's coming out? Could that be it? Is it going to be bundled with all new Nikon dSLRs?

Doubt that will ever happen. And easy $100 for Nikon, for IMO a great program.

On the other hand, you told us to wait for news coming up to decide Nikon vs Canon, and yet you just mentioned something missing in the 20D and 30D lineup, so it must not have anything to do with Nikon at all. :( But then you said it was about Nikon, and now my head hurts.

What is missing in the Canon lineup is an affordable "serious" DSLR. At $300 more for the D200 over the 30D, the D200 is a clear winner IMO for those without lenses. I am looking at price points, just as many consumers do.

With the new D70s price drops, one has to really look at features like 5fps and Picture Styles and think what are their real needs. Sure there are things like B&W modes and such; but the D200 has those too. Not to mention the build quality of the D200 over the 30D. Too bad Nikon can't keep up with the demand for the camera.

Being an owner of both Nikon and Canon DSLR's, I can say I am disappointed like many others with the relatively minor update to the 30D. Many things could be firmware implemented I think; like 1/3 or 1/2 step increments in the ISO setting, or a 9 frame bracketed exposure (a cool thing for CS2's HDR function. Hell, even going to 6fps would have been nice.

Aha! Kinda wondered if maybe it weren't something like that. They've already been dropping prices on the D50. This is prime buying season for new cameras as the weather gets nice, things start blooming, photographers get out there to shoot away and families start thinking of vacation plans.... so of course Nikon would want to take advantage.

You really need to come and work for us! :D

This price-dropping, IMHO, also sounds the death knell for the D70s, so anyone who really would like one should snap it up now. As nice as the D50 is, there are distinct advantages to the D70s for the photographer who wants a bit more in the way of features and functionality but who isn't quite ready to make the jump to the D200. If I didn't already have a D70s as a backup body I'd be tempted to take advantage if the price was dropped significantly, and I'd definitely choose that over a D50....

Not really. The D70s has some legs left. And IMO any replacement won't be announced till late summer or early fall. And if they can't improve their delivery rate (like the poor showing with the D200), any D70s replacement that can't be delivered within 15 to 20 days of a customer order will hurt their 4th qtr results.

Looking at body pricing, I think that we need to get over the idea of a $300 DSLR body. Life and the economy moves on. I think that this point a DSLR line up (at price points) of $499, $699, $899-999, and $1499 (leaving alone the "pro" models in the $1999+ range) makes sense for the survival of the camera companies and the specialty retailers.

If I were to be buying my Nikon DSLR right now, I would be very tempted to lean towards the D70s. Though the D50 is smaller, and the JPEG's are designed to be ready to print. The extras like the grid on the screen, and the wireless flash would be bonuses that would make my selling off my Canon system easier "emotionally", perhaps.

drlunanerd

Mar 30, 2006, 04:21 AM

That little bird was right. Our price drops on the D70s lineup came today, a few days early! $200 less for the body and kits!

Excellent! Thanks for letting me know. If they'd drop the price on the D200 though I'd be more interested :D

cgratti

Mar 30, 2006, 04:05 PM

Well....there are the Nikkor professional-grade lenses....

I'd put a Canon L lens up against any Nikkor lens anyday.

bousozoku

Mar 30, 2006, 04:18 PM

I'd put a Canon L lens up against any Nikkor lens anyday.

That's not saying much. I just hope you don't put one of those yet-to-be-refurbished L-series lenses up against any Nikkor. ;)

cgratti

Mar 30, 2006, 04:45 PM

That's not saying much. I just hope you don't put one of those yet-to-be-refurbished L-series lenses up against any Nikkor. ;)
I wouldn't want to embarrass the Nikon user. ;)

Mr. G4

Mar 31, 2006, 12:32 PM

As people before me I went with the e-500 for the same reason.
Also for the price. With their rebate going on right now with two lens it can be had for $699...just a few years ago I paid my Nikon 950 double of that :)
One of the selling point for me was the dust reduction.

princealfie

Mar 31, 2006, 12:35 PM

I use Olympus and Nikon DSLR's. WOuld love that new Panasonic L-1 coming out. I don't care much for Canons, the artifacting and loss of fine detail even with my Leica lenses doesn't seem to help. The XT is still rather nice however.

bousozoku

Mar 31, 2006, 03:44 PM

I wouldn't want to embarrass the Nikon user. ;)

I don't think you have to worry about that. They won't be embarrassed.

dabirdwell

Apr 1, 2006, 04:03 PM

Oh, I know. It's been 2.5 years since the E-1 and I don't know why Olympus is taking so long in finalising the new body. I don't find a lot of fault with mine but it could do a lot of things better if the hardware would change.

