Canonians and Nikonians: what to get?

marlof

I've been painfully going through all info I could find on DSLRs to decide what I'll get in the next few months. Other than Gus, I've been pretty silent about it though.

Currently I've been using a Sony DSC-F828, and it's time for the upgrade I think. Not because I've learned all there is to learn about using the 828 (still learning), but because I'd like to get a camera that works better in available light, and can write RAW faster. My main interests are landscape and street photography. I'd only do wildlife on safaris, but in my experience (S-Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia) you'll usually end up in pretty close range of the animals anyhow so taking into consideration the 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor a length of 200/300mm would be sufficient for me. I've tried it many times, but I know for sure that I am not a birder. To me, a chicken needs to be well prepared before I get interested. :wink I don't have exisiting SLR gear, so I'm free to step into a new system right now. So on to things I've specced for my base system (not that I'd get it all at once, for sure not when I'd get the most expensive option in all categories, since money does play a role in all this).

Canon:
Body: 20D or 350D? -> price is the deciding factor, prefer 20D over 350D
Flash: 580EX
Walkaround lens: 17-40L
Available light: 50 1.8
Zoom: 70-200L 4.0 / 70-200L 2.8 / 70-200L IS 2.8 ->price deciding again
Extender: Canon 1.4x

Nikon:
Body: D70 (D2H looks nice, but large, and still expensive although it's a steal)
Flash: SB800
Walkaround lens: 17-55 / 18-70 kit lens (price is a point, but also quality/speed vs. weight/range)
Available light: 50 1.8
Zoom: 80-200 2.8 AF-D / 70-200 VR 2.8 -> price deciding
Extender: Kenko (AF-D) or Nikon (VR) 1.4x

Right now, i'd probably go for the Canon 20D and the 70-200L 4.0 (and trade up later on the zoom), or the Nikon D70 with kit lens (and trade up later if necessary) with the 70-200 VR.

The questions I still have are:
Canon:
- up to what point will the 17-40L and 70-200L 4.0 be sufficient for available light photography?
Nikon:
- is the image quality of the 17-55 much better than the 18-70?
- How much faster is the VR over the 80-200?
- How good are ISO 1600 images with/without NR like Noise Ninja?
Both:
- I sticked to the brand stuff. Are there third party items you'd get in stead of an item that is on my wishlist?

And the million dollar question that only I will be able to answer: get Canon or Nikon (I know it's in the handling, I tried both, both felt weird enough for me not to have a preference yet, and to believe I could deal with both)? I've seen enough pictures that I'd say both are able to create stunning examples, and I know for sure that I'd be the limiting factor in play. :scratch

Harryb

marlof wrote:

I've been painfully going through all info I could find on DSLRs to decide what I'll get in the next few months. Other than Gus, I've been pretty silent about it though.


And the million dollar question that only I will be able to answer: get Canon or Nikon (I know it's in the handling, I tried both, both felt weird enough for me not to have a preference yet, and to believe I could deal with both)? I've seen enough pictures that I'd say both are able to create stunning examples, and I know for sure that I'd be the limiting factor in play.

You can't go wrong choosing between the 20D and the D70. As for your Nikon questions. The image quality of the 17-55 is better than the 18-70 but the 18-70 is still a fine lens and a better value for the $. Here's a site with a review of both lenses. http://bythom.com/nikon.htm

The VR will usually give you a 2 stop advantage. I have shot at 1600 and gotten good results if I nailed the exposure. There was noise but NN handled it well w/o excessive loss of detail. Sigma lenses are pretty decent and have provided some cheaper alternatives to Nikon glass (i.e., the 12-24, the 80-400 and the 70-200/2.8)

I can't say which system is better as it usually comes down to individual preference. When I had to decide I tried out the D100 and the 10D and opted for the D100 because I liked the feel of it better. Also the 10D backfocused on 2 of the 3 lenses I tried it with in the store.

wxwax

I can help on a couple of the Canon questions.

You'd definitely notice the difference between the 16-35 f2.8/70-200 f2.8 and the 17-40/70-200 f4. There's no way around the extra aperature size. That being said, the high ISO performance of the 20D is exceptional, so you can get away with a slower lens if you nail the exposure in camera.

