A question about DSLR's

gus

I can pick up a new Rebel with 18-55mm lens for about $1200 0z clams or a D70 with 18-70mm lens for $1600 0z clams.

Not interested in it being 100 bucks cheaper from istanbuldigital.com ...i live in a strange land re what a consumer gets & pays for it.

I know i could buy a tele for either & get reasonable results....buuuttt...

Would one of these cameras better than the other at macro or is that a glass only issue.

Basically...why should i buy this one over that one....why do you like your D70/Rebel ?

Do i have to shoot in raw if i buy a DSLR andy ?

Andy

it's the glass that helps you with macro and both canon and nikon have fine macro (and other!) glass.

what you should really be doing is research the pic quality of the two cameras. imo they both produce great results but there is a big difference in the output of the cmos and ccd sensors. and i think that it's a personal taste of which you like, really.

andy

Mongrel

I'll second that and raise you...
Andy's is dead on about the 'look' produced by the different sensors. Although I shoot Canon digitals, I must confess to being somewhat of a closet Nikon fan as well. This isn't as much about which is better but a much more subjective "which do I prefer". In searching for words to describe it...I...really can't. As Andy said-do a search (I guess you could use Pbase, Photosig, or Usefilm-each allow you to search by camera), and look at examples from each one. See if you find yourself liking one over the other.

Now, having said that and the fact that I own a Digital Rebel\300D, I will say this:

If it weren't for the fact that the 300D was released six months earlier I'd be shooting Nikon (or at least a D70) today. From researching the 300D and the D70 side by side there just isn't a real comparison to be made-in MY opinion. I can't think of one area that the 300D surpasses the D70 with the exception of the battery grip availability (Canon makes one for the 300D, Nikon does not make one for the D70-yet). As far as glass goes-you can get quality glass for either one so I wouldn't sweat that.

Ok, here is where it gets tricky-

Once you move up from the 300D\D70 level of cameras the Canons start to pull ahead in MY opinion. Even when you consider the D2H and the Phantom D2X ('rumor' has is that were looking at March before they are available), I believe the 20D, 1D MkII, and the 1Ds MkII (ahh...heck I'll even through in the *old* 1D) offer more advantages....(you know what's coming right?)...in MY opinion. So if you are at your max budget with the 300D, I would go that route with the idea that the glass you invest in today will work with your body of tomorrow.

BUT!!! There is nothing wrong with going Nikon if that is what you prefer. Photography is one of those rare things in life where the equipment in the end really doesn't matter! Make a choice and take your best shot...

Tony

Andy

spot on, tony...
i'll add one things: 1 - i've *never* depleted a battery on my canon dslrs. they last a long time, so the grip is a non-essential item anyhow, imo.

Mongrel wrote:

Andy's is dead on about the 'look' produced by the different sensors. Although I shoot Canon digitals, I must confess to being somewhat of a closet Nikon fan as well. This isn't as much about which is better but a much more subjective "which do I prefer". In searching for words to describe it...I...really can't. As Andy said-do a search (I guess you could use Pbase, Photosig, or Usefilm-each allow you to search by camera), and look at examples from each one. See if you find yourself liking one over the other.

Now, having said that and the fact that I own a Digital Rebel\300D, I will say this:

If it weren't for the fact that the 300D was released six months earlier I'd be shooting Nikon (or at least a D70) today. From researching the 300D and the D70 side by side there just isn't a real comparison to be made-in MY opinion. I can't think of one area that the 300D surpasses the D70 with the exception of the battery grip availability (Canon makes one for the 300D, Nikon does not make one for the D70-yet). As far as glass goes-you can get quality glass for either one so I wouldn't sweat that.

Ok, here is where it gets tricky-

Once you move up from the 300D\D70 level of cameras the Canons start to pull ahead in MY opinion. Even when you consider the D2H and the Phantom D2X ('rumor' has is that were looking at March before they are available), I believe the 20D, 1D MkII, and the 1Ds MkII (ahh...heck I'll even through in the *old* 1D) offer more advantages....(you know what's coming right?)...in MY opinion. So if you are at your max budget with the 300D, I would go that route with the idea that the glass you invest in today will work with your body of tomorrow.