I expected them to introduce an E-1N 6 months ago. I suspect that Kodak is having trouble with creating noise-resistant sensors. It's amazing to me because there is so much noise-resistance in the shadow detail but pump it up past ISO 400 and there is a problem. Noise Ninja and such software may work but that's not like Olympus. Obviously, the E-330 has a Panasonic sensor for the live view, but is it the only reason? I'm beginning to feel a bit like Kodak is another Motorola.

I don't think they're going to use a Kodak sensor. I think Oly is looking to source sensors from smaller manufacturers.

Mr. Jones

Apr 1, 2006, 04:43 PM

Camera Bodies:
Canon EOS IV HS
Canon EOD ID Mark II N
Canon EOS 5D

Camera Lenses:
10-22mm
15mm Fisheye
16-35mm L
24-85mm
28-135mm
35-80mm
50mm
50mm Macro
100mm Macro
70-200mm L
70-300mm DO
100-400mm L

Other Stuff:
2x 580EX Speedlites
2x Extender II
1.4x Extender II

Clix Pix

Apr 1, 2006, 07:46 PM

I wouldn't want to embarrass the Nikon user. ;)

Sounds as though you're trying to bait Nikon users....

Why? Pride about your own choices? Insecurity about your own choices?

Thing is, these forums are primarily geared towards Apple products, especially Macs. The digital photography forum is only one of several which veer off into more specialized interests. This forum is fairly new, too, having been established only a few months ago after a few people had made suggestions and requests...and it has the potential to be a really valuable and interesting forum. The purpose of this forum, however, is NOT to generate or perpetuate "Nikon versus Canon" wars. That kind of thing is just plain silly. You want that, go to the forums at DPR and you can have a merry old time..... (If you don't know what I mean by DPR then you're not really as in the loop as you seem to think you are.) If anything, engaging too vigorously in a "Nikon vs Canon" flamewar can get you banned from here. Is that what you want?

Really, this all is quite simple. Nikon makes good camera bodies and good lenses. Canon makes good camera bodies and good lenses. Other manufacturers make good camera bodies and good lenses. The choices one makes when purchasing a camera body and lens(es) and when making an investment in a "system" are highly individualized and subjective. What feels "right" and "good" when handling a particular camera body and lens will be different from person to person. Other subjective elements come into play, too, of course. The bottom line here is, though, that most current DSLR individual bodies and lenses, as well as entire "systems" are pretty darned good. Each has an appeal to different people for all kinds of different reasons. This does not make one particular brand superior to all others. That said, yes, certain brands/certain lenses may have a reputation for excelling in specific situations (Canon cameras and lenses excel at shooting high-energy sports action, for instance). This doesn't mean, however, that all other brands are inferior....it simply means that for some particular uses one brand of camera and lenses seems to have a leading edge.

Some people actually use both Canon and Nikon, demonstrating very effectively that they're choosing the best tool(s) for a particular situation under particular circumstances, and that this is not wedded to one brand over another. This makes good sense to me.

OK, so in your post you more-or-less presented a challenge to Nikon users vis-a-vis Nikon lenses vs Canon lenses. My question to you now is, just which lenses have you used, or more specifically, which do you own, so that if need be you could actually participate in a head-to-head shootout comparing lenses? I'm sure that a few of us on here who have a number of lenses would be up to such an event... Actually, I don't remember seeing any images of yours posted on this forum or others within this site; if you run a search on me you'll find that I've shared a few images here-and-there, all shot with Nikon glass....

In the end, though, the bottom line is not even with which camera body or with which lens someone has shot a particular image....it is more the photographer's creative vision and his/her execution of such vision that matters the most.

Mr. Jones

Apr 1, 2006, 08:13 PM

Clix Pix

Apr 1, 2006, 08:48 PM

I'll try and remain as ojective as I can.
In the 60's and 70's, it was generally accepted that Nikon was generally accepted as the camera system of choice. During the 80's, a shift occured. Nikon and Canon were sitting almost dead even. Then, in the 90's, Canon really made advances in 35mm as well as digital. In the new millenium, Canon locked in its lead when it came out with increasingly more advanced digital cameras. The point is that Canon has a head start and has been two steps ahead of Nikon in the digital race. Nikon, however, has been picking up the slack and has been trying to overtake Canon. The D200 was an excellent step forward, however, Nikon doesn't mnufacture their own sensors, so it's difficult for them to control their advances as they're relying heavily upon others. You can rest assured that Nikon will make advances in the digital arms race, but we'll see where the chips fall.

