Canon who? Nikon D70 Outspecs the "Rebel" [Archive]

technocoy

Jan 28, 2004, 08:55 AM

the rebel does f3.5/4.5 as well. and it is 300 dollars cheaper with the lens.

the lens is actually quite nice. and if you want a better one don't buy the lens kit pay 800 then spend the other 400 to get one that will bust the nikon. if you like to shoot film the rebel is nice, it is just a camera, no gimmicky stuff. i like the nikon as well, but no real comparison can take place here. in truth, i think it is a matter of needs and opinion. if you are trying to review on a professional level, then neither camera really stacks up.

these are both high-end solutions for amateur photographers who want nice quality images. or professionals who are just getting into digital.

don't think the nikon really blows anything out of the water necessarily.

just my opinion though.

peace,
technocoy

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by technocoy
the rebel does f3.5/4.5 as well. and it is 300 dollars cheaper with the lens.

the lens is actually quite nice. and if you want a better one don't buy the lens kit pay 800 then spend the other 400 to get one that will bust the nikon. if you like to shoot film the rebel is nice, it is just a camera, no gimmicky stuff. i like the nikon as well, but no real comparison can take place here. in truth, i think it is a matter of needs and opinion. if you are trying to review on a professional level, then neither camera really stacks up.

these are both high-end solutions for amateur photographers who want nice quality images. or professionals who are just getting into digital.

don't think the nikon really blows anything out of the water necessarily.

just my opinion though.

peace,
technocoy

Nope. The lens is 3.5-5.6

And if i'm paying $1000... i don't want "just a camera"

To tell you the truth, the lens from the rebel.... it's not very high quality. The pictures are WAY noisy, and the CA is horrid. Plus, for anyone who thinks they can "just upgrade their body" when canon releases a new one.... the kit lens works only on the rebel. Crappy, eh?

Mr. Anderson

Jan 28, 2004, 09:15 AM

I'm curious to see what Canon releases next to replace the 10D - the Nikon D70 is a nice camera :D

D

technocoy

Jan 28, 2004, 09:17 AM

if you think the lens is crappy, spend 800, then buy a better lens. you will still come in at or under the price point of the nikon.

in a nod to the nikon, however. the buffer is quite nice. i guess it is all in what you feel that you need. I don't do that much high speed or high frame volume shooting, so the rebel (with a suitable lens) is all i need at the moment. if i am going to get any more advanced, i'll be spending well beyond the pricepoint of both cameras, so it becomes moot.

My wife has a butt-load of canon lenses, so it works out great for me.

but all i'm saying is that if this comes down to lens quality and capabilty, then the options available make either camera a nice choice.

the nikon/canon preference is personal and will always be argued.

spend 1300.00 get either the nikon with lens (nice lens)

spend 800.00 get canon without lens, then spend that 400.00 on a really nice one.

no argument, just saying that this comes down to brand preference. i think the hardware is neck and neck.

P.S. my bad on the f4.5 , i realized what you were saying after my post.

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I'm curious to see what Canon releases next to replace the 10D - the Nikon D70 is a nice camera :D

D

Yea.

I think the 20d (or whatever) will be a 6mp $999 deal similar to the 10d.

The 300d is gonna go down to $699 (where it should have been initially)

And the you'll have a D200 from Nikon and maybe some sort of EOS 5d from canon that will both be $1799 and be 8mp something or others.

If my sources are right... bank on it. :)

I think the market for DSLRs is heading in the right direction:

$300 entry level

$700 mid level

$1000 semi-pro level

$2000+ high end

Nuc

Jan 28, 2004, 09:29 AM

Even though the sony DSC-F828 is not an SLR camera, I have to comment on it...

I recently purchased this camera. It is absolutely amazing. It's extremely quick at taking pictures. 7 burst. I am waiting on the Ultra II compact flash to get here to see just what capability it has a writing to the memory card. I used a regular CF and it was damn fast at writing the 8 mega pixel files (~3.5-4.1mb per picture). It took about 5-6 seconds to write to the disk. The Ultra II will write at much higher speeds (9mb/s).

Go to the nearest best buy and check it out. Tell them you want to use the CF or MS pro card. You will be amazed!

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Nuc
Even though the sony DSC-F828 is not an SLR camera, I have to comment on it...

I recently purchased this camera. It is absolutely amazing. It's extremely quick at taking pictures. 7 burst. I am waiting on the Ultra II compact flash to get here to see just what capability it has a writing to the memory card. I used a regular CF and it was damn fast at writing the 8 mega pixel files (~3.5-4.1mb per picture). It took about 5-6 seconds to write to the disk. The Ultra II will write at much higher speeds (9mb/s).

Go to the nearest best buy and check it out. Tell them you want to use the CF or MS pro card. You will be amazed!

Yea. Nikon has the CP8700 which is similar spec and compelling for most of the population... but the noise issues on ANY of those P&S's at antyhing above ISO 400 kills 'em for me.

That said, at low ISO, the Sony (and NIkon i'm sure, as they use the same sensor) are VERY nice cams.

But for me, I outgrew the noisiness of those at higher ISOs or longer exposures.

Mr. Anderson

Jan 28, 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
And the you'll have a D200 from Nikon and maybe some sort of EOS 5d from canon that will both be $1799 and be 8mp something or others.

When do your *sources* see this happening? You know I'm in the market - just waiting for something to come along :D

D

jelloshotsrule

Jan 28, 2004, 09:55 AM

didn't you post not all that long ago saying that in general the rebel is pretty dang sweet, especially for the price? and now it's basically junk? strange.

sucks if anyone took your word fairly seriously and went and got one.

i just got one, not with the kit lens but with a 2 sigma lens thing from ritz. i'm happy with it. granted, i'm no pro.

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
didn't you post not all that long ago saying that in general the rebel is pretty dang sweet, especially for the price? and now it's basically junk? strange.

sucks if anyone took your word fairly seriously and went and got one.

i just got one, not with the kit lens but with a 2 sigma lens thing from ritz. i'm happy with it. granted, i'm no pro.

Well, the book has been rewritten. Nikon came along and raised the bar. You made a good move avoiding the kit lens, though for a $100 lens it's ok.

The rebel camera body is fine. But to say that it's cheaper than the D70... is nonsense. Considering a Comparable canon lens is $400... it's the same price. :)

Those sigmas however... are crossplatform so to speak, and are all around awesome

Your pics are probably head and shoulders better JUST because of those. They blow away all of the "low end" nikon AND canon lenses.

Mr.A:

PMA starts this week. Frm what I hear, there will be a 1d replacement from Canon, 8mp, similar spec to D2h. There will also be a D2x from Nikon which should be 11mp.

I also hear rumblings abot the D200 or something, which is supposedly 8mp and gonna be around $1799-$1999 from Nikon.

CalfCanuck

Jan 28, 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I'm curious to see what Canon releases next to replace the 10D - the Nikon D70 is a nice camera
No doubt about it - the 10D is probably nearing the end of it's product life cycle (by Canon standards) - I've had mine for 9 months now.

Seem to think it was about 18 months between the D30's release and the D60, and about 12 from the D60's release to the 10D. So since I've now had the 10D for 9 months, the next one should be coming soon!

As for the lens issue on the Nikon, I can't see how anyone would put a lens under a grand on any camera (granted I am a semi-professional photographer, but lenses last for ever). People get so wigged out about pixel count, but if one samples a 12 megapixel "out of focus picture", it's still out of focus! Cheap lens perform so badly when wide open I think most people would be surprised. Buy less camera and more lens. When you upgrade to the next generation camera body, the lenses travel with you!

I once took a action shot in Spain with my D30, at 600mm - then cropped the picture and printed a 8x10 test print on a $150 Epson ink jet (on glossy paper). WOW, cou;dn't tell it from a traditional print. That won me over for life regarding digital, and also proves that it's glass over megapixels any day of the week - the D30 was "only" 3 megapixels.

(Aa proud owner of the D30, the D60, and the 10D, all of them were a welcome change to the $15,000 Kodak model (with the Canon lens mount) they replaced in late 2000. We've come a long way in 40 months!)

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
No doubt about it - the 10D is probably nearing the end of it's product life cycle (by Canon standards) - I've had mine for 9 months now.

See to think it was about 18 months between the D30's release and the D60, and about 12 from the D60's release to the 10D. So since I've now had the 10D for 9 months, the next one should be coming soon!

As for the lens issue on the Nikon, I can't see how anyone would put a lens under a grand on any camera (granted I am a semi-professional photographer, but lenses last for ever). People get so wigged out about pixel count, but if one samples a 12 megapixel "out of focus picture", it's still out of focus! Cheap lens perform so badly when wide open I think most people would be surprised. Buy less camera and more lens. When you upgrade to the next generation camera body, the lens travel with you!

I once took a action shot in Spain with my D30, at 600mm - then cropped the picture and printed a 8x10 test print on a $150 Epson ink jet (on glossy paper). WOW, cou;dn't tell it from a traditional print. That won me over for life regarding digital, and also proves that it's glass over megapixels any day of the week - the D30 was "only" 3 megapixels.

(Aa proud owner of the D30, the D60, and the 10D, all of them were a welcome change to the $15,000 Kodak model (with the Canon lens mount) they replaced in late 2000. We've come a long way in 40 months!)

I'd only amend what you're saying to putting "good" glass on a digicam.

the $500 Nikon 18-35 performs very nicely, similar to the 17-35 stopped down a bit for landscapes.

The $300 Nikon 24-85 is another one who's sharpness is KILLER and the contrast and AF-S focusing make it a bargain.

The $700 Sigma 70-200 (i just got one) is JUST as nice as the 70-200/80-200 images from the Nikon versions.

And of course, who can forget the 50mm 1.8 prime for $90!!! It's an icnredibly sharp lens, with great color and contrast.

If you do your homework, you can get good lenses.

Even the $230 Sigma set is nicer than the el cheapo Nikon and Canon offerings.

I had 2 28-90 USM cheapos when I had my 10d for a weekend, and I HATED them.

That said, I hated the whole Canon UI.... and went to the D100. BUt in any case, yes... if you research your lens choices, you can get great quality for under a grand. ;)

AND i'm a pro on a budget. :)

Counterfit

Jan 28, 2004, 10:21 AM

I saw a review of the 828. It was extremely in depth. Especially when comparing image quality to that of the 10D, the 828 has more noise (even at ISO 64) due to it having more sensors in a much smaller area. Pixels (and specs) do a camera make. However, the Sony has a nice lens, and you would have to spend a pretty penny to match it on the Canon. Not bad for Sony's first try at a pro camera.

Counterfit

Jan 28, 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
AND i'm a pro on a budget. :) Er, mike. What pro isn't on a budget? :D

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Er, mike. What pro isn't on a budget? :D

Hmm. Maybe a photojournalist who has a newspaper buy them gear?

There's lots of pro's out there who walk around with $8000 1ds's and $2000 Image Stabilisation lenses.

The lenses I mentioned are for pros who have tighter budgets, like eyelikeart and I. :)

CalfCanuck

Jan 28, 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
And of course, who can forget the 50mm 1.8 prime for $90!!! It's an icnredibly sharp lens, with great color and contrast.

If you do your homework, you can get good lenses.
Right on - there always are a few good consumer lense that "sneak" through.

But your point about those sweet 50mm lens is REALLY true. So few people want to interchange lenses any more and just throw on a crappy zoom - most overlook the 50mm even though it's a great item for it's price / optical quality.