BUT!!! There is nothing wrong with going Nikon if that is what you prefer. Photography is one of those rare things in life where the equipment in the end really doesn't matter! Make a choice and take your best shot...

Tony

jimf

Humungus wrote:

I can pick up a new Rebel with 18-55mm lens for about $1200 0z clams or a D70 with 18-70mm lens for $1600 0z clams. [...]
Would one of these cameras better than the other at macro or is that a glass only issue.

Basically...why should i buy this one over that one....why do you like your D70/Rebel ?

Image quality between the two is extremely similar IMO. The quality of the glass will make a much bigger difference.

If you have the choice, the D70 is a better all-around camera IMO. It has a number of features that the Rebel doesn't, although mostly I would call those minor differentials. The big difference is in write speed: The D70 is at least three times faster in data transfer to the flash card. That amounts to ~1.5s per raw frame on the D70 versus a whopping 5s per frame on the Rebel. That makes a huge difference in real-world shooting. Slow write speed, coupled with only a 4 shot buffer, is my #1 complaint with the Rebel.

If you are starting from scratch (no glass) then the D70 is a fine camera. Had it been available when I bought my Rebel I would have gone with the D70 instead, hands down. If you already have Canon glass then I would suggest the 20D if you can possibly afford it; right now that gets my "best bang for the buck" award. Heck, even "best bang for anywhere near the bucks" award. Too bad I blew my budget on lenses last month....

Do i have to shoot in raw if i buy a DSLR?

Of course not, but you will see noticable loss in fine detail when shooting in JPEG. I did some experiments using fine JPEG versus RAW and found that even at 5x7 the differences were obvious -- even to the amateur eye. Nobody I showed the shots to had any trouble picking out the RAW as the better shot.

I note that if you choose to shoot JPEG the Rebel's write performance issue is largely ameliorated.

gus

Wow !! some heavy advice gents. I do like the nikon...it has a very fast shutter (8000) which i could use (but hey..i dont even know how the rebels 4000 speed shutter can cope as i can only do 1000 atm.) Battery life is also a big thing to me andy.

I will certainly sit & digest all your replies.

Any one wish to wade into a laymans description re cmos and ccd sensors. Which is prefered & why ? I looked it up & it quickly got over my head.

jimf

Humungus wrote:

Any one wish to wade into a laymans description re cmos and ccd sensors. Which is prefered & why ? I looked it up & it quickly got over my head.

This might help: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D30/D30A4.HTM. In practical terms I think it's not worth worrying about which sensor technology is used so long as you like the results.

DoctorIt

d70 v 300D really isn't fair. 20D v d70 is a little more like it.

I would have the same reply as above - if it weren't for the 300D coming out six months ahead of the Nikon, I'd have a D70. I was just impatient. The D70 is more camera - much better high ISO performance, more control over AF and the like, more speed (all the stuff that the 20D improved on over the 300D).

To be honest. I think you're already too good for the 300D. You'd be disappointed in less time than I was. Low light performance is what kills me with the Rebel. Ginger said it somewhere, the rebel is an awesome camera... with a tripod.

CMaster

To pipe in on battery life, for what it's worth...

I've had my D70 since December 21st and have taken about 200 pictures and uploaded all those to my computer and shot about half of those in RAW. The indicator on the battery level hasn't moved yet. Most of these pictures however were w/o flash.

pathfinder

DoctorIt wrote:

d70 v 300D really isn't fair. 20D v d70 is a little more like it.

I would have the same reply as above - if it weren't for the 300D coming out six months ahead of the Nikon, I'd have a D70. I was just impatient. The D70 is more camera - much better high ISO performance, more control over AF and the like, more speed (all the stuff that the 20D improved on over the 300D).

To be honest. I think you're already too good for the 300D. You'd be disappointed in less time than I was. Low light performance is what kills me with the Rebel. Ginger said it somewhere, the rebel is an awesome camera... with a tripod.

'Gus needs a 20D. His interests in surfing shots call for long IS glass and he will not be happy with the focusing of the 300D for tele work and he will prefer the 20D for its speed of aquisition. The D70 is comparable, but limits him to Nikon land and 6.2 megapixels rather than 8 The kit lens on the D70 is very nice though.

jimf

DoctorIt wrote:

d70 v 300D really isn't fair. 20D v d70 is a little more like it.

