Dslr Headache post #59082

Davidoff · June 28, 2005

I've been researching and reading, trying to make the best choice on my new camera that I planned to buy this summer.
With the release of the 350d I tought I had my mind set and just laid back, but with the release of the d70s I read a bit more on nikon in general and found out that the d70 ( preferred because of the better price, and the extras on the s version aren't worth it imo ) is actually a better camera than what I had initially tought, mostly because I quickly turned it down after looking at iso1600 shots on both cameras and not being able to get down to iso 100 ( can anyone explain this btw? I can kind of get why a sensor can't go to iso 3200, but why not 100 or even 50? ).
What also made me reconsider was picking both up. The nikon feels way way better, it also looks better is is surely more capable of taking a beating. Plus, curling my pinky under the canon is a drag, and I don't plan on getting the grip.
I also tought I'd prefer the smaller size and weight of the canon, but I was proven wrong the second I picked de d70 up. In the other hand, I'm quite sure the canon can get more detail, having 2 more mp's ( not a big deal, I know ) and much less noise.
Another factor making it harder on me, canon is absolutely everywhere, not only online it has more of everything, but also on the shops, probably assistence wise as well.
Keep in mind, I live in Portugal, meaning, you can get a 20d kit for around 1700$ and I've never seen a tamron anywhere, not even on online shops, so I'm not too sure of the service for each brand. For some reason I think that canon is a much steadier brand right now, plus it's ahead technologically. Olympus crossed my mind, but the e-300 is clearly inferior and the e-1 is much more expensive.
Plus, I'm not sure about 3/4 and their stuff is really rare around here. I have my father's nikon E series mf 50mm, but I'm not sure about it's condition, and being mf, is it worth considering?
Ok, next chapter, the nikon kit lens really tips in it's favour, this may be secondary to many, but being 16 I really can't afford a bunch of lenses. Buying the nikon I'd only be thinking about a couple of lenses for a great range: kit lens, sigma or nikon 70-300 ( nikon's better and cheaper than the canon's, I think ), depending on which is better, quite probably a 50mm and some sort of macro, and that would be it. With canon I'd still have to worry about some higher quality mid-range zoom, being the tamron 28-70 the best candidate, but then again, even sigma is a bit rare around here, and that would mean another lens.
I also think canon only has really cheap lens with awfull reputation and then the very expensive L's, as with nikon, ( it seems ) none of their lens are totally low end, and they also have the very high quality ones.
Not sure again, but the flash system of the nikon looks better, so does the sb-600 vs. the canon's 420ex, or should I just buy the sigma DG super ? What do you think of Ken Rockwell's test 20d vs. d70 ? He says unless you're shooting a lot of action ( wich I won't ) the d 70 is a good bit better.
Sorry for the long winded thread, I'm just feeling like whatever one I choose I'll feel regrets :dunno :scratch
Yours truthfully, David

Khaos · June 28, 2005

First off. The enter key is your friend, you should use it on forum posts so it's easier for people to read.:D

The issue I think you really have to look at is availabilty to you where you live. Both Nikon and Canon will give you quality equipment. The one thing you will keep is your lenses, unless you're Andy, then you just rotate them.

While I'll probably still have my 20D two years from now, I will also probably have another Canon body also by that time. I'll still have the lenses.

I don't think I would of been dissatisfied if I had chosen Nikon over Canon, I just happened to choose Canon.

It's tough, I know, I've been there, but I really don't think you can go wrong between either of the two.

This probably didn't help in choosing between the two, but you should feel comfortable that there really isn't a bad choice.

Andy · June 28, 2005

i've been thru canon's entire dslr line, from the rebel thru the 1Ds Mark II. i currently shoot with a 1Ds Mark II and an ir-converted digital rebel. I've shot with a nikon d100 and a nikon d70. i've handled and shot with the rebel xt.

first off, understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems and the image quality. both make fine cameras, and fine glass. imo, canon gets the edge at higher iso performace- iso 1600 on the rebel xt, 20d, is a joy to use. bit noisier on the the nikon. why only iso 200 on the nikon? don't concern yourself with that, iso 200 is really very very good on the nikon system.

handling: the rebel xt is quite small, and yeah the d70 feels much better imo. but again, make the decision on the system, and your usage.

the nikon gear is well made, the flash system is fantastic, and the lenses top notch.

hth,

Shay Stephens · June 28, 2005

Ok, since your brain is sabotaging your ability to decide, trust what your gut is telling you. From my reading of your post, it sounds like you have a history and preference for Nikon.