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
Right on - there always are a few good consumer lense that "sneak" through.

But your point about those sweet 50mm lens is REALLY true. So few people want to interchange lenses any more and just throw on a crappy zoom - most overlook the 50mm even though it's a great item for it's price / optical quality.

I've gotten some of my best shots, wide open at f1.8 from my nikon 50mm!

Most people ask me "how long can a zoom that small be"

I just sorta laugh. Haha.

revenuee

Jan 28, 2004, 10:42 AM

Canon nor Nikon is going to put a "great" lens on a kit set up ...

the purpose of the kit is to get you started ...

like the posters before me said ... if you do your homework ... you can get nice lenses ... i like nikon ... but i'm sorry to say i can't afford to purchase their pro series of lenses

i've been very satisfied with SIGMA EX serious of lenses ...

the 105 mm 2.8 MACRO as an example is extremely difficult to notice and difference between the NIKON and the SIGMA version.

with that said ... i like NIKON camera bodies ...

i'm currently torn between getting a D100 or an F100 <--- not sure if i want to switch to digital just yet -- and whether the D100 will perform in sports the way i know the F100 does

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
Canon nor Nikon is going to put a "great" lens on a kit set up ...

the purpose of the kit is to get you started ...

like the posters before me said ... if you do your homework ... you can get nice lenses ... i like nikon ... but i'm sorry to say i can't afford to purchase their pro series of lenses

i've been very satisfied with SIGMA EX serious of lenses ...

the 105 mm 2.8 MACRO as an example is extremely difficult to notice and difference between the NIKON and the SIGMA version.

with that said ... i like NIKON camera bodies ...

i'm currently torn between getting a D100 or an F100 <--- not sure if i want to switch to digital just yet -- and whether the D100 will perform in sports the way i know the F100 does

Take a look at the D70 my friend. For sports it should have some nice features and the body is $999... Would also make that 105mm Sigma (a great lens, I agree!) a 157mm!!

revenuee

Jan 28, 2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Take a look at the D70 my friend. For sports it should have some nice features and the body is $999... Would also make that 105mm Sigma (a great lens, I agree!) a 157mm!!

OH wow.. i just checked out the specs (they didn't have those the last time i looked)

6.1 megapixel -- good
3 - frames per second -- pretty good
1/8000 - 30 second shutter speed -- awsome (this was why i didn't want the d100)
5 point focus -- exellentD Color Matrix Meter with 1,005-pixel RGB Sensor, -- fantastic

all for 999$

i'm ecstatic ...and i'm sold

CalfCanuck

Jan 28, 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
I saw a review of the 828. It was extremely in depth. Especially when comparing image quality to that of the 10D, the 828 has more noise (even at ISO 64) due to it having more sensors in a much smaller area. Pixels (and specs) do a camera make. However, the Sony has a nice lens, and you would have to spend a pretty penny to match it on the Canon. Not bad for Sony's first try at a pro camera.
Yes, the 828 definitley lagged in it's image quality. As noted above, not bad for a first effort, but there's a reason that pro camera makers keep their edge. They've been at it for decades, just like Sony has with their Betacams!

I have a problem with the layout and design. When Moxiemike said he hated the 10D's layout, I guess familiarity is what most serious users like. I found Canon's pretty intuitive, and a natural progression from their EOS 1n bodies that I used to use (now gathering dust on my shelves!).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page21.asp

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 01:10 PM

If I'm not mistaken.. Doesn't Nikon use Sony made ccd? I just sold my Nikon d1h and got me a Canon 1ds and a D60. Im not to keen on Sony ccds since allot are prone to chromatic aberation/purple fringing(See reviews on sony 828) I shoot with a Nikon f5 film mostly but for digital I like Canons and L glass plus Canon makes thier own Sensors.

Your Lenses will last a life time.. your camera will last you 3 -5 years max(if you avoid the upgrade bug) What ever lenses you feel you have most collected upon choose the appropriate body to match. After all we buy Digial SLR and Film cameras for the options of using different lenses for creativity.. I wouldn't judge a camera for its Kit lens.

Kodie

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 01:15 PM

Why didin't Nikon go to ISO 100) this time around ? I hope they fixed allot of what was wrong on the D100.. The noise issues esp in extreme low light shots. Some photographers do almost exclusively low light to night shots.. If they put a different CCD in thier from the D100 I'd be willing to give it a chance and a entry level DSLR.

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by kodiecap
Why didin't Nikon go to ISO 100) this time around ? I hope they fixed allot of what was wrong on the D100.. The noise issues esp in extreme low light shots. Some photographers do almost exclusively low light to night shots.. If they put a different CCD in thier from the D100 I'd be willing to give it a chance and a entry level DSLR.

There really isn't a noise issue on the D100. At least no more than the 10d or the 300d. The D100 and 10d take VERY similar images in low light (i've compared them both, as have many other sites).

The nikon is as clean as the 10d.

The 300d is noisier (much so!) than both.

The dynamic range of ISO 100 on the Nikon dSLR's CCD prevents it's usefulness.

That said, ISO 200 is cleaner on the D100 than ISO 100 on the 300d and not much different than ISO 100 on the 10d and a HUGE improvement over P&S cams.

Now when compared with ISO 125 on the D1x or the 1d... different story. BUt then again, the price is a different story.

That said, you don't lose anything when you lose ISO 100... the clarity is there.

What it boils down to is, the 300d with good lenses is nice. The d100 or 10d with good lenses is great. The d1x or 1d are the pro choices.

Honestly, between the 10d and the D100... it's a toss up. Though I will say the D100 focuses better in lowlight than the 10d.

The 300d (and this COULD be the lens...) could BARELY focuse in low light. Though if you push it long enough....

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by kodiecap
If I'm not mistaken.. Doesn't Nikon use Sony made ccd? I just sold my Nikon d1h and got me a Canon 1ds and a D60. Im not to keen on Sony ccds since allot are prone to chromatic aberation/purple fringing(See reviews on sony 828) I shoot with a Nikon f5 film mostly but for digital I like Canons and L glass plus Canon makes thier own Sensors.

Your Lenses will last a life time.. your camera will last you 3 -5 years max(if you avoid the upgrade bug) What ever lenses you feel you have most collected upon choose the appropriate body to match. After all we buy Digial SLR and Film cameras for the options of using different lenses for creativity.. I wouldn't judge a camera for its Kit lens.

Kodie

You must have a lot of cash to burn! a 2k F5 + good (i'm assuming) nikon glass + a 1k d60 and 8k 1ds + Canon L glass?

I'll give you a couple hundred and take your nikon gear off your hands and you can move to all Canon (since you have more of an investment there!)

:)

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
You must have a lot of cash to burn! a 2k F5 + good (i'm assuming) nikon glass + a 1k d60 and 8k 1ds + Canon L glass?

I'll give you a couple hundred and take your nikon gear off your hands and you can move to all Canon (since you have more of an investment there!)

:)
HAHA ,
I Don't know if I have as much cash as you think though I'm spend mostly on photgraphic equipment. The real kicker is that I'm a "PC" Game Level Deisgner for a big company in San Rafael CA. and I'm in a Mac forum. :D I had to make the switch after over16+ years of PC struggles. I now feel like i once did when i got my first Commodore 64. haha

Take Care

technocoy

Jan 28, 2004, 02:00 PM

Holy Crap! have you seen and image taken with one of those things? the color and clarity is amazing...

technocoy

superduperjacob

Jan 28, 2004, 05:48 PM

The only thing that makes me think about passing on the D70 is that the chosen transfer interface is USB 1.1 - I would've liked for it to be FireWire or USB 2.0. Other than that, it makes for a beatiful buy and I think that I will come around once I lay my hands on one of them and try it out.

Moxiemike

Jan 28, 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by superduperjacob
The only thing that makes me think about passing on the D70 is that the chosen transfer interface is USB 1.1 - I would've liked for it to be FireWire or USB 2.0. Other than that, it makes for a beatiful buy and I think that I will come around once I lay my hands on one of them and try it out.

Gosh. anyone who would pass on a camera--be it the DRebel or the D70 for this reason is foolish!

On a $1000 cam? I can't see it being a big deal. Now on a $3200 D2h or the like? Sure.

That said, I always use a belkin card reader. A bit more reliable and it doesn't sap the battery. A whopping $30 extra! :D

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Gosh. anyone who would pass on a camera--be it the DRebel or the D70 for this reason is foolish!

On a $1000 cam? I can't see it being a big deal. Now on a $3200 D2h or the like? Sure.

That said, I always use a belkin card reader. A bit more reliable and it doesn't sap the battery. A whopping $30 extra! :D

I agree using the the camera to transfer images would not be my concern. For me its there for emergency situations. Then again I carry an assortment of card readers. Much faster and easy enough to take to anyones house without worrying about camera drivers that maybe be needed on certain older OS's be it windows or mac. Maybe its just me but I'm kind of too lazy to pull out the USB covers on my camera body. That in itself annoys me but to each his own. Then again this is just my opinion:) .Like if one were to resell there camera allot of wear would be visible on the flaps of these compartments. ie.finger nail scratches on rubber usb flaps, wear on hinges etc. my 2 cents.

revenuee

Jan 28, 2004, 06:44 PM

Rower_CPU

Jan 28, 2004, 06:55 PM

Digital SLRs just keep getting more and more tempting. My Sony F707 probably has another year or so of life in it before the upgrade heebie jeebies set in too strong. ;)

I love hearing all the pro/semi-pro reviews everyone is contributing here, too. My main hump to get over will be the separate lenses, since I'll be starting from scratch. I'll have to start with a kit or all around lens and build up a collection from there.

I second the earlier comment about getting Foveon tech to take off. It will definitely make for an interesting battle between high megapixels and more accurate ccds.

revenuee

Jan 28, 2004, 07:27 PM

I wonder about lag time

the article at nikon said that it's "hardly noticeable"

i wonder what the definition is ... cause if that lag time is good ... i'm definatly getting one

evoluzione

Jan 28, 2004, 07:34 PM

so it's finally a full frame ccd like the canon??

please correct me if i'm wrong on that :)

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Digital SLRs just keep getting more and more tempting. My Sony F707 probably has another year or so of life in it before the upgrade heebie jeebies set in too strong. ;)

I love hearing all the pro/semi-pro reviews everyone is contributing here, too. My main hump to get over will be the separate lenses, since I'll be starting from scratch. I'll have to start with a kit or all around lens and build up a collection from there.

I second the earlier comment about getting Foveon tech to take off. It will definitely make for an interesting battle between high megapixels and more accurate ccds.

Sticking witht the F707 is a good idea since the 828 will offer you no real improvment. ie.F828(More pixels+Same ccd size=higher noise. . I've actually read off many forums that the 707 and 717 are better ..

Kit leanses are wonderful to start with..Just remember not to judge the cameras overal image quality from a kit lens. Some are great some are much better off using another lens. I use Prime lenses and only have a few "zoom type lenses". I mainly use zoom type lenses for walk around shooting etc.

"It will definitely make for an interesting battle between high megapixels and more accurate ccds"

I would take accuracy and quality any day over megapixels. A good expample is to compare Cameras like the older Nikon D1 and Canon D30 to 5+ megapixel point and shoot cameras. These old dogs of DSLR can compete with newer prosumer cameras any day as far as picture quality. I know allot of other factors are involved like, Speed,auto focus etc.. but it all comes down to picture quality.