When you get up to ISO 1000 or higher, a well exposed RAW image is pretty clean, but you will get noise if you start messing with the Exposure slider.

As Harry implied, you should get your hands on all three cameras and get a feel for them. One may feel better in your hand than the others, and that's a big deal. Ditto with the controls - you're more likely to use a camera you feel comfortable operating.

marlof

Thanks for the replies. I've been doing some extra thinking (yeah right, lately that's all I seem to be doing): with my street and landscape fascination, the wide angle-regular range would be my main range. So I was wondering if it wouldn't be wise to get a great lens there right now, and choose the "lesser" zoom.

Canon
With Sid's recommendations, I'm also thinking 16-35 plus the 70.200 L 4.0 zoom (or the Sigma 70-200 2.8) right now. This is not progress, in stead of deleting from my list I'm adding!

Nikon
The bang for the bucks thing is what makes me consider the 18-70. But getting the best in the wide angle - regular range would lead to a 17-55 with a 80-200 AF-D choice with the D70. Might want to check on the 70-200 2.8 Sigma in stead of the 80-200, since the Sigma's HSM might allow faster focussing than the AF-D. Alas I'm not able to test those next to each other.

Canon vs. Nikon
I know this is about personal preference. As stated: I tried them both, and both felt weird. I've been used to P&S cams for quite some time now (Digital Ixus, Leica Digilux, 828), and my last SLR experience comes from my manual focus Minolta X-700 years back. I think I could get used to both, but didn't have an immediate favorite after handling both.

Ai. I feel more "thinking about it" time coming up.

Harryb

There's always a lot of thinking to do when you move into the DSLR arena. If you go Nikon the 17-55 and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 would be a great start.

When you make your choice I would recommend not looking at the cameras. The camera body purchase will be a lot cheaper than the money you will spend on glass. Both Nikon and Canon make fine bodies. You are buying into and virtually locking yourself into a system when you make your initial purchase. I would look at the lenses they offer and make my decision on that basis.

marlof

Harryb wrote:

There's always a lot of thinking to do when you move into the DSLR arena.

Yeah, that's what I've noticed. But it's great fun though, comparing things that you might one day own. And happily there's people like you and Sid, willing to help me get my thoughts organized.

Harryb wrote:

When you make your choice I would recommend not looking at the cameras. The camera body purchase will be a lot cheaper than the money you will spend on glass.

That's essentially what I'm doing. I'm much more interested in the glass than in the bodies, esp. since several of the lenses I'm looking into are more expensive than either body. I'm hoping to build a system where bodies will be easily upgraded, but lenses stay with me for quite some time.

Harryb wrote:

If you go Nikon the 17-55 and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 would be a great start.

That's probably the route I'd go with the Nikon, although I'm still in doubt between the 70-200 and the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D (which in my country is priced similarly, give or take EUR 100). I've been reading up on those two a lot these days, and I'm happy to see so many good reports on the 70-200 build quality. The reason I've orginally mentioned the 80-200 (in spite of missing out a weeny bit in range, and the lack of AF-S/HSM) would be the build quality of the Nikkor and avoiding lock-ups because of third party incompatibility.

gus

I defy anyone to have done more research into this question than what i did...try sitting for 2 odd months without a camera. This means i got an answer that was for me...not anyone else...but it took some convincing.

The 20D's ability to shoot high clean ISO is what made the diff for me. If it wasnt for that then i would be sitting here with a D70 right now.

This is what was important for me because i like photography that has early or late light...these are the richest most vibrant colours handed out free. The 20D is just so clean at high ISO so i can shoot this light & limit noise. The D70 can do it sure but the 20D is way ahead here.

Good luck.

marlof

Humungus wrote:

I defy anyone to have done more research into this question than what i did...try sitting for 2 odd months without a camera.

O no, I won't ever state that you didn't do you research as well as I did. In fact, I've learned a lot from you going through your learning process. And I still had a camera at hand!