Hi, Mr Jones! Looks as though you know whereeof you speak when it comes to Canon -- you've got plenty of Canon gear in terms of both bodies and glass! I think that you've made some excellent points here. One thing to consider, though, is whether or not Canon may have been too quick on the draw in some instances, too quick to come out with the newest.... which may in the end not turn out to be the greatest?

Long before the D200 Nikon drew many people into purchasing and using their first DSLR when the D70 hit the streets. That camera body and kit lens had a phenomenal success. I don't know whether or not in actual sales figures it outdid the Canon Digital Rebel, but certainly it made Nikon's mark in the ever-growing world of digital imaging. I believe the Nikon D70 was "camera of the year" for some photography magazine (or maybe more than one). Prior to that, there was Nikon's success with its line of Coolpix cameras. That itself introduced many people to the whole world of digital imaging.....myself included. I remember buying my first digital camera, the Nikon Coolpix 900, and being so excited. I loved that camera and when I was ready for the next step, Nikon had the 990 ready for me, and after that, the 995....

The D70 was a phenomenal success. With the advent of the D200 many D70 users were ready to move onward and upward, and so far that camera has shown every sign of being a hot seller as eager buyers have put themselves on waiting lists to get one. Obviously the quality is there.

Nikon as a camera manufacturer has been around for many years longer than Canon and throughout its history it has strived to make high-quality cameras and glass, even if not always managing to be at the very leading edge every step of the way. Both Nikon and Canon have been innovators in their own ways and both have very high-quality lines of cameras and lenses.

Looking forward to seeing more from you and also to seeing some samples of your work. With all those lenses, I'm sure you do a lot of photography!

Mr. Jones

Apr 1, 2006, 09:18 PM

Hi, Mr Jones! Looks as though you know whereeof you speak when it comes to Canon -- you've got plenty of Canon gear in terms of both bodies and glass! I think that you've made some excellent points here. One thing to consider, though, is whether or not Canon may have been too quick on the draw in some instances, too quick to come out with the newest.... which may in the end not turn out to be the greatest?

Long before the D200 Nikon drew many people into purchasing and using their first DSLR when the D70 hit the streets. That camera body and kit lens had a phenomenal success. I don't know whether or not in actual sales figures it outdid the Canon Digital Rebel, but certainly it made Nikon's mark in the ever-growing world of digital imaging. I believe the Nikon D70 was "camera of the year" for some photography magazine (or maybe more than one). Prior to that, there was Nikon's success with its line of Coolpix cameras. That itself introduced many people to the whole world of digital imaging.....myself included. I remember buying my first digital camera, the Nikon Coolpix 900, and being so excited. I loved that camera and when I was ready for the next step, Nikon had the 990 ready for me, and after that, the 995....

The D70 was a phenomenal success. With the advent of the D200 many D70 users were ready to move onward and upward, and so far that camera has shown every sign of being a hot seller as eager buyers have put themselves on waiting lists to get one. Obviously the quality is there.

Nikon as a camera manufacturer has been around for many years longer than Canon and throughout its history it has strived to make high-quality cameras and glass, even if not always managing to be at the very leading edge every step of the way. Both Nikon and Canon have been innovators in their own ways and both have very high-quality lines of cameras and lenses.

Looking forward to seeing more from you and also to seeing some samples of your work. With all those lenses, I'm sure you do a lot of photography!

I know a thing or two about a thing or two when it comes to Canon stuff. I don't think Canon was too quick to jump into the digital market. I think a lot of companies saw the value of a digital workflow, but only few really took advantage of it. During the Battle of Seattle, digital cameras were instrumental in reporting in real time. During a time when the internet was growing tremendously, companies that produced digital cameras reaped the benefits.

The D70 and the following D70s had a success that was on par with Canon's 20D, which is highly respectable. I used the D200 as an example because it was a tremendous step forward versus the "different body, same 6.3 MP sensor" thing that they had going on for a while.