Just my 2 cents again

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by evoluzione
so it's finally a full frame ccd like the canon??

please correct me if i'm wrong on that :)

I believe canon 1ds is Cmos not ccd sensor... hehe :)

kodiecap

Jan 28, 2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by evoluzione
so it's finally a full frame ccd like the canon??

please correct me if i'm wrong on that :)

I believe canon 1ds is Cmos not ccd sensor... hehe :)

Counterfit

Jan 28, 2004, 09:29 PM

Counterfit

Jan 28, 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by evoluzione
so it's finally a full frame ccd like the canon??

please correct me if i'm wrong on that :) I'm fairly certain that the only Canon with a full-frame CMOS is the EOS 1Ds.

Stojamow

Jan 29, 2004, 06:24 AM

I was planning to go for Canon 300D but it seems to me that this now needs to be reviewed. ;)

CalfCanuck

Jan 29, 2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by evoluzione
so it's finally a full frame ccd like the canon??

please correct me if i'm wrong on that :)
Not even close. The D70 is a 1.5 field of view crop (about the same as the 10D, which I seem to remember is 1.6.

Just be realistic about the sensors - it costs a lot to get that larger coverage of a full size 35 mm sensor, and you have to pay for that. If anyone came out with the full frame sensor feature even at the low end pro market ($2000) they would CLEAN UP.

As an example, even the Canon 1D Mark II (just released today) with support for 100 MB per second (!!!!!!) has a 1.3 Multiplier effect. This is geared for the motor-drive section of the pro market that needs the 8 frames a second. One has to move up to the Canon 1Ds for the full frame support, and that's a $6500 body.

Here's the preliminary specs on the D70 from dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/page2.asp

And here's the latest specs on the new 1D Mark II.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dmkii/default.asp

CalfCanuck

Jan 29, 2004, 07:56 AM

I'm not a Nikon guy, but decided I need to include the sensor cropping on their models to go with my previous post about Canon. So here's the info from their usa website:

Looks like the D1X, the D2H, the D1H, the D100 and the D70 all have a lens multiplier effect of 1.5x.

Kind of funny compared to the Canon's EOS 1Ds (1.0), 1D (1.3) and 10D (1.6) ratings - looks like Nikon has some design issues that have standarized around that 1.5 multiplier, because I don't believe that all those models use the same sensor...

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
I'm not a Nikon guy, but decided I need to include the sensor cropping on their models to go with my previous post about Canon. So here's the info from their usa website:

Looks like the D1X, the D2H, the D1H, the D100 and the D70 all have a lens multiplier effect of 1.5x.

Kind of funny compared to the Canon's EOS 1Ds (1.0), 1D (1.3) and 10D (1.6) ratings - looks like Nikon has some design issues that have standarized around that 1.5 multiplier, because I don't believe that all those models use the same sensor...

For Evo:

Here's the Multiplier effects:

Canon:
300d: 1.6x
10d: 1.6x
1d: 1.3x
1d mkII: 1.3x
1ds: full frame

Nikon:
d1: 1.5x
d1h: 1.5x
d1x: 1.5x
d2h: 1.5x
d100: 1.5x
d70: 1.5x

Fuji: (nikon mount)
Finepix S2: 1.5x

Kodak (nikon mount)
14n Pro: full frame

Pentax:
*ist: 1.5x

Sigma: (foeveon!)
SD9/10: 1.7x

Nikon has "standardized" on the 1.5x image crop as their "DX" standard, probably stemming from engineering difficulties (or just price constraints) in the development of sensors.

as such, they've also developed a NICE series of "DX" lenses, which take into account the 1.5x crop factor:

10.5mm fisheye = 15mm fish on D series body
12-24 G f4 = 18-26 f4 on D series body
17-55 G f2.8= 28-90 f2.8 on D series body
18-70 f3.5-4.5 = 28-105 on D series body

All of the lenses has AF-S (silent wave motor for fast focusing) and they are all ED element glass (extra dispertion for less chromatic abberation) and they all have that nice, semi-professional/professional nikon build.

The 17-55 and the 12-24 are EXPENSIVE, but the new 18-70 should be around $300 and be of similar optical quality to the EXCELLENT 24-85G lens that Nikon has out now.

Canon offers "EF-s" lenses for the Digital Rebel ONLY.

the Kit lens:
18-55 f3.5-5.6 = 29-88 on 300d
55-200 f4.5-5.6 = 88-320 on 300d

These lenses are pretty much consumer build quality all around. I don't know anyone who has the 55-200 (most opt for the 70-300 Sigma, which i'm SURE is opitcally superior and has a TON of telephoto (480 on the 300d). I'm sure the 55-200's quality is acceptable. BUt I think Canon lacks in that these lenses only work on ONE camera. And knowing Canon (they've changed their mount before!) It's entirely possible that the 300d lenses MAY NOT work on future canon bodies. That would take the stuffing out of their "first sub 1k dSLR" march I think.

Sigma (one of my fave lense companies. Check 'em out!) offers one "Digital" series lens:

Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6
EX (professional finish) Which equals a 18-36 on Nikon and a 19-38 on Canon.
This lens costs around $500.

I think Nikon has the best strategy with their sensor format and lenses. I don't mind the smaller sensor, as it's easier to engineer. If it gets me 16-22mp (medium format res) some day for 2k i'm sold.

Canon is weird (to me) since they have 1.3x's, 1.6x's and full frame. Plus some odd rebel only lenses, etc.

Sigma's Digital initiative is to be looked at seriously, though the slowness of that lens makes it primarily a landscape lens for me. Though I may get it.

SO the crop factor isn't as big of an issue as it was a year ago. That said, no one ever knows what's happening in the digital world. Hehe

revenuee

Jan 29, 2004, 08:49 AM

sorry to repost this

but ... .Does anyone know how the lag time stacks up in this camera?

and my second question is ... the 6.1 megapixel sensor .... what kinda prints can i get out of it

i know it's 3008 x 2000

so at 300 dpi thats 10 x 6.5 (roughly)

and i've often been satisfied with the 300 dpi even though i've been reading that 400 dpi is much closer to what the actual image compared to film is.

my question is ... how big can i print and it will still look nice ?

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
sorry to repost this

but ... .Does anyone know how the lag time stacks up in this camera?

and my second question is ... the 6.1 megapixel sensor .... what kinda prints can i get out of it

i know it's 3008 x 2000

so at 300 dpi thats 10 x 6.5 (roughly)

and i've often been satisfied with the 300 dpi even though i've been reading that 400 dpi is much closer to what the actual image compared to film is.

my question is ... how big can i print and it will still look nice ?

If the shutter lag is anything like the D100, it's not an issue at all. I do action/sports oriented stuff ewith th d100 all the time, and have no issue with SL. Juts make sure mirror lockup is off (which adds a half sec. delay between the mirror flipping up and the shutter closing.

But yea. I don't think you'll see much in the way of shutter lag, it'll be similar to the 10d/d100/f100/n80 areas of camera.

As far as 6mp goes? I've done 24x36 prints (and 125dpi) and the quality is AWESOME. I go up to 11x17 @ 300dpi with no problem.

The key is getting good lenses, with good reslving power.

I've noticed that the 300d kit lens doesn't have as much resolution as the Sigma 70-300 my buddy uses, and the 50mm primes, and good prosumer-ish lenses from Nikon (that I know about... not as schooled in mid-range Canon gear) gets me some stunning resolution.

What size are you looking to print?? 8x10's are virtually indistinguishable from film, and the 18x24 + sizes only "show their true colors" when you put your nose about an inch from 'em. :)

6mp would be good for ya.... if not, the Fuji S2 gets 12mp (though interpolated...) and nets out to like, 9mp.

Of course, you should ALWAYS shoot raw, and save as 16bit tiffs for NO lose of info. and you can size up a lot.

revenuee

Jan 29, 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
If the shutter lag is anything like the D100, it's not an issue at all. I do action/sports oriented stuff ewith th d100 all the time, and have no issue with SL. Juts make sure mirror lockup is off (which adds a half sec. delay between the mirror flipping up and the shutter closing.

But yea. I don't think you'll see much in the way of shutter lag, it'll be similar to the 10d/d100/f100/n80 areas of camera.

As far as 6mp goes? I've done 24x36 prints (and 125dpi) and the quality is AWESOME. I go up to 11x17 @ 300dpi with no problem.

The key is getting good lenses, with good reslving power.

I've noticed that the 300d kit lens doesn't have as much resolution as the Sigma 70-300 my buddy uses, and the 50mm primes, and good prosumer-ish lenses from Nikon (that I know about... not as schooled in mid-range Canon gear) gets me some stunning resolution.

What size are you looking to print?? 8x10's are virtually indistinguishable from film, and the 18x24 + sizes only "show their true colors" when you put your nose about an inch from 'em. :)

6mp would be good for ya.... if not, the Fuji S2 gets 12mp (though interpolated...) and nets out to like, 9mp.

Of course, you should ALWAYS shoot raw, and save as 16bit tiffs for NO lose of info. and you can size up a lot.

well i generally print at 8x10 ... but i'd like to be able to at-least print a 16 x 20 with it being awesome from a 3 foot distance ....

and the 3 frames per second works well for you in sports?

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
well i generally print at 8x10 ... but i'd like to be able to at-least print a 16 x 20 with it being awesome from a 3 foot distance ....

and the 3 frames per second works well for you in sports?

Generally it does. I'm shooting youth sports, as well as some dance companies, so the movement is quick.

Haven't done hockey yet... but yea. The FPS of the D100 hasn't been an issue

Though I'm used to shooting with manual focus cameras and no motor drive.

revenuee

Jan 29, 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Generally it does. I'm shooting youth sports, as well as some dance companies, so the movement is quick.

Haven't done hockey yet... but yea. The FPS of the D100 hasn't been an issue

Though I'm used to shooting with manual focus cameras and no motor drive.

well i'll be moving up from an nikon f50 ... with only one frame per second...

and i've been torn between staying with film and getting a better body, or moving to digital all together ... i think at 6.1 i can make that step

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
well i'll be moving up from an nikon f50 ... with only one frame per second...

and i've been torn between staying with film and getting a better body, or moving to digital all together ... i think at 6.1 i can make that step

I'd go with digital, and these would be my lens recommendations:

I'd get the D70 (it has a 144image buffer too, by the way) with the Kit lens, which gives you 28-105 3.5-4.5 as a NICE carry around lens.

I'd also grab the 50mm 1.8 lens.

And if you can swing it (shooting sports? you should!) get the 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. It has HSM (silent wave motor) ED type glass and is comparable to a high end nikon in build quality and image quality. Costs about $650 if you look around.

:)

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 09:53 AM

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/firstlook/nikon/d70/nikon_D70_EN01.html

A nice intro. :)

kettle

Jan 29, 2004, 10:20 AM

wow moxiemike

looks like canon will go bust now you've saved us all from buying a load of rubbish.

Does this other lump of rubbish by nikon actually help you to take a better picture or are you just playing trumps with a few largely irrelevant figures.

Here's a question - would you actually have time to learn the skills needed to take a good picture if you are preoccupied with spliting hairs over brand names?

I think you are just very good at playing top trumps.:)

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by kettle
wow moxiemike

looks like canon will go bust now you've saved us all from buying a load of rubbish.

Does this other lump of rubbish by nikon actually help you to take a better picture or are you just playing trumps with a few largely irrelevant figures.

Here's a question - would you actually have time to learn the skills needed to take a good picture if you are preoccupied with spliting hairs over brand names?