Humungus wrote:

The 20D's ability to shoot high clean ISO is what made the diff for me. If it wasnt for that then i would be sitting here with a D70 right now. This is what was important for me because i like photography that has early or late light...these are the richest most vibrant colours handed out free. The 20D is just so clean at high ISO so i can shoot this light without noise. The D70 can do it sure but the 20D is way ahead on noise.

Yeah, Canon has the high ISO advantage. If available light wasn't an issue with me, I'd only be asking Nikon questions, simply because the D70 is a great deal. But judging from the many pictures that I've seen so far, the D70 is also very capable of getting good available light shots. Way better than my 828, that's a fact. And probably not as easy as the 20D, that's also a fact.

Thanks for your contribution, Gus. And I'll probably need that luck...

gus

Just to add to your frustration

One big big big question that i asked myself was

Gus : "Which would i buy if they were the same price"

Gus : I answered "why Gus that would be the 20D, why do you ask ?"

Gus : "Good" I replied .."then stop being such a stingy tight bastard & flash another few oxford scholars on the table for the 20D & be done with it."


Yahoooooo.

marlof

Humungus wrote:

"Which would i buy if they were the same price"

The main lens plays at least as big a part to me as the body. Therefor I compared the D70 with the 17-55DX 2.8 and the 20D with the 17-40L 4.0. Around here those combinations are about the same price. This also and might help with the high ISO issue, since the lens on the 17-55DX is a stop faster. Things become different of course if you'd get the 16-35L 2.8 for the Canon. But I have some issue with the range on that one. 40 is worrying, 35 even more so. Tonight I'll do a focal length search on my images and see what focal length I usually choose with my 828.

And I'm not frustrated, by no means. This is quite a luxury problem that many people will not be able to financially face, so I consider myself lucky that these are my worries. I could be a lot worse off.

cmr164

marlof wrote:

The main lens plays at least as big a part to me as the body. Therefor I compared the D70 with the 17-55DX 2.8 and the 20D with the 17-40L 4.0. Around here those combinations are about the same price. This also and might help with the high ISO issue, since the lens on the 17-55DX is a stop faster. Things become different of course if you'd get the 16-35L 2.8 for the Canon. But I have some issue with the range on that one. 40 is worrying, 35 even more so. Tonight I'll do a focal length search on my images and see what focal length I usually choose with my 828.

And I'm not frustrated, by no means. This is quite a luxury problem that many people will not be able to financially face, so I consider myself lucky that these are my worries. I could be a lot worse off.

For about a year my only 2 lenses with a canon mount dslr were the 17-35 f/2.8L and the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS. I would not worry at all about the combo of 16-35 + 70-200. You will be more than fine, particularly if you have the 50mm f1.8.

wxwax

I tend to agre with what Charles said. I note that you haven't mentioned one of Canon's best L zooms, the 24-70 f2.8. Is that because you fear the wide end isn't wide enough for landscape?

marlof

wxwax wrote:

I tend to agre with what Charles said. I note that you haven't mentioned one of Canon's best L zooms, the 24-70 f2.8. Is that because you fear the wide end isn't wide enough for landscape?

Not only for landscape. Also for groups and indoor pictures. Next to this "walkaround" lens, and the zoom, a wider lens might also somewhere on the horizon (like a 12-24 or something like that). But at least for a year, what I'm getting now will not be updated, so I can't be too limited in the wide range right now. When I think of my shooting style I'd like to have at least a 35mm range of 28-65. With a 24-70 I'd have a 38-110 on my DSLR, and although that's a very nice range, it doesn't cover my basics. In my 828, I really love the ability of using the "28mm". The advantage of the "classic" 28-80 range would be that I'd be able to do both groups and portraits with a twist of the zoom ring. When I'd get a 38-110, I might have trouble with the groups, and I fear (but do not know) that the 26-56 (which a 16-35 would lead to) would be just a tad on the short side for portraits. I think this is also influenced because I have used 28 and 50mm primes and a 80-200mm zoom in my manual focus days. So right now the 16-35L is a viable option with the 20D (and to be supplemented with a 50 prime and a 70-200 zoom), but I had stricken the 24-70 of my list.

Michiel de Brieder

Marlof,

perhaps we can go shooting together, you can borrow my 20D for the day with the 17-40 and the 70-200 F/4
Where do you live exactly? If you're interested, send me an email or PM!!