Unfortunately (for Canon) the price points of the 300D and 20D invites comparison between the 300D and D70. My presumption is that we'll see a 300D follow-on that is much more competitive with the D70 in the next few months.

To be honest. I think you're already too good for the 300D. You'd be disappointed in less time than I was. Low light performance is what kills me with the Rebel. Ginger said it somewhere, the rebel is an awesome camera... with a tripod.

I've been reasonably pleased with the Rebel's performance, especially given its price, except for how long it takes to write raw images. Image quality is quite good, it's worth putting good glass on it. But it didn't take long to hit its limits. What bugs you all about low light? It's fairly noisy at 1600, but not ridiculously so and it's not that hard to clean up the noise.

Then again all my film SLRs are entirely manual, and I like them that way :-).

wxwax

Humungadad, great feedback so far.

But there's a huge chunk being left unsaid about stepping up to a dSLR. And that chunk involves serious $$$.

Your spending will not end, not even close, once you buy the camera and a starter lens. In short order you may find you need to upgrade your computer to handle the large files - at a minimum you'll probably end-up adding more RAM memory. Next, you'll begin to wonder where you can store all these new, big files. External hard drive? Print only? Burn to CD or DVD? More money.

There's a decent chance you'll want to buy larger memory cards. Maybe an external flash, because they work so much better. A bag. Something to clean the sensor with.

And then ultimately, you'll realize how limited your starter lens is. You'll remember the zoom range on your current camera, and realize that your dSLR will need two, maybe three lenses to match your smaller camera. And at that point, my Ozzie friend, you are well and truly sunk. :hang

Just something to consider. You're buying into a different level of commitment that doesn't begin to end with the camera and a lens. It's like buying an expensive new house - your spending is only beginning. The taxes are higher, the upkeep is higher and you'll need lots of expensive furniture to put in it.

Seamus

My very humble opinion is to save for the 20d.

Shay

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

Humungadad, great feedback so far.

But there's a huge chunk being left unsaid about stepping up to a dSLR. And that chunk involves serious $$$.

Your spending will not end, not even close, once you buy the camera and a starter lens. In short order you may find you need to upgrade your computer to handle the large files - at a minimum you'll probably end-up adding more RAM memory. Next, you'll begin to wonder where you can store all these new, big files. External hard drive? Print only? Burn to CD or DVD? More money.

There's a decent chance you'll want to buy larger memory cards. Maybe an external flash, because they work so much better. A bag. Something to clean the sensor with.

And then ultimately, you'll realize how limited your starter lens is. You'll remember the zoom range on your current camera, and realize that your dSLR will need two, maybe three lenses to match your smaller camera. And at that point, my Ozzie friend, you are well and truly sunk. :hang

Just something to consider. You're buying into a different level of commitment that doesn't begin to end with the camera and a lens. It's like buying an expensive new house - your spending is only beginning. The taxes are higher, the upkeep is higher and you'll need lots of expensive furniture to put in it.

SO true, so true. I'm sure neither Fish nor I had any idea 18 months ago how much resources we were going to end up spending AFTER we bought our 10Ds. Lenses, MACs, new bodies, flashes, books for Photoshop, etc etc. But it has been loads of fun too, and the images can be MUCH better than I ever captured with film. The downside is that all that gear really DOES not automatically protect you from shooting lousy images and now you end up with no excuse

fish

pathfinder wrote:

The downside is that all that gear really DOES not automatically protect you from shooting lousy images and now you end up with no excuse

boy, ain't that the truth!

DoctorIt

jimf wrote:

I've been reasonably pleased with the Rebel's performance, especially given its price, except for how long it takes to write raw images. Image quality is quite good, it's worth putting good glass on it. But it didn't take long to hit its limits. What bugs you all about low light? It's fairly noisy at 1600, but not ridiculously so and it's not that hard to clean up the noise.

I'd beg to differ. Used a d70 enough to know that ISO 800 on that camera is *not* even detectable, where it clearly shows on the 300D. Sure, you can fix it (partially), but the fact is, it's there.