I think you are just very good at playing top trumps.:)

Face it. I've sit down and actually taken pics with both brands. While, and i've said it, the 10d and d100 are virtually the same... the 300d, and more particularly, it's lens, lags behind the other offerings. It's a nice cam for a grand, until the d70 came out.

And yes, I've actually managed to make a good amount of coin from my "piece of rubbish" nikon.

And I don't take pictures. I make pictures. And I probably make them better than you. ;)

It pays to know your gear. And when it's 15° outside, and snowy, I'll spend time reading some stuff, testing some others, and doing design.

That way, when it come time to use the gear (like the corporate portraiture shoot I have later today...i can nail it quickly and efficiently, and make the most of my time.

It's all about knowledge. And yes, there's even more knowledge one should know when buying a Digicam. Just because Canon has a 6mp something or other and a kit lens for a grand, don't assume it's the best around.

I know several people who have fallen pray to that mentality, and now want the D70. I think that one should take the time and research their purchases. I look at it like, if you're gonna buy the Rebel, just get the body and buy a real lens. I don't think the Rebel s rubbish. I just think that Nikon is offering a better value in that range.

And i'm not afraid to pump out the stats that explain things either.

Next time, post something of substance, champer.

CalfCanuck

Jan 29, 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Nikon has "standardized" on the 1.5x image crop as their "DX" standard, probably stemming from engineering difficulties (or just price constraints) in the development of sensors.

as such, they've also developed a NICE series of "DX" lenses, which take into account the 1.5x crop factor:

.... (snip)

I think Nikon has the best strategy with their sensor format and lenses. I don't mind the smaller sensor, as it's easier to engineer. If it gets me 16-22mp (medium format res) some day for 2k i'm sold.

Canon is weird (to me) since they have 1.3x's, 1.6x's and full frame. Plus some odd rebel only lenses, etc.

Sigma's Digital initiative is to be looked at seriously, though the slowness of that lens makes it primarily a landscape lens for me. Though I may get it.

SO the crop factor isn't as big of an issue as it was a year ago. That said, no one ever knows what's happening in the digital world. Hehe
It's interesting how people reach opposite conclusions from the same data. To me, the Nikon strategy of forcing their sensors to standardize around a 1.5 crop doesn't make any sense for those customers who've ALREADY bought into their lenses for 35mm. Of course it okay for new entrants - they can stick to Nikon's current digital standard, and can get away with smaller glass. (although as you not at the end of your post, these NON standard lenses may just be the passing fad)

For those who already have $10,000 worth of Nikon glass, however, it seems total NONSENSE! These users have spent a bundle buying optics that can resolve a certain size image on the film / sensor plate, and Nikons response seems to be - "doesn't matter about that, we'll just throw a bunch of this valuable information away." So Nikon's sensor size doesn't seem driven by the technology, but rather by the marketing or some strategy department. This arbitrary use of 1.5 seems to imply that even if Nikon COULD buy a full frame sensor (MUCH better for all current owners of their lenses) they wouldn't.

Canon's strategy seems MUCH more sense for current system users. They upgrade, and have various sensor models to choose from. Also, it appears that they would introduce the largest sensor that the price / performance point of that particular model would allow. And if you want to get the full performance out of your current lenses, buy the EOS 1Ds.

Finally, a word about the new digital lenses from Nikon, Sigma, and others. These will in fact be good value for the money compared to full size lenses. Because they are designed to produce a smaller image on the sensor plate, they can use smaller optics. Small optics (with quality held constant) will mean smaller prices - take a look at Hasselblad prices if you think 35mm lenses are expensive!

So these new digital product lines are probably is a good thing for new entrants. But everyone must be aware that these are not backwards compatible with 35 mm lenses, and the future is quite interesting and uncertain. If sensor sizes do remain this small, then one should expect to see the older lenses (which still dominate the product lines of makers) disappear, while the smaller lenses become standard. If, on the other hand, new larger sensors arrive soon before these smaller lenses have a large market share, the camera makers might go back to the existing standard (with a HUGE installed base of glass already) and these new lenses will be the eBay specials of 2010.

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
It's interesting how people reach opposite conclusions from the same data. To me, the Nikon strategy of forcing their sensors to standardize around a 1.5 crop doesn't make any sense for those customers who've ALREADY bought into their lenses for 35mm. Of course it okay for new entrants - they can stick to Nikon's current digital standard, and can get away with smaller glass. (although as you not at the end of your post, these NON standard lenses may just be the passing fad)

For those who already have $10,000 worth of Nikon glass, however, it seems total NONSENSE! These users have spent a bundle buying optics that can resolve a certain size image on the film / sensor plate, and Nikons response seems to be - "doesn't matter about that, we'll just throw a bunch of this valuable information away." So Nikon's sensor size doesn't seem driven by the technology, but rather by the marketing or some strategy department. This arbitrary use of 1.5 seems to imply that even if Nikon COULD buy a full frame sensor (MUCH better for all current owners of their lenses) they wouldn't.

Canon's strategy seems MUCH more sense for current system users. They upgrade, and have various sensor models to choose from. Also, it appears that they would introduce the largest sensor that the price / performance point of that particular model would allow. And if you want to get the full performance out of your current lenses, buy the EOS 1Ds.

Finally, a word about the new digital lenses from Nikon, Sigma, and others. These will in fact be good value for the money compared to full size lenses. Because they are designed to produce a smaller image on the sensor plate, they can use smaller optics. Small optics (with quality held constant) will mean smaller prices - take a look at Hasselblad prices if you think 35mm lenses are expensive!

So these new digital product lines are probably is a good thing for new entrants. But everyone must be aware that these are not backwards compatible with 35 mm lenses, and the future is quite interesting and uncertain. If sensor sizes do remain this small, then one should expect to see the older lenses (which still dominate the product lines of makers) disappear, while the smaller lenses become standard. If, on the other hand, new larger sensors arrive soon before these smaller lenses have a large market share, the camera makers might go back to the existing standard (with a HUGE installed base of glass already) and these new lenses will be the eBay specials of 2010.

You make a lot of great points. And yea, I agree completely with the "If, on the other hand, new larger sensors arrive soon before these smaller lenses have a large market share, the camera makers might go back to the existing standard (with a HUGE installed base of glass already) and these new lenses will be the eBay specials of 2010."

That said, I'm still a little wary about Canon overall, after the whole MF lens to AF lens switchover where all the old MF lenses were rendered useless on AF Canons.

One thing, regardless of crop, I have some old MF Nikon lenses (a 135 f2.8, a 20 f.8 and a 50 f1.2) that have been given a mostly new lease on life with my Nikon.

Now they DO play the game a little (the g series fdor sure!) but by and large, there's no big planned obsolescene from Nikon.

On the topic of smaller lenses... i handled the 12-24 the other day. It's MAMMOTH.

Almost as big as the 17-35 f2.8 pro lens.

And it's heavy too.

But it DOES work on any cam that can use G lenses, whether digi or not.

Though you get vignetting at 12mm.

It's still a good performer on an N80 or similar AF nikon.

I think it boils down to Canon being better at marketing and Nikon at engineering.

Canon made the d30, d60 and 10d before getting it right with the 10d.

Nikon in that time released... the D100. Which was better than the d60 and just as good as the 10d.

Plus, I like Nikon's optics better.

But yea. It's a confusing way all around and each manufacturer gives a 6 in one, half dozen in the other type of reasoning.

There's no clear cut winner. Yet.

Counterfit

Jan 29, 2004, 11:43 AM

Did you see my last post? I was serious about taking one of the dusty old worthless 1N's off your hands. :D

Mike: Is that Sigma lens your buddy has the 70-300 DL Macro Super? Because that's the one I have, and it's pretty good, but the AF is noisy and slooooow, heck I can focus faster by hand.

Side note, I noticed some dust inside my Canon 28-80. I have no idea how it got there, but it wasn't there when I bought my Rebel 2k. :mad:

Snowy_River

Jan 29, 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Nope. The lens is 3.5-5.6

And if i'm paying $1000... i don't want "just a camera"

No matter how much you spend, really you're getting "just a camera". It's not the camera that matters, it's the photographer. I've seen some incredible photos that were taken with equipment I would have considered to be junk, but it was a matter of that equipment being in the hands of a master who was familiar with it.

Snowy_River

Jan 29, 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
...That said, I hated the whole Canon UI.... and went to the D100. BUt in any case, yes... if you research your lens choices, you can get great quality for under a grand. ;)

AND i'm a pro on a budget. :)

Say Moxiemike,

It seems like this thread isn't quite properly named. From all of the posts here, it seems that your real beef is with the lens that comes with the Rebel kit, not with the Rebel itself. Except, as indicated by the quote above, that you don't like the Canon UI. That sounds a lot more like brand preference than like the Rebel being "outspeced".

Snowy_River

Jan 29, 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
...The lenses I mentioned are for pros who have tighter budgets, like eyelikeart and I. :)

And like me... although I'm only on the fringe of being a pro...

P.S. I have a lot invested in Canon equipment, and I like the UI. So, when I do go digital, I'll be getting a Canon dSLR.

[Edit] P.S. Added to avoid another consecutive post...

CalfCanuck

Jan 29, 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Plus, I like Nikon's optics better.
You're right on here - the gear drives our choices.

After ages with fixed focal length lenses and my trusty OM-4's (oh do I miss those tiny little babies), plus a brief detour into Nikon land, I shifted to Canon purely for their image stabilization (IS) lenses. All bodies have their strengths and weaknesses, but given my photographic needs I'd never give back those 2 stops that IS gives me just for a different body.

Of course it all depends on the shooter and their environment / needs. Mine is a field situation, where I don't control my subjects, I shoot alone, and I'm constantly on the go. For studio photographers with a PA and a controlled environment, they'd probably laugh at my gear, just as I'd laugh at theirs.

But for me, Canon's IS gear is SWEET!

CalfCanuck

Jan 29, 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Did you see my last post? I was serious about taking one of the dusty old worthless 1N's off your hands. :D
Thanks, but I keep them around as an insurance policy. Actually ran about 10 rolls of film through one last month in Turkey, just for old times sake!

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Say Moxiemike,

It seems like this thread isn't quite properly named. From all of the posts here, it seems that your real beef is with the lens that comes with the Rebel kit, not with the Rebel itself. Except, as indicated by the quote above, that you don't like the Canon UI. That sounds a lot more like brand preference than like the Rebel being "outspeced".

I don't like the Canon UI. That said, if the Rebel was a better specc'd cam than the D100 or 300d i'd pick it. I actually owned the 10d for a week or two. Hated it.

I think my d100 makes better pics that the Rebel and is on par with the 10d.

Do I think the rebel is bad? NOpe. Do I think the Kit lens sucks? Yes. Do I think that Canon's low end offerings are poor? Some are, yes.

And yea. That's the Sigma DL Macro. I have one of those that I keep in my bad as a lightweight telephoto. Love it. The 70-200 kicks it's butt in focusing and qwuality, but it's as heavy as it is more expensive. ;)

All said, the title is justified-- the d70 outspecs the 300d AND the 10d. And the D100, for that matter.

The kit lens outspecs the Canon's.

And seriously, I think some of the hype on The rebel isn't deserved. The image quality from ISO 400+ is 50/50, depending on what you're shooting.

That and their RAW files (which I just got into with a friend) are noisier still than the D100 or 10d....