Cheers!

marlof

Cool, Michiel and I were able to make an arrangement on short notice, so I'll get some hands on time with his 20D! I think I really like this community... Now I need to find someone with a D70 / 17-55DX to hook up with for a day....

david_h

Hi Marlof,
You are lucky to have to make a decision with no wrong answer. Both are great.
When I got started, the 20D was not out, so it was a no-brainer to go with the D70. I didn't like the feel of the 300D and the pro Canons were way expensive. Would be a harder choice if starting now, that 20D is a nice camera, like the D70 very good value for money.
I almost made the mistake of buying the Pentax *istD. I'd even ordered one, tempted by the small size. It turned out to be out of stock, great - getting into the Nikon system has been a really good experience. My D70 now has a D2H for company and I couldn't be happier with my choice.
But, whether you go Canon or Nikon, you are a winner all the way!
Nice to see you here, I'm a PPCT guy as well.

marlof

david_h wrote:

Nice to see you here, I'm a PPCT guy as well.

I was wondering if you were somehow related to the one that uses a penguin in his avatar. Or am I mistaking you for someone else?

ian408

Nothing more I can add other than regardless of your choice, it will
be a fine one.

My only real comment is to echo what Harry said about glass. That,
to me, is what your decision boils down to.

Myself? I am a Canon guy.

Good luck!

Ian

DavidTO

Canon guy here.

I have the 20D, 17-40 and the 70-200 f4L.

I like the combo.

Lenses hold value, so I would suggest getting those lenses, which are relatively inexpensive for L glass, and provide a great range at high quality. If you find that you really need/want/can afford the extra stop of the 16-35 or the 2.8 IS 70-200, then sell and trade up. But don't spend so much money up front, since you'll lose relatively little by using those lenses for a time, since, as I said, they really hold value quite well.

marlof

Thing is: I'm the worlds worst ebayer. I hate selling my stuff to perfect strangers, and try to get as much money as I can. So I know I'd be far better off getting the best possible option now for my walkaround lens (the one I'll be using 85% of my time), and perhaps skim a bit in the zoom department since I'll be using that a lot less. Although I'm a firm believer in having the right lens for the right job, and don't strive towards an all in one, with the 17-55 DX 2.8 I know the 28-80mm can be very well covered with one lens, so I don't *have* to make a compromise there. I'm very sad to see that Canon has no 17-55L 2.8 in their arsenal. As it is a pity that Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 4.0 in theirs, but I've read many good things about the similarly priced 70-200 2.8 Sigma, so that's less of an issue to me. The 20D has a few things going for it (high ISO mainly), but I'm in doubt about the usability for my sort of shooting of the 16-35 or the 17-40L (not so much outside, as indoor when closing in on an individual within a group) compared to what a 17-55 can offer on the Nikon. But nothing beats a hands on experience: thanks Michiel within two weeks I'll be able to shoot with the 20D and 17-40L 4.0, and see if that range (or even the 4.0) will be good enough for me. If not, I think it'll be the D70 and the 17-55 2.8.

gus

I see Nikon just reg'd the name 'D50' in USA...romour'd at 10 MP & replacement for D70.

Read it on the net & cant substanciate single bit of it....google it.


carry on.




.

david_h

marlof wrote:

I was wondering if you were somehow related to the one that uses a penguin in his avatar. Or am I mistaking you for someone else?

Yep, that's me. I've had the penguin since I swapped my PPC for a Zaurus. I still visit PPCT because I like the community, although I don't contribute so much these days.
On the lens front, I'm currently debating whether to invest in the 17-55 or the 12-24 (the Tokona, if I can ever find one).
Common sense says the 12-24, since I have the kit lens already which is actually pretty good. Trouble is, I've seen spectacular results form the 17-55 (and 17-35).

marlof

david_h wrote:

Trouble is, I've seen spectacular results form the 17-55 (and 17-35).

I really liked the review by tao.design at the Nikon D70 forum at dpreview.com. He reviewed both the 70-200 2.8 VR and the 17-55 DX 2.8, and sold some people on the 17-55 with his review alone.

humungus wrote:

I see Nikon just reg'd the name 'D50' in USA...romour'd at 10 MP & replacement for D70. Read it on the net & cant substanciate single bit of it....google it.