I'd love to see a Rebel replacement that gave you AF control, just a little bit more speed, and better high ISO performance. I don't need 8mp.

gus

I thought i may be opening a pandoras box with the question but im seriuos about a new camera & need to find peoples real opinion...not a bipartisan look at things.

Thanks everyone whom has replied...great info.

Waxy i have a 2.4 gig machine running 512 ram ..120 gig H/D ..128 meg vid card. Im sure it can handle the photos but i dont think PS6 does raw, someone told me the fix here is just a plug in.

Whilst th D20 is a clear winner in choice ...i will start lower & when the upgrade is required in maybe 2-3 years i will be much better situated to look at what canon has there & then.

From what ive seen in the last 12 months of Dig Cameras is that the money does not change just the camera...much like computers. My old P3 500 was $2000 complete & a brand spanker P4 3.2 with all the bells & whistles is about the same now.

Thanks everyone whom has posted an opinion on these 2 cameras...

gus

Also not worried about storage cards if i start going into RAW as i have my little portable HD (20-30 gig) which is battery powered & can be charged on mains ac or from car ciggy lighter or GS acc plug.

fish

Humungus wrote:

Whilst th D20 is a clear winner in choice ...i will start lower & when the upgrade is required in maybe 2-3 years i will be much better situated to look at what canon has there & then.

So if that's the case, I would recommend you pick up a used dRebel and start investing in glass. Then, when you're ready to upgrade the chip-holder, you've already got the lenses. Of course, if you do that and decide to buy a Nikon chip-holder, then yer scrood.

gus

fish wrote:

So if that's the case, I would recommend you pick up a used dRebel and start investing in glass. Then, when you're ready to upgrade the chip-holder, you've already got the lenses. Of course, if you do that and decide to buy a Nikon chip-holder, then yer scrood.

Yeah ..assuming canon is still in front with 'bang for buck' in that part of the curve.

Why do so many deal crack/heroin when they could just deal lens's legally...its a much stronger addiction from what i can see.

jimf

Humungus wrote:

Yeah ..assuming canon is still in front with 'bang for buck' in that part of the curve.

It's probably fair to say that they'll keep leapfrogging each other every year to 18 months for the foreseeable future. The competition is good for all of us.

Why do so many deal crack/heroin when they could just deal lens's legally...its a much stronger addiction from what i can see.

Tell me about it. December saw me buy a 15-40 f/4 L USM and the wonderful 70-200 f/2.8 L USM IS.

And the software is almost as bad.

fish

Humungus wrote:

Yeah ..assuming canon is still in front with 'bang for buck' in that part of the curve.

A bunch of us are heavily invested in the Canon brand of crack. They've been leading the way for many years and I have no reason to doubt that they won't continue to do so. I mean, afterall...Nikon licenses technology from Canon. Nikon tried to shoot back with their last couple of dSLRs, and both of them didn't exactly jump ahead of Canon, they were more of a catch-up.

Why do so many deal crack/heroin when they could just deal lens's legally...its a much stronger addiction from what i can see.

Probably because once you've bought them all, there's nothing else to buy. With crack and heroin, you always run out and have to buy more. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Wanna buy a lens, little boy?

gus

fish wrote:

Probably because once you've bought them all, there's nothing else to buy. With crack and heroin, you always run out and have to buy more. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Wanna buy a lens, little boy?

Like there is a light at the end of the tunnel mate ???????

wxwax

'mungoose, one other thought: how long have you had your current camera? How long did you think you'd use if?

What I'm getting at is that IMHO you'll be ready to upgrade in far less than 2 years. More like 6-12 months I reckon. So if you think you'll eventually end up buying something like the 20D or D70, might as well do it now, and save yourself a few hundred dollars.

gus

wxwax wrote:

'mungoose, one other thought: how long have you had your current camera? How long did you think you'd use if?

What I'm getting at is that IMHO you'll be ready to upgrade in far less than 2 years. More like 6-12 months I reckon. So if you think you'll eventually end up buying something like the 20D or D70, might as well do it now, and save yourself a few hundred dollars.

Waxstrips ..i have had the little c5050 for about 14 months. There is about $1K diff between the D70 & 20D...no question the D20 is a hell of a camera but i think the D70 would be a good next step for me.

It would be easy to wait til the 20D to drop in price but thats the old story aint it ? As i mentioned earlier i can remember paying nearly $300 for 2 megs of ram once.