BUt that said, they're all nice cameras, really. The nikon offerings are, IMHO, better. :)

revenuee

Jan 29, 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I'd go with digital, and these would be my lens recommendations:

I'd get the D70 (it has a 144image buffer too, by the way) with the Kit lens, which gives you 28-105 3.5-4.5 as a NICE carry around lens.

I'd also grab the 50mm 1.8 lens.

And if you can swing it (shooting sports? you should!) get the 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. It has HSM (silent wave motor) ED type glass and is comparable to a high end nikon in build quality and image quality. Costs about $650 if you look around.

:)

acctually i was looking at

picking up the 50 - 500mm Sigma EX lens for sports ... i tested this lens out with a f100 a few months ago ... .wow ... unreal

Moxiemike

Jan 29, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
acctually i was looking at

picking up the 50 - 500mm Sigma EX lens for sports ... i tested this lens out with a f100 a few months ago ... .wow ... unreal

Awesome lens.

Now, you GOTTA love that on a D70 it becomes a 75-750. That's SICK

and at 500 your prolly around f5.6

Sweet.

I probably should have gotten that one but I like the f2.8 of the Sigma 70-200.

man. Sigma is doing some GOOD things with lenses.

BTW, found out the Shutter lag on the D70 is 100ms.... on the D2h it's 37ms, which, again, is SICK.

And the d70 is 3fps, which is the same spec as the F100 without the motor drive battery pack grip thingie.

Counterfit

Jan 29, 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
Thanks, but I keep them around as an insurance policy. Actually ran about 10 rolls of film through one last month in Turkey, just for old times sake! BOTH of them?

P.S. I have a lot invested in Canon equipment, and I like the UI. So, when I do go digital, I'll be getting a Canon dSLR. Exactly. Well, "a lot" is relative here, but around $400 is too much for me to spend on Nikon stuff PLUS the body.

Lincoln

Jan 29, 2004, 04:25 PM

I've still got my trusty Canon EOS D30, I bought it when Digital SLR's were still quite expensive £1850 I seem to remember (although I got the excellent 550EX free on a special rebate that Canon did).

I purchased this camera so that I could continue to use my existing Canon glass.

I have never regretted purchasing this camera and have got some (and still do get) excellent photos from it.

I know that many people upgraded from the D30 to the D60 and then the 10D. Now while each of these cameras offer newer features, higher resolution, better AF, etc, etc, I still get great pictures from my D30.

The trouble is that many users of these camera users (I won't call them photographers) will keep upgrading for the sake of having the latest and greatest camera not because they NEED the newer features.

NOTE: Just to balance this out there are equally a number of photographers who have upgraded because they actually need the new features.

I know that the D30 is only 3MP and the newer ones are 6MP but I don't NEED that high a resolution.

I apologise if I have upset anyone with this post but that's just the way I feel.

kettle

Jan 30, 2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
And I don't take pictures. I make pictures. And I probably make them better than you. ;)

...the essence of the whole thread, my pinhole camera is made from a tin x inches longer than your pinhole camera.

Tools are very important, but the tool holding the camera is the most important thing. Our methods for capturing moments will change in the future and this discussion will be like asking which size brush is best for painting silver nitrate plates with.

Next time, post something of substance, champer.

Well, in a similar light, I would say "My dad's got a bigger gun than your dad."

Cheer up poppet! :)

CalfCanuck

Jan 30, 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
BOTH of them?
Well, I actually got rid of a third film body (my backup) as I'm moved to digital. (5t was an EOS 3 - I was experimenting to se if I liked the eye focus feature, and I hated it).

Problem is what to do with equipment that has depreciated but still has some potential use. For me, it's a business, so I tend to hold onto gear until their values are pretty low. If one gets in a bind and has to rent gear ($$$ - ouch), you always kick yourself for letting old gear go.

With computers it's more a problem. Like many others here, I've bought about 30-40 Macs and PC's over the years. My first was the original Mac (Happy Birthday!). But I've only sold one or two of those - the rest slowly became worthless, and after they reach $100-200 I find it hard to sell them, as the buyer would do better to spend a bit more and get a better box. So I give them away, to schools, relatives, friends, Salvaion Army, etc.

eBay has made things a little easier that the old expensive (and not too successful) classified ads in the local paper. But I'm not a big believer in most "garage sales" - people are just selling you THEIR garbage. I know, some people love going to these and sorting through all this crap and finding a bargain - I'm just not one of those people. Used computer (and camera) sales are often the same, and even on eBay I find people spend too much on some used gear.

I have sold some more valuable things on eBay - the EOS3, the D30, and a Tascam DAT player I no longer used. But for the cheaper photo stuff, I just give it to a friend who teaches photography at a local high school. The kids are stoked (he teachs in a poor district) and new people learn about photography.

CalfCanuck

Jan 30, 2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Lincoln
I have never regretted purchasing this camera and have got some (and still do get) excellent photos from it.

I know that many people upgraded from the D30 to the D60 and then the 10D. Now while each of these cameras offer newer features, higher resolution, better AF, etc, etc, I still get great pictures from my D30.

The trouble is that many users of these camera users (I won't call them photographers) will keep upgrading for the sake of having the latest and greatest camera not because they NEED the newer features.

I know that the D30 is only 3MP and the newer ones are 6MP but I don't NEED that high a resolution.
SPOT ON! The D30 is a great little number. Read my post on the first page about how that camera won me over to digital.

In the same post I talk about how people get obsessed with pixel counts but underestimate their "glass". They talk about higher resolution sensors but forget that it's the optics that resolve the image onto the film plate / sensor.

While it's better to have more pixels "with other things equal", in the real word all things are NOT equal. I've always maintained that a D30 with good glass is better that a newer model with cheaper glass. Plus, when one finally upgrades to the 2008 year model, your glass travels with you. (Not to mention the greater user control on the D30 than the 300D / Rebel).

As for the bigger is better nonsense, I guess all photographers should sell their 35mm and buy medium format. And all medium format users should sell their cameras and get 4x5 cameras. And all 4x5 users should sell those and get 8x10 cameras. And...

revenuee

Jan 30, 2004, 09:09 AM

I'm sold ...

i've got the money ready all nikon needs to do now is ship it to us.

the reality is ... the cost of high quality film stock, and taking it to a lab for processing has been prohibitive for me in really experimenting with framing and lighting conditions.

being that i already have nikon mount glass, the logical step seems like i should go with nikon.

the cost of the D70 set-up is a nice price ... and i can still afford to upgrade to some good glass for the price.

like the other posters have said ... the tool is not as important as user ... but in this case the new tool will allow the user to continue doing what he does.

Moxiemike

Jan 30, 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
I'm sold ...

i've got the money ready all nikon needs to do now is ship it to us.

the reality is ... the cost of high quality film stock, and taking it to a lab for processing has been prohibitive for me in really experimenting with framing and lighting conditions.

being that i already have nikon mount glass, the logical step seems like i should go with nikon.

the cost of the D70 set-up is a nice price ... and i can still afford to upgrade to some good glass for the price.

like the other posters have said ... the tool is not as important as user ... but in this case the new tool will allow the user to continue doing what he does.

You got it right about the tool and the user.

I gotta say though, I think you'll dig the D70 and it's feature set. Put some good nikon glass... and BOOM!

Who are you using for reprints? I have an interesting (if you didn't know about it) recommendation... lemme know if you want it.

m

revenuee

Jan 30, 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
You got it right about the tool and the user.

I gotta say though, I think you'll dig the D70 and it's feature set. Put some good nikon glass... and BOOM!

Who are you using for reprints? I have an interesting (if you didn't know about it) recommendation... lemme know if you want it.

m recommendations?

sure always ... i've taken it to a few pro labs ... and wasn't 100% satisfied ... i found i get the best results from Blacks' a chain of photo processing labs ... the location i go to i have a friend that works there and takes all his wedding work to process for himself ... and he's set up the machines to really get a top notch print result ...

but i'm open for suggestions ... but remember i'm in Canada so we might have different places

Moxiemike

Jan 30, 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
recommendations?

sure always ... i've taken it to a few pro labs ... and wasn't 100% satisfied ... i found i get the best results from Blacks' a chain of photo processing labs ... the location i go to i have a friend that works there and takes all his wedding work to process for himself ... and he's set up the machines to really get a top notch print result ...

but i'm open for suggestions ... but remember i'm in Canada so we might have different places

Shutterfly.com actually has GREAT prints and some awesome capabilities for ecommerce reprinting. Check it out on their page

evoluzione

Jan 30, 2004, 11:10 AM

thanks guys for clearing up my ccd/cmos issue :)

Moxie ... the lens that comes with the rebel cannot be used on anything right? but other canon lens can be used with the rebel... i think in an earlier post you said something about using the rebel lens on another back...

and me, personally, am gonna stick it out for canon's 10d replacement :)

Moxiemike

Jan 30, 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by evoluzione
thanks guys for clearing up my ccd/cmos issue :)

Moxie ... the lens that comes with the rebel cannot be used on anything right? but other canon lens can be used with the rebel... i think in an earlier post you said something about using the rebel lens on another back...

and me, personally, am gonna stick it out for canon's 10d replacement :)

I might have... but no. The kit lens can on be used on the rebel. But the rebel can take any lens.

I'd just grab that 1d MK II. :) Only $4500!

evoluzione

Jan 30, 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I'd just grab that 1d MK II. :) Only $4500!

i were just looking at that...if i had the $4g (i'm sure broadway photo in brooklyn will have it for around 4 even) i'd get it for sure, could even rent that sucker out too, get some cash back on it...

hmm...

Moxiemike

Jan 30, 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by evoluzione
i were just looking at that...if i had the $4g (i'm sure broadway photo in brooklyn will have it for around 4 even) i'd get it for sure, could even rent that sucker out too, get some cash back on it...

hmm...

bh and adorama do a rent to own dealie.

That cam.... is SWEET

I'm just waiting to see what happens with the D2x... might be my next purchase.

kodiecap

Jan 30, 2004, 11:42 AM

Its great that nikon and the D70 are giving the market a push in the right direction. I believe it will sell allot to many people especially people that are on the fence to go to DSLR. My only concerns are..

Does the D70 have a battery pack grip extender? Some people don't need the extra battery life but in fact actually need a grip like I.Also I heard that it doesn't even have a Metal subframe. I wonder how if would feel in my hands. Only time will tell. To be quite honest tell you the truth I don't think I will buy one but am glad it's being released.

jelloshotsrule

Jan 30, 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Shutterfly.com actually has GREAT prints and some awesome capabilities for ecommerce reprinting. Check it out on their page

sweetness. cool borders and other options. can't hurt to sign up and get 15 freebies eh?

i had been using snapfish... just ordered my free 13 prints so ill see how they come out.

question about these types of places in general... when you order a larger print (ie, 8x10+), how does it come to you? i guess in some form that protects it quite well eh? haven't found a picture yet that i want that big, but i'm sure it'll happen eventually...

Moxiemike

Jan 30, 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
sweetness. cool borders and other options. can't hurt to sign up and get 15 freebies eh?

i had been using snapfish... just ordered my free 13 prints so ill see how they come out.

question about these types of places in general... when you order a larger print (ie, 8x10+), how does it come to you? i guess in some form that protects it quite well eh? haven't found a picture yet that i want that big, but i'm sure it'll happen eventually...