Nikon is no doubt a good manufacturer. I would still consider the Nikon F5 one of the best film bodies. My film body of choice is the 1V HS with the rediculous 10 fps (and believe me, it really does go that fast) and the 45 point AF.

I'll be sure to put up some of my work very soon.

bousozoku

Apr 1, 2006, 09:28 PM

Mr. Jones

Apr 1, 2006, 09:35 PM

Your grip on humour about Canon is quite convincing though your history is a bit faulty.
By all means, feel free to correct me.

macpastor

Apr 1, 2006, 09:42 PM

Just putting my vote in for the NIkon D50 which I own, and love. It has been a great camera so far, and I am surprised each time I use it how simple it is, but yet how great the pics look time after time.

cairo

Apr 1, 2006, 10:24 PM

D70s! It just felt better in my hand than the others...

kbonnel

Apr 2, 2006, 01:59 AM

Canon. Because I like Canon lenses.

Kimo

Passante

Apr 2, 2006, 06:54 AM

I'm shooting with a Fuji S2 that I bought back in 2002. So for the purposed of the poll I think does that make me a Fuji user or a Nikon user?:confused:

I chose the S2 over the D100 because of its backward speedlight compatibility, sharper jpegs without post processing and cleaner user interface. Currently salivating over the D200 but thats purchase will have to wait a while.

BoyRacer

Apr 2, 2006, 07:29 AM

I'm sorry to throw this thread off track by speaking about a non-DSLR; I'll be brief.

I'm a point and shoot kind of guy and I'm fabulously impressed with myself that I was able to recognize my 'limitations' and practice restraint. I'm also glad that I did as I have no regrets with the Sony DSC-R1.

10.3 MegaPixel, live preview on the top-mounted LCD, 5X Carl Zeiss 24-120mm lens, and an almost DSLR-sized APS-class sensor (2.15cm x 1.4cm).

Sony DSC-R1 Review:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_r1-review/index.shtml

maestro55

Apr 2, 2006, 04:11 PM

Reading through the different postings it is interesting to hear the stories of why people have what they have. Honestly, I agree with those that say whatever works for you, use. I did not vote in the poll, because I have yet to buy a DSLR. I doubt I will have one for atleast another 3 years. Once I finish college and can lay down the money for one, I want to lay down the money all at once and purchase a good camera body that is going to last, and invest in some great lenses. At this point I have no focus or aim in what pictures I will be shooting, and I am still very much a novice in the area. However, I would be more compelled to invest in a Canon (Something along the lines of the EOS-20D, and I would assume by 2008 or 2009 they will have a camera replace the EOS-20D in that price range). Why?

My dad recently sold off his collection of film SLR equipment, however, I learned on a Canon TX, I also have used both the Canon AE-1 and the Canon AE-1 Program. My dad had numerous lenses. I don't remember all the specs, but I remember that there was a kit lens (50mm), he had a 28mm lens, a telephoto lens (I don't remember the range), and numerous others. As I said my knowledge isn't much in the area.

Being on the yearbook staff I have used our Canon Rebel Film SLR (I don't remember the model) with an 18-55mm lens.. but I don't know the specs. I have also used my ex-yearbook advisors Canon Rebel XT with the kit lens on it. On these cameras my pictures seem to look nice, a photographer would point out all of my flaws in the pictures; however, I have used numerous cameras and taken a ton of pictures over the years. Just being around Canon for so much I think I would go with Canon. However, when I really know what I am doing, my judgment will be better and my choice might change.

MacNoobie

Apr 2, 2006, 05:31 PM

Canon 1D Mark II N, I like Canon for their lower noise and for the image quality, their controls are easy to learn and a great first time DSLR.

areyouwishing

Apr 2, 2006, 09:00 PM

I got into SLR photography in June of last year. I bought a nikon N80 because I enjoyed the feel, and seemed to have a no nonsense system. I then went to digital late last month and stuck with Nikon...

Personally I think you can get a higher quality picture with a canon, but you almost always end up paying more. XT vs. d50, 30d vs. d70, 5d vs. 200d. To me it all came down to feel. The XT was too small for my hands, and the price was higher than what i could get a used mint condition d70 which has features and feel more in line with with a 20d.

I got a mint condition D70 with...
Extra Battery
1GB Compact Flash
18-70mm Nikkor DX
... for $600

The bottom line for me was that I take better pictures when I am more comfortable and can make that quick shot. The XT for me was too cramped and had a sub-par kit lens. This to me was worth losing 2mp.