A tip on how not to regret a decision...make it and don't look back at what could have been.

p.s. When I was 16, I had a film SLR and a 50mm lens. Spent weeks working to buy the camera. Used it for many years. Never had any accessories

Andy · June 28, 2005

Khaos wrote:

The one thing you will keep is your lenses, unless you're Andy, then you just rotate them.

hey, i have the first 2 lenses i ever bought with my dslr setup: 50 f/1.4 and 16-35L

i do like to try the others out though

Khaos · June 28, 2005

andy wrote:

hey, i have the first 2 lenses i ever bought with my dslr setup: 50 f/1.4 and 16-35L

i do like to try the others out though

Wasn't the 16-35 sold to Windoze and then back to you?:D I guess it's still the original though.:giggle

At some point in time I can see myself doing the same thing. Possibly even sooner. I'm already thinking about selling my 50 and 85 and trying the 16-35.

every other week I think about dumping the 100 and trying something else.

Luckily I'm too busy to have time to actually pull the trigger.

With all your lens transactions, do UPS and Fed Ex send you thank you cards?

Davidoff · June 28, 2005

: Andy, your..... "variety" in lenses is known in Portugal

Shay, my gut is probably just a bit to the nikon side, but don't you agree canon seems more stable in various ways? My history with nikon is inexistent, I never used my father's Slr until recently.... ahh, no shutter lag.... no recycling.... manual controls

Andy · June 28, 2005

Davidoff wrote:

: Andy, your..... "variety" in lenses is known in Portugal

obrigado

i try to do my part for the cause, y'know?

actually my suggestion would be the canon 20d, but you didn't mention that camera. super fast, great performer, amazing image quality

marlof · June 28, 2005

Davidoff wrote:

Olympus crossed my mind, but the e-300 is clearly inferior and the e-1 is much more expensive. Plus, I'm not sure about 3/4 and their stuff is really rare around here.

Although it seems you've ruled out Olympus, your comment on the price inspired this part of my response: the price of the Oly stuff shouldn't let you down. Since the E-1 is bound to be replaced, it is discounted. The E-1 now comes in a bundle with the 14-54 2.8-3.5 and a FL-36 flash for about EUR 1400 in several European countries. Try getting a D70, 20D or Rebel with a fast walkaround lens (28-100 equiv) and an external flash, and see what they'll cost. For an entry level tele: the 40-150 (80-300 equiv) is EUR 250, and has relatively good optics. The 50-200 (100-400 equiv) is a killer, but will be EUR 950, which is harder to swallow. The 50 2.0 macro is also considered very good, but a bit expensive at EUR 450. I agree that the 4/3 system is a gamble though, and getting to see the stuff in real life can be hard, so going with either Nikon and Canon might be easier to do.

Don't worry about one spec being better or worse on one camera than on the other camera. It sounds like you've done your homework well, and I think that with all cameras you've mentioned you'll be able to capture great pictures. Just get one that feels right to you, work with its advantages, work around its disadvantages, and enjoy photography.

Davidoff · June 28, 2005

De nada Andy ( you're welcome )
Correcting my initial post, in the cheapest online shop in Portugal I found a 20d kit for almost 1400€... too much. http://www.pixmania.com/pt/pt/56822/art/canon/eos-20d.html
Marlof, that's what ticks me off about living here, I can't find a e-1 anywhere, even online ! Those rebates, promotions... whatever, don't make it here, particularly with oly.

marlof · June 28, 2005

Davidoff wrote:

I can't find a e-1 anywhere, even online ! Those rebates, promotions... whatever, don't make it here, particularly with oly.

I sure know where you're coming from, although I was happy enough to do find the E-1 in the flashkit pro, but in another part of my country. I have ordered it with a set of accessories (how do you think I knew all those prices...

), and have been patiently waiting for my