Very sturdy envelopes. and you get 'em in like, 3 days

ipoddin

Jan 30, 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Shutterfly.com actually has GREAT prints and some awesome capabilities for ecommerce reprinting. Check it out on their page

I've been using dotphoto.com (http://www.dotphoto.com) for about 2 years and have had excellent results. Top quality printing and some of the cheapest prices on the net. It's a free service but if you pay $4.99/month your prices drop (a 4"x6" is now just $.19). Plus they add free 4"x6" prints to your account each month. You can then also set prices for others to reprint and dotphoto will cut you a check for the difference.

Anyway, I've been an Olympus E-10 user for two years and think the D70 is finally the camera to get me to upgrade.

jelloshotsrule

Jan 30, 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Very sturdy envelopes. and you get 'em in like, 3 days

nice. how much does an 8x10 run?

Moxiemike

Jan 30, 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
nice. how much does an 8x10 run?

$3.99 i think

I get a discount for buying web hosting for "professional" reprinting.

So for me it's like, $2

jelloshotsrule

Jan 30, 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
$3.99 i think

I get a discount for buying web hosting for "professional" reprinting.

So for me it's like, $2

not bad.

i'll get in touch with you so i can use your account for discount prints... hahah

where's my hot dog pictures?!?!? ;)

revenuee

Jan 30, 2004, 07:51 PM

Oh wow ... i'm get robbed blind here in Canada on photo prices

the D70 at my local pro dealer is estimated to be 1600 CND ... compare that to 999$ american .. after conversion is still about 1300 ... so 300 more ... not to mention that your taxes are less

i've been looking at prices for lenses aswell some of these lenses are almost 40 % more even after conversation

looks like i'm going to be ordering my toys online from now on

revenuee

Jan 30, 2004, 08:50 PM

Sorry to double post ... but here is the set up i've decided to go for ...

Nikon D70
Sigma 24- 70 mm 2.8 EX
Sigma 12-24 mm 4.5 - 5.6 EX or Sigma 17 - 35 mm 2.8 - 4 EX
Sigma 105 mm Macro EX
Sigma 50- 500 mm 4 - 6.3 EX

i really like Sigma EX glass ... i find it comparable to Nikon Pro glass for a lot less money (even though i've made a little money, i still consider myself very much amateur)

My question is more or less if anyone has any opinions on any of this gear, or wants to suggest alternatives .. i'm happy to listen

kodiecap

Jan 31, 2004, 01:15 AM

I would wait till the D70 is in the hands of others before deciding on it. Though i doubt Nikon would pull a Sony..828.. ie. dpreviews sony forums section.

But it might be worth your while to get a D100 for around 900 or less after the d70 is released. After all the D100 will continue to take the same great pictures for years to come. With all these cost effective designs coming out.. something has to be traded off. well usually.

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
Sorry to double post ... but here is the set up i've decided to go for ...

Nikon D70
Sigma 24- 70 mm 2.8 EX
Sigma 12-24 mm 4.5 - 5.6 EX or Sigma 17 - 35 mm 2.8 - 4 EX
Sigma 105 mm Macro EX
Sigma 50- 500 mm 4 - 6.3 EX

i really like Sigma EX glass ... i find it comparable to Nikon Pro glass for a lot less money (even though i've made a little money, i still consider myself very much amateur)

My question is more or less if anyone has any opinions on any of this gear, or wants to suggest alternatives .. i'm happy to listen

You've made two EXCELLENT choices in the 105mm Macro and the 50-500 zoom. That 105 macro is sharper than sharp. it's an incredible value. I'd have also added a nikon or sigma 50mm prime to the list, but that's just me.

The 17-35 2.8-4 has seen some weird reviewing. I know the 15-30 3.5-4.5 has gotten some excellent reviews, and samples i've seen have been killer. My nikon 18-35 is amazing too. And in the price range. You might want to look into one of those as opposed to the 17-35 sigma... check the reviews section on www.fredmiranda.com

I definitely want to know your thoughts on the sigma 12-24 when you get it. That's my next possible purchase. So i'm VERY curious. :)

The 24-70 is also a very solid performer but big and heavy. Then again, compared to the 50-500.....it'll feel light as a feather.

I think overall you made some killer lens choices. the 105mm gives you a nice, fast telephoto prime for fast shooting, that 50-500 is gonna do you well in the sports realm, and with possible exception of the 17-35, your wide angle choices basically give you full coverage, from 18mm all the way to 750! Wow.

I'm also curious as to your experience with the D70. My buddy is gonna trade his rebel in on one, so it should be interesting to see the differences. He's psyched, just because he gets to use my glass now. Heh.

Good luck with that purchase!

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
You've made two EXCELLENT choices in the 105mm Macro and the 50-500 zoom. That 105 macro is sharper than sharp. it's an incredible value. I'd have also added a nikon or sigma 50mm prime to the list, but that's just me.

The 17-35 2.8-4 has seen some weird reviewing. I know the 15-30 3.5-4.5 has gotten some excellent reviews, and samples i've seen have been killer. My nikon 18-35 is amazing too. And in the price range. You might want to look into one of those as opposed to the 17-35 sigma... check the reviews section on www.fredmiranda.com

I definitely want to know your thoughts on the sigma 12-24 when you get it. That's my next possible purchase. So i'm VERY curious. :)

The 24-70 is also a very solid performer but big and heavy. Then again, compared to the 50-500.....it'll feel light as a feather.

I think overall you made some killer lens choices. the 105mm gives you a nice, fast telephoto prime for fast shooting, that 50-500 is gonna do you well in the sports realm, and with possible exception of the 17-35, your wide angle choices basically give you full coverage, from 18mm all the way to 750! Wow.

I'm also curious as to your experience with the D70. My buddy is gonna trade his rebel in on one, so it should be interesting to see the differences. He's psyched, just because he gets to use my glass now. Heh.

Good luck with that purchase!

well i've been reading good things about that 12 - 24 ... i mean at 12 mm unless you purchase a very expensive rectilinear lens ... minor distortions are to be expected at the edges but since the D70 with it's 1.5 will crop the edges anyway so thats less to worry about ... i've read great reviews of it .... i want the 12 - 24 over the 17 - 35 for the same reason since once i throw it on the D70 ( or any nikon DSLR i'm going to automatically go up in vocal length equivalency. it's a little more money ... but i think it's worth it for the wider lens.

as far as wieght well it might be a pit of a sturggle on hikes ... but my biggest enjoyment is photographing wild life an flowers and incects so that 750 mm and that 150 mm Macro (after 1.5 crop) will be awsome for stacking those easily spooked birds and mammals.

i did a run on pricing for all this

the 105 , 12 - 24, 2 4 - 70 and 50 - 500 along with the D70 body and got a price of 3360$ .... i currently have 2300 put away for a major purchase like this so i think i'm going to go with the body and the 105 and 12 - 24 at first because i already have a 35 -80 and 100 - 300 that i use ... but these are low quaility glass so i want to upgrade those ... but i want the range first

thanks for your advice man

i also wantedd to add that after throwing some numbers around i discovered that if i buy all this in the US like i plan to i save 1234.34 CND ... thats like 800$ USD ... thats money i can put to some other major purchase.

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
well i've been reading good things about that 12 - 24 ... i mean at 12 mm unless you purchase a very expensive rectilinear lens ... minor distortions are to be expected at the edges but since the D70 with it's 1.5 will crop the edges anyway so thats less to worry about ... i've read great reviews of it .... i want the 12 - 24 over the 17 - 35 for the same reason since once i throw it on the D70 ( or any nikon DSLR i'm going to automatically go up in vocal length equivalency. it's a little more money ... but i think it's worth it for the wider lens.

as far as wieght well it might be a pit of a sturggle on hikes ... but my biggest enjoyment is photographing wild life an flowers and incects so that 750 mm and that 150 mm Macro (after 1.5 crop) will be awsome for stacking those easily spooked birds and mammals.

i did a run on pricing for all this

the 105 , 12 - 24, 2 4 - 70 and 50 - 500 along with the D70 body and got a price of 3360$ .... i currently have 2300 put away for a major purchase like this so i think i'm going to go with the body and the 105 and 12 - 24 at first because i already have a 35 -80 and 100 - 300 that i use ... but these are low quaility glass so i want to upgrade those ... but i want the range first

thanks for your advice man

i also wantedd to add that after throwing some numbers around i discovered that if i buy all this in the US like i plan to i save 1234.34 CND ... thats like 800$ USD ... thats money i can put to some other major purchase.

Just noticed:

12-24 with 1.5 crop = 18-36
17-35 with 1.5 crop = 27-53
24-70 with 1.5 crop = 36-105

You really don't need the coverage of the middle lens in that case, unless you're planning on using it on a film body. But that duplication... i'd just get the 12-24 and 24-70 and be done with that range, maybe do a 50mm prime ($100 USD for the nikon) and have a sweet setup there.

That 12--24 doesn;'t need to be "fast" in that you'll mostly do landscapes, and the 24-70 is fast at 2.8 and a good performer. The 50mm becomes a nice low light lense, and compliments your 105 for nice low weight setup (just take those two out sometime!) and your big "sports shooting" lens... you're covered.

Spend the 17-35mm money on, say, and SB-800dx flash! :D

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Just noticed:

12-24 with 1.5 crop = 18-36
17-35 with 1.5 crop = 27-53
24-70 with 1.5 crop = 36-105

You really don't need the coverage of the middle lens in that case, unless you're planning on using it on a film body. But that duplication... i'd just get the 12-24 and 24-70 and be done with that range, maybe do a 50mm prime ($100 USD for the nikon) and have a sweet setup there.

That 12--24 doesn;'t need to be "fast" in that you'll mostly do landscapes, and the 24-70 is fast at 2.8 and a good performer. The 50mm becomes a nice low light lense, and compliments your
105 for nice low weight setup (just take those two out sometime!) and your big "sports shooting" lens... you're covered.

Spend the 17-35mm money on, say, and SB-800dx flash! :D

well acctually it was between the 12 - 24 and the 17- 35 ... not both ... i wanted one or the other and decided that i'll go with the 12 - 24 for more wide angle range.

and i wanted to add something

http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/gallery/D70/D70_gallery.html#

this has some nice shots taken with the D70

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
well acctually it was between the 12 - 24 and the 17- 35 ... not both ... i wanted one or the other and decided that i'll go with the 12 - 24 for more wide angle range.

and i wanted to add something

http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/gallery/D70/D70_gallery.html#

this has some nice shots taken with the D70

Yea. More impressive to me is the performance of the Nikon 12-24mm....Could make me wanna buy that one, and sell my 18-35.....

AND it's AF-s too though a bit slowish

Mwahahahaaaa.

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Yea. More impressive to me is the performance of the Nikon 12-24mm....Could make me wanna buy that one, and sell my 18-35.....

AND it's AF-s too though a bit slowish

Mwahahahaaaa.

where do you go to find low prices for your glass

so far i've been looking at B&H photo ... but when i read review and see the "piad" i notice the people get really good prices on their equipment .... enlighten me please ... i'm tired of over paying

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 02:38 PM

one other thing ...

i which is the better lens ... the 24 - 70 EX or the 28 - 70 EX ?

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
one other thing ...

i which is the better lens ... the 24 - 70 EX or the 28 - 70 EX ?

People seem to like the 24-70 better than the 28-70 sigma. Looks like the 28-70 is discontinued.

Have you looked at the Nikon 24-85G lens? It's a bit slower at f3.5-4.5 but is INCREDIBLY sharp and is around $300 after a $50 rebate.