Im leaning towards the D70 & buying good glass & then moving up in 2 years or so to the next Nikon...its not as if they are going to drop out of the race leaving a monopoly for canon.

I will want a min of 200mm & macro straight up to keep going. So there is over $1K right off the bat.

Oh my god...anyone got any novacaine ?

fish

Humungus wrote:

There is about $1K diff between the D70 & 20D

maybe in ozzie play money. in real USD, it's a $400 diff or 29%.

gus

fish wrote:

maybe in ozzie play money. in real USD, it's a $400 diff or 29%.

Spose there has to be an up to counter the weather.

http://cameras.listings.ebay.com.au/Digital-Cameras-Lenses_Digital-SLR_W0QQfromZR4QQsacategoryZ43453QQsocmdZListingItemList

pathfinder

Humungus wrote:

Waxstrips ..i have had the little c5050 for about 14 months. There is about $1K diff between the D70 & 20D...no question the D20 is a hell of a camera but i think the D70 would be a good next step for me.

It would be easy to wait til the 20D to drop in price but thats the old story aint it ? As i mentioned earlier i can remember paying nearly $300 for 2 megs of ram once.

Im leaning towards the D70 & buying good glass & then moving up in 2 years or so to the next Nikon...its not as if they are going to drop out of the race leaving a monopoly for canon.

I will want a min of 200mm & macro straight up to keep going. So there is over $1K right off the bat.

Oh my god...anyone got any novacaine ?

'gus - One thought for you to consider.... You have created numerous excellent images with your Oly with a special excellence in your macros. An alternative I suggested earlier is a Nikon 8800. I have given serious thought about one of these for myself. 10X Optical zoom 35-350 equivalent . No sensor dust problems in your lunchbox case on your tuck seat. 8 (count'em 8 ) Mgpixels. Lovely Nikon color. Vibration reduction in the body at all focal lengths. 1/3000th sec shutter speed ( but I almost never use faster than 1/1000 myself) F2.6-F4.9 Infra red remote control Electronic viewfinder like the Sony 828 and the Minolta A2.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/

$999.99 USD at B&H

It will slake your thirst for a better camera while you wait for the new generation of DSLRs to appear this spring. And in all our discussion of Nikon/Canon we did not even mention Olympus has two DSLRs on the market also and they take the 4/3ds system lenses.
Something to consider....

Your Ebay page lists an Olympus E300 Evolt digital camera which is their new DSLR for AU$1176.00

wxwax

Oooh, a late curveball from the Pathfinder. Excellent, muddy the once pristine waters! Just when I thought the 'goose had his head on straight. Kava, anyone?

gus

pathfinder wrote:

'gus - One thought for you to consider.... You have created numerous excellent images with your Oly with a special excellence in your macros. An alternative I suggested earlier is a Nikon 8800. I have given serious thought about one of these for myself. 10X Optical zoom 35-350 equivalent . No sensor dust problems in your lunchbox case on your tuck seat. 8 (count'em 8 ) Mgpixels. Lovely Nikon color. Vibration reduction in the body at all focal lengths. 1/3000th sec shutter speed ( but I almost never use faster than 1/1000 myself) F2.6-F4.9 Infra red remote control Electronic viewfinder like the Sony 828 and the Minolta A2.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/

$999.99 USD at B&H

It will slake your thirst for a better camera while you wait for the new generation of DSLRs to appear this spring. And in all our discussion of Nikon/Canon we did not even mention Olympus has two DSLRs on the market also and they take the 4/3ds system lenses.
Something to consider....

Your Ebay page lists an Olympus E300 Evolt digital camera which is there new DSLR for AU$1176.00

I would bet any money that you lot are all PM'ing each other ...

PF : "whooah waxy...let him get to the end & close to a decision & i'll launch the Coolpix 8800 at him when he's looking away"

---

They are here on Ebay for $1K PF.The 8 MP bit...i was always under the impression that the glass was more important ?

I assume that having 3 more MP than i currently have...i could crop my macro's more ?



.

GREAPER

I dont know a lot about it, but what about Minolta and their in body image stabilization.

Tasty.

The only reason I would hold back from that would be less glass available.