Yah, I read it too. Would that be the Nikon way: a decrease in number, means an increase in functionality? It'd be great if I could hold out on getting a body for say 3/4 more months. Chances are there'll be a Nikon answer to the 20D success. But OTOH: I could be *shooting* with a fine camera those 3/4 months in stead of *waiting* on one.... I think the D70 will do all that I need. That its successor might do more is mighty fine. If I'd be able to buy the successor, great. If by the time I'm buying it's still the D70, I'm happy too, even if the D50/70s/200 is released a few months later. I'm getting so crazy looking into lens specs, that I tend to care a bit less about the body right now.

david_h

Well today I got to play a bit with the 17-55 and 12-24 Nikons. I really liked the 17-55 which I think I'm going to keep on my wish list.

I wasn't so impressed with the 12-24. It seems rather plastic and cheap especially considering the price. I'll wait until I can try a Tokina.

I didn't buy either, but my daughter has to go to the UK in June, so I bought an airline ticket instead.

Matthew Saville

You gotta keep things in perspective here:

The D100 and the 10D were the most similar cameras, but it's been all up in the air since then. The 300D came out and totally surprised everyone with it's image quality at its miniscule price. Supposedly it was just a 10D sensor in a cheaper camera, so EVERYBODY bought one. Then the D70 came out, and totally blew the 300D out of the water, while also giving the D100 / 10D a run for their money So EVERYBODY and their grandfather got one!! Then the 20D came out, and kinda-sorta blew the D70 out of the water, but millions of people already owned a D70 so the 20D's absolutely amazing price to performance ratio was a little dampened. The 20D was not designed to equal the D70, it was designed to better the D70 and equal the 10D / D100. Ironic that the D70 still gives the 20D a run for it's money! However the 20D is still surprisingly giving the 1D mkII a run for IT'S money!! And finally, now the 350D is out, at cheaper than the D70, but it has not leapfrogged it as far as features go. As far as I'm concerned, there is no market for the 350D since the 300D and the D70 are still awesome cameras...

So, it's a vicious circle. Right now the 20D is numerically the "best" (non vert. grip) DSLR on the market today. However the D70 still takes the cake as far as "bang for your buck" goes.

Soooo, it's a toss up when trying to pick noe. The Nikon D200, or similarly named replacement for the D100, should be out after this coming summer, and it is rumored to have a sensor in it akin to the D2x. This of course would be revolutionary and leap-frog the 20D, but STILL, a whole year behind the 20D. The Nikon D50 will be out soon as well, and it is rumored to be a 300D / 350D killer, with capabilities akin to the D70 but definitely an "amateur" camera. Having said that, you might be interested in the D50 if you're very used to a P&S camera.

So after all that here's my advice:

1.) Buy the 300D / 350D if you're really on a budget and want the smallest ammount of "complicated camera anxiety"

2.) Buy the D70 if you've got more cash but still are looking for the most bang for your buck.

3.) Buy the 20D if you're confident in your ability to learn and "grow into" the camera, for this camera will afford you the most learning opportunities and room to grow.

4.) Buy a 10D or a D100 if you're interested in getting a really good, 100% pro camera but don't have the money for the latest and greatest. (not reccomended)

5.) Wait until the new Nikon's come out and then decide, cause hopefully the D200 will be sub-$2000 and totally revolutionary, and the D50 WILL ("partially" confirmed) be sub $700 yet a high-performer. (I'd reccomend this option to someone who already has an older DSLR and is looking to replace, but not to you if you're just buying your first DSLR. It's Nikon's own fault they don't have the D200 out yet, and even though it'll be awesome when it get's here, they'll lose lots of potential customers to the 20D in the meantime...)

Good luck!

jthomas

Matthew Saville wrote:

You gotta keep things in perspective here:


So after all that here's my advice:

1.) Buy the 300D / 350D if you're really on a budget and want the smallest ammount of "complicated camera anxiety"

2.) Buy the D70 if you've got more cash but still are looking for the most bang for your buck.