USD of course. ;)

BH is VERY good, and the prices are great, you could even buy the import Nikon stuff and save...as you won't be covered by a US warranty anyway.

At that point, i think the 24-85 nikon is around $309 either US warranty or import.

The 24-85 has been a great performer for me, and has the AF-s (similar to sigma's HSM). REALLY sharp pics... as sharp as the Nikon 28-70 f2.8!

A sample of the 24-85

http://homepage.mac.com/moxiemike/.Pictures/lr_list.jpg

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 03:30 PM

nice pic

but the one thing about the sigma is that they are slightly faster lenses ... i travel quite a bit with my camera and i'm in church's/buildings where flash is not permitted.

thoughts?

EDIT : then again shooting from a tripod or even a unipod is the way i should work ... not to mention that i should be using a a smaller aperture to get more detail ...

i guess i answered my own question ...

hmm ... i must say though the 15-30 seems to get me interested

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
nice pic

but the one thing about the sigma is that they are slightly faster lenses ... i travel quite a bit with my camera and i'm in church's/buildings where flash is not permitted.

thoughts?

Ah. Yes. That makes total sense. So you'd need the faster aperture used in conjunction with say, iSO 800 or something.

I'd say you might be better off with the fast sigma zoom.

I might get say, a cheapish (the nikon or sigma 24-XX) midrange zoom, not spending more than $300 on it and couple it with say, a 35mm f2.0, 50mm 1.8 and 85 f1.8 from Nikon for the speed. The 50 and 35 could fit in your pockets!

Then use the zoom for all purpose shooting and snapshot type stuff.....

andrewh

Jan 31, 2004, 03:40 PM

Yeah, I agree with you. MoxieMike has some insecurities about his decision to go with Nikon and feels the need to prove it to everyone how much better Nikon is than Canon. When the 300D first came out he had a serious case of "Canon Envy" and was posting in other threads what a lousy deal it was. Saying that this new Nikon will "blow it away" is just laughable.

I'm not going to obsess over the specs and analyze everything. The proof is in the photography. I take fantastic photos with my 300D and all my AF lenses. It's just silly to put down what Canon did with a sub $1000 digital SLR.

Nikon make fantastic cameras. Maybe better than Canon, I really don't know or care. At our level, spending a couple grand for a body and lenses, it's just ridiculous to debate which is a better make. I say get out there and take some pictures and be happy with your purchases. You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. They're both really that good.

Originally posted by kettle
...the essence of the whole thread, my pinhole camera is made from a tin x inches longer than your pinhole camera.

Tools are very important, but the tool holding the camera is the most important thing. Our methods for capturing moments will change in the future and this discussion will be like asking which size brush is best for painting silver nitrate plates with.

Well, in a similar light, I would say "My dad's got a bigger gun than your dad."

Cheer up poppet! :)

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Ah. Yes. That makes total sense. So you'd need the faster aperture used in conjunction with say, iSO 800 or something.

I'd say you might be better off with the fast sigma zoom.

I might get say, a cheapish (the nikon or sigma 24-XX) midrange zoom, not spending more than $300 on it and couple it with say, a 35mm f2.0, 50mm 1.8 and 85 f1.8 from Nikon for the speed. The 50 and 35 could fit in your pockets!

Then use the zoom for all purpose shooting and snapshot type stuff.....

well i already have the Nikon 35 - 80mm 4 - 5.6 ... seems logical to keep it as an all purpose in that equation

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by andrewh
Yeah, I agree with you. MoxieMike has some insecurities about his decision to go with Nikon and feels the need to prove it to everyone how much better Nikon is than Canon. When the 300D first came out he had a serious case of "Canon Envy" and was posting in other threads what a lousy deal it was. Saying that this new Nikon will "blow it away" is just laughable.

I'm not going to obsess over the specs and analyze everything. The proof is in the photography. I take fantastic photos with my 300D and all my AF lenses. It's just silly to put down what Canon did with a sub $1000 digital SLR.

Nikon make fantastic cameras. Maybe better than Canon, I really don't know or care. At our level, spending a couple grand for a body and lenses, it's just ridiculous to debate which is a better make. I say get out there and take some pictures and be happy with your purchases. You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. They're both really that good.

Actually, you're wrong. I posted a review of the 300d that was very favourable, thought since i've realized major issues with the lens.

That said, the canon's semi-por DSLRS all seem to suffer from focusing issues, and if you go out on a pro job, they often seem to prevent you from completing the job.

I like my Nikon because the image quality is comparable to the best cam's out there, and the focusing is dead on. Always.

That and the build of the Nikon is higher than the 300d and similar to the 10d and it makes me "forget' that I'm using it. It's transparent, and allows me, as a photographer, to worry abotu the image.

Too many people I know who have canons complain of front focusing and back focusing, of issues with the rebel's kit lens, of build quality issues (someone put a canon 70-200 lens on the rebel and it pulled the lens mount off!), and general lack of quality at ISO 1600 to make me realize how much my nikon allows me to forget it is there and just take pics!

I know one Canon shooter who I often go out with who bellyaches consistently about his rebel's inability to focus properly.

I'm not bashing canon, but rather reporting things that i've seen from other's experiences.

Seems like Canon just releases camera after camera after camera and never gets them right, whereas Nikon releases one here and there that is spot on!

I know a buncg of people who shoot Nikon stuff and we rarely talk about gear... just about the pics we've made.

And yes, some very knowledgeable people all throughout the net are saying how the d70 will blow away the rebel AND maybe even the 10d and d100!

1/500 flash sync makes it VERY viable for Photojournalists, 144 frame buffer makes it nice for sports, it has Flash Exposure compensation, it's got iso from 200-6400, 1/8000 top shutter speed, 6mp sensor....all for a $100 more than the Rebel.

Any somewhat serious shooter should realize that 1/500 flash sync is almost reason by itself to spend the extra $100 on the d70 over the rebel as 1/500 flash sync is a feature generally preserved for high end pro cameras!

Nikon really did a great job on this camera, and yes, it does blow away the 300d pound for pound. Does that make the 300d a crappy cam? No. Does it mean the 300d has some major shortcomings? Yes. lack of FEC was one that cropped up.

The front/back focusing issues is another. It's poor servo mode makes sports shooting VERY hard. (something all the soccer mom and dad's bought this for)

It's a fine camera. It's just got some serious shortcomings. Nikon's new offering kicks it's pants up and down, and basically obsoletes the D100 and 10D as well!

Would I trade my D100? Nope. Simply because I've got it paid off and would probably end up with a D2x or even a1ds mk II if it comes out with an affordable price.

But yea, I think the 300d is a nice point and shoot cam. Is it a serious amateur/semi pro's tool? No way.

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
well i already have the Nikon 35 - 80mm 4 - 5.6 ... seems logical to keep it as an all purpose in that equation

Then by all means, perhaps, skip the Sigma 24-70, get a wide angle (the 12-24 is nice in this case) and get a 50mm 1.8 prime!

The Nikon 28mm F2.8 is CHEAP now ($190 after rebate) and the 50mm is 90 bucks!

that gives you:

12-24 = 18-36
28 = 42 at f.28
50 = 75 at f.28
105 = 155 f2.8
and your
50-500

That's a great (and LIGHT) lens selection! (save for the 50-500) and keep that nikon 35-80 as your nice light shooter for street shots.

;)

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Then by all means, perhaps, skip the Sigma 24-70, get a wide angle (the 12-24 is nice in this case) and get a 50mm 1.8 prime!

The Nikon 28mm F2.8 is CHEAP now ($190 after rebate) and the 50mm is 90 bucks!

that gives you:

12-24 = 18-36
28 = 42 at f.28
50 = 75 at f.28
105 = 155 f2.8
and your
50-500

That's a great (and LIGHT) lens selection! (save for the 50-500) and keep that nikon 35-80 as your nice light shooter for street shots.

;)

ya i think that seems the ideal solution

but i found the nikon 50mm 1.4 just now at a local store ... that 1.4 seems like it would be the way to go for those dark shots even better then the 1.8

andrewh

Jan 31, 2004, 05:14 PM

Well, you can certainly back up your opinion which is good. You're definitely way into photography, much more than I am.

And like I said, you might even be right. But I'm still skeptical there is as much of a divide in technical specs and performance between Nikon and Canon as you claim. All I know is I'm taking amazing pictures with my Rebel and I can't find anything to complain about it. Hmmm, this is starting to remind me of the Mac vs. PC threads. But then that is an easy one....

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Actually, you're wrong. I posted a review of the 300d that was very favourable, thought since i've realized major issues with the lens.

That said, the canon's semi-por DSLRS all seem to suffer from focusing issues, and if you go out on a pro job, they often seem to prevent you from completing the job.

(stuff deleted)

But yea, I think the 300d is a nice point and shoot cam. Is it a serious amateur/semi pro's tool? No way.

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
ya i think that seems the ideal solution

but i found the nikon 50mm 1.4 just now at a local store ... that 1.4 seems like it would be the way to go for those dark shots even better then the 1.8

I went through that dilemma myself and in the end couldn't justify $200 more for 1 stop.

At that point I just would rather pump up the ISO a little more. ;)

I've read some reports where people claim the 1.4 is reall bad wide open, and is less sharp than the 1.8 is at 1.8 so I think the 1.8 might be a better performer.

At a third of the cost. :)

That said, i can't see the 1.4 being a bad lens or a bad investment.

mstecker

Jan 31, 2004, 05:30 PM

between either this, a 10D, or the new

Leica Digilux 2 (http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux2/index_e.html)

I have a bunch of Canon lenses, which speaks to getting a 10D, but my lifestyle has become such that I use my SLR mostly at home, and on the rare targeted-photo-taking opportunity. It's just too much to carry around.

I'm thinking that the Leica strikes a nice balance between size, optics, and features.

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I went through that dilemma myself and in the end couldn't justify $200 more for 1 stop.

At that point I just would rather pump up the ISO a little more. ;)

I've read some reports where people claim the 1.4 is reall bad wide open, and is less sharp than the 1.8 is at 1.8 so I think the 1.8 might be a better performer.

At a third of the cost. :)

That said, i can't see the 1.4 being a bad lens or a bad investment.

thats a good point ... so you don't think i'll be disappointed with sharpness/contrast/color wise with the 1.8 version?

Snowy_River

Jan 31, 2004, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
...I know one Canon shooter who I often go out with who bellyaches consistently about his rebel's inability to focus properly.

I'm not bashing canon, but rather reporting things that i've seen from other's experiences.

Seems like Canon just releases camera after camera after camera and never gets them right, whereas Nikon releases one here and there that is spot on!

I know a buncg of people who shoot Nikon stuff and we rarely talk about gear... just about the pics we've made....

You seem to consistently say that you're not bashing Canon, only to turn around and bash Canon.

I've used several Nikon cameras, and I haven't been overly impressed. I've also known some people who spend time grousing about issues they've had with their Nikons before switching to a different brand. It was even based partially on these and reviews I read that made me choose Canon when I first started buying my gear.

While my experience has not extended to the dSLRs at this point, I take my experience with film SLRs quite seriously. And I have to believe that a companies capability with film SLRs have a bearing on their dSLR lines.

Simply saying that your experience is good and you've known people that have had bad experiences with Canon doesn't make it gospel. Hey, I know someone who had a terrible experience with Apple computers and customer service. Does that mean that Apples are bad computers?