3.) Buy the 20D if you're confident in your ability to learn and "grow into" the camera, for this camera will afford you the most learning opportunities and room to grow.

4.) Buy a 10D or a D100 if you're interested in getting a really good, 100% pro camera but don't have the money for the latest and greatest. (not reccomended)

5.) Wait until the new Nikon's come out and then decide, cause hopefully the D200 will be sub-$2000 and totally revolutionary, and the D50 WILL ("partially" confirmed) be sub $700 yet a high-performer. (I'd reccomend this option to someone who already has an older DSLR and is looking to replace, but not to you if you're just buying your first DSLR. It's Nikon's own fault they don't have the D200 out yet, and even though it'll be awesome when it get's here, they'll lose lots of potential customers to the 20D in the meantime...)

Good luck!

I'm finding this discussion very informative as I'm trying to make a decision on my first DSLR. I'm now on my third digital camera in 3 years. My most recent is the Nikon 5700, a point-and-shoot with an 8x zoom. It's a nice camera (I like the compactness), but disappoints in two main ways: (1) SLOW! I miss many shots because it takes so long to focus and shoot; (2) essentially no manual-focus capability.

So, I want to upgrade to a DSLR. I've narrowed my choices to Nikon D70 and Canon 350XT. The Canon D20 is tempting, but a bit too bulky for my purposes, which is primarily travel photography. It also is probably overkill for my skill level and photography objectives.

The trade-offs between the D70 and 350XT as I see it are that the "kit" lense for the D70 is somewhat better than the "kit" lens for the 350XT, but the D70 is somewhat larger and heavier than the 350.

Can anyone help me here? Since I live in the boondocks, I have no opportunity to see the cameras in the flesh, so to speak, so I have to rely on on-line reviews and forums like this. All three of my previous digital cameras were Nikons. I did for many years use a Minolta SRT 101, until someone broke the glass in my daughter's car and lifted it a few years ago.

I will be going to NYC for 3 days April 17. Can anyone recommend a camera shop there?

Thanks for your help.

Andy

ya go to b & h!

jthomas wrote:

I will be going to NYC for 3 days April 17. Can anyone recommend a camera shop there?

Thanks for your help.

b&h, aka mecca. 9th avenue and 34th street, it takes up the whole block. it's quite a thrill. closed friday afternoons and all day saturday for shabat.

here's a three part review of what's in *store* for you when you visit there

jthomas

andy wrote:

b&h, aka mecca. 9th avenue and 34th street, it takes up the whole block. it's quite a thrill. closed friday afternoons and all day saturday for shabat.

here's a three part review of what's in *store* for you when you visit there

Thanks. I found the three-part description of B&H quite helpful and informative. I'll probably get there. Looks like quite a place!

As to my D70 vs. 350XT dilemma, I've found an interesting side-by-side comparison at http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT.shtml
But I'm still torn between the compact size of the Canon vs. the better optics of the Nikon!

gus

jthomas wrote:

The trade-offs between the D70 and 350XT as I see it are that the "kit" lense for the D70 is somewhat better than the "kit" lens for the 350XT, but the D70 is somewhat larger and heavier than the 350.

.

This is exactly what i found in all my searching & annoying people.

There is no 'better' camera just a 'more suited' camera.

If i was only going to have the one kit lens then the nikon is much better with its kit lens. The D70 has a very very nice feel to it when you hold it. I do have hands like a gibbon though.

Andy

Humungus wrote:

This is exactly what i found in all my searching & annoying people.

you? annoy people? now how could a dancing dragon annoy anyone

Humungus wrote:

There is no 'better' camera just a 'more suited' camera.

marlof

david_h wrote:

Well today I got to play a bit with the 17-55 and 12-24 Nikons. I really liked the 17-55 which I think I'm going to keep on my wish list.

So this means if you'd have the money, you'd exchange the Nikon kit lens with the 17-55? I am still looking for someone who used both, and are able to tell me if the 17-55 really is worth all that extra money. I feel it is, since a 2.8 on my main lens sounds great, but as I haven't had hands on experience, I'm soaking up other peoples experiences.

Can't wait to get my hands on experiences with the Canon gear!