I guess I'm just trying to say that I'd ask you to own your opinion as your opinion, and not try to expound on how it is absolute truth.

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
thats a good point ... so you don't think i'll be disappointed with sharpness/contrast/color wise with the 1.8 version?

I don't. Although I haven't really tried the 1.4

Actually, Cameta Camera has some mint used 1.8's for $58. You can't beat that!

Cameta is GREAT to buy from used and has good cutsom service and returns. I think it's cameta.com

Here's a 50mm sample or two:

http://homepage.mac.com/moxiemike/.Pictures/karlpaints/lr_km.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/moxiemike/.Pictures/karlpaints/lr_drip.jpg

Hope this all helps man!

by the way.. those are both ISO 800 pics!

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
You seem to consistently say that you're not bashing Canon, only to turn around and bash Canon.

I've used several Nikon cameras, and I haven't been overly impressed. I've also known some people who spend time grousing about issues they've had with their Nikons before switching to a different brand. It was even based partially on these and reviews I read that made me choose Canon when I first started buying my gear.

While my experience has not extended to the dSLRs at this point, I take my experience with film SLRs quite seriously. And I have to believe that a companies capability with film SLRs have a bearing on their dSLR lines.

Simply saying that your experience is good and you've known people that have had bad experiences with Canon doesn't make it gospel. Hey, I know someone who had a terrible experience with Apple computers and customer service. Does that mean that Apples are bad computers?

I guess I'm just trying to say that I'd ask you to own your opinion as your opinion, and not try to expound on how it is absolute truth.

I never said it was absolute truth, save for the stats of the d70 beating the 300d, which IS absolute truth!

On paper, pound for pound the D100 and 10d are similar, the 300d lags far behind them and the d70 beats all three.

From what i've seen, Canon's products aren't as high quality as they seem on the consumer end (the 10d and 300d)

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I don't. Although I haven't really tried the 1.4

Actually, Cameta Camera has some mint used 1.8's for $58. You can't beat that!

Cameta is GREAT to buy from used and has good cutsom service and returns. I think it's cameta.com

Here's a 50mm sample or two:

Hope this all helps man!

oh wow ... those are nice

thank you very much moxiemike ... you have been a huge help

Moxiemike

Jan 31, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
oh wow ... those are nice

thank you very much moxiemike ... you have been a huge help

No problem. Just remember to post your first impressions of that 12-24 and the D70 so i know if i should buy one of each. :D

revenuee

Jan 31, 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
No problem. Just remember to post your first impressions of that 12-24 and the D70 so i know if i should buy one of each. :D

well i'm going to down to Florida in about 2 weeks and i'm going to pick up the 12-24 and the 105 then .... and then hold on and wait for the D70 body when ever it should grace us with its arrival

so i'll let you know what i think of the 12 - 24 probably in the next 3 weeks

revenuee

Feb 2, 2004, 11:05 PM

I don't really want to start a new thread for this so i'll just post it hear ... cause i was wondering if you could help me out Moxiemike

now i know the D70 has a different CCD then the D100 ... i was curious if you could help me out non the less

i've been looking at comparing the fine,normal, and basic settings of the D100 ... as well as they're corresponding L,M, or S settings

any where i could find test shots of each setting? -- preferably of the same thing

Moxiemike

Feb 3, 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
I don't really want to start a new thread for this so i'll just post it hear ... cause i was wondering if you could help me out Moxiemike

now i know the D70 has a different CCD then the D100 ... i was curious if you could help me out non the less

i've been looking at comparing the fine,normal, and basic settings of the D100 ... as well as they're corresponding L,M, or S settings

any where i could find test shots of each setting? -- preferably of the same thing

DPreview.com should have them.

I'll tell you this: you'll want to toggle between 2 settings, as far as quality goes: RAW and JPG fine.

They both give you the 3008x2000 file.

The raw is generally more detailed and more flexible(and thusly larger, file wise) in that you can adjust parameters after you take the pic (white balance, exposure comp, etc) while jpgs are smaller in file size, have very little compression artifacts (nothing major at all on a 6mp file) and have a little less noise in the low ISOs than do RAW files.

Basically the other modes are just downsized version of the jpg (which you can do in PS, so no real need to use them) or a TIFF setting, which is almost twice the size of RAW files (14.5mb vs 9.5) with no real benefits over the RAW.

NOw on the d70, you can shoot raw+jpg, so the camera stores both (a smaller jpg if i understand correctly, for previewing) and the RAW on the d70 is compressed (lossless compression) which means the file size should be around 4.5mb which means 50 raw files per 256 card.

I'd just shoot raw if I were you. ;)

BUt yea. check dpreview for image quality things. The d70 will look a little different i'm sure.

revenuee

Feb 3, 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
DPreview.com should have them.

I'll tell you this: you'll want to toggle between 2 settings, as far as quality goes: RAW and JPG fine.

They both give you the 3008x2000 file.

The raw is generally more detailed and more flexible(and thusly larger, file wise) in that you can adjust parameters after you take the pic (white balance, exposure comp, etc) while jpgs are smaller in file size, have very little compression artifacts (nothing major at all on a 6mp file) and have a little less noise in the low ISOs than do RAW files.

Basically the other modes are just downsized version of the jpg (which you can do in PS, so no real need to use them) or a TIFF setting, which is almost twice the size of RAW files (14.5mb vs 9.5) with no real benefits over the RAW.

NOw on the d70, you can shoot raw+jpg, so the camera stores both (a smaller jpg if i understand correctly, for previewing) and the RAW on the d70 is compressed (lossless compression) which means the file size should be around 4.5mb which means 50 raw files per 256 card.

I'd just shoot raw if I were you. ;)

BUt yea. check dpreview for image quality things. The d70 will look a little different i'm sure.

the reason i ask is i might have a long (4 month) trip planned .... and although i have a 20 gig iPod that i plan to outfit with a Belkin card reader so that it can act as a "digital Wallet" rather then spending ecessive amounts of money on storage media ... i know that i can't always count on getting to a computer never mind a computer with CD burner to dumb my files onto ... so raw is a little out of the question you mention 50 on a 256? at nikon stats were 25 on a 256 ... vs 75 in Jpeg Fine.

now at 75 per card that works out be about 5400 pictures on the 18 gigs that the iPod is acctually formatted too ... and i calculated that in a 4 month period thats about 45 pictures a day ... but i could definatly seem myself shooting a lot more now that i can really experiment and probably end up getting those difficult light shots (particularly when i end up picking up those f1.8 lenses)

i mean in film i can just go out an buy more film ... going out an buying more memory ... those possible ... is expensive ...

hmm then again i was going to take my film body as a backup so i guess should i need to shoot in film if i run out of space that won't be an issue ..

Moxiemike

Feb 3, 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
the reason i ask is i might have a long (4 month) trip planned .... and although i have a 20 gig iPod that i plan to outfit with a Belkin card reader so that it can act as a "digital Wallet" rather then spending ecessive amounts of money on storage media ... i know that i can't always count on getting to a computer never mind a computer with CD burner to dumb my files onto ... so raw is a little out of the question you mention 50 on a 256? at nikon stats were 25 on a 256 ... vs 75 in Jpeg Fine.

now at 75 per card that works out be about 5400 pictures on the 18 gigs that the iPod is acctually formatted too ... and i calculated that in a 4 month period thats about 45 pictures a day ... but i could definatly seem myself shooting a lot more now that i can really experiment and probably end up getting those difficult light shots (particularly when i end up picking up those f1.8 lenses)

i mean in film i can just go out an buy more film ... going out an buying more memory ... those possible ... is expensive ...

hmm then again i was going to take my film body as a backup so i guess should i need to shoot in film if i run out of space that won't be an issue ..

25 RAW uncompressed on a 256. If you used compressed RAW (Which i think is the only choice on the D70) you end up with about 50 or so.

It's lossless, and I think that if you don't mind some post-processing, you'll end up with better files than the jpgs. And you only "lose" 25 per card.

I'd definitely invest in 4 256 cards... a gig of memory. I wouldn't buy a 1gb card-- what happens if it fails?

But yea. buy as many 256 cards as possible.

Have you thought about buying, say, a used pismo cheap and a cd-burner?? My keyboardist got a pismo on ebay for $300 recently.. might not be a bad investment, that and a firwire CD burner-- you can prolly grab an 8x or 16x Que! drive cheap.

revenuee

Feb 3, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
25 RAW uncompressed on a 256. If you used compressed RAW (Which i think is the only choice on the D70) you end up with about 50 or so.

It's lossless, and I think that if you don't mind some post-processing, you'll end up with better files than the jpgs. And you only "lose" 25 per card.

I'd definitely invest in 4 256 cards... a gig of memory. I wouldn't buy a 1gb card-- what happens if it fails?

But yea. buy as many 256 cards as possible.

Have you thought about buying, say, a used pismo cheap and a cd-burner?? My keyboardist got a pismo on ebay for $300 recently.. might not be a bad investment, that and a firwire CD burner-- you can prolly grab an 8x or 16x Que! drive cheap.

well it's only 25 pics but that works out to be about 3600 vs 5400 on the 18 gigs

i was thinking of getting 2 256 cards so that i can quickly swap them in and then unload to the iPod later ....

as far as picking up a Prismo i guess thats an option ... but as i recall it's a bit bulky and i want to minimize wieght as i plan on bouncing around a lot

i was planning on getting a laptop eventually but i was hoping this it would be "a lot better" then my current desktop" ... so i'm thinking of just getting my camera gear ... playing around with the settings when i get it home ... print off some samples see what works for me ... work with what i have ... and then keep saving and maybe by that time there will be g5 12" inch powerbook

toughboy

Feb 3, 2004, 02:41 PM

I've realized drinking is better then dating because at least when you feel bad after a night of drinking, you know why.

I loved that phrase of yours!!!

I didn't test either Canon 300D or that Nikon D70 myself, and usually dont believe any review site etc, except forums...

but as an old Canon EOS300 and now an EOS5 user, and now I am using Powershot S50 as a digicam, I'll always prefer a Canon machine.. not just because I have sets of lenses or so, just because it is Canon.. some say this is brand loyalty, I call it trust. this is the bottom line for me.

Hodapp

Feb 3, 2004, 02:43 PM

Ugh... this thread has made me wish these two things:

1.) I had the need for a camera this nice to rationalize buying one.
2.) I had the artistic ability to take pictures that are of this camera's calibre.

:)

CalfCanuck

Feb 3, 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I'd definitely invest in 4 256 cards... a gig of memory. I wouldn't buy a 1gb card-- what happens if it fails?

But yea. buy as many 256 cards as possible.
Couldn't agree more. Over the years I've had about 4 errors in the field, one with a 1 GB Microdrive and the other 3 with Compact Flash cards.

You should always have enough backups to "mothball" the card with the error until you get back to a computer and use some recovery software to hopefully re-extract the files.

In most cases the errors result from a loss of power to the card during a write, which messes up the cards formatting but not the other photos that are on the card. If you reformat in the field (because you have no back-up cards), you lose these often recovereable images. Lexar used to bundle Image Rescue 1.1 with their Pro cards, which also carry a lifetime warranty, though I don't know about the new version 2. I've used Sandisk Ultra in the past, but my next card will be a Lexar just for the software!

The prices are moving down on Compact Flash, so you might mix 256's with as many 512's as you can afford (for you next generation camera!!), as long as you have enough cards for insurance.

B & H has the Lexar 256 Pro card for $55 with rebate, and the 512 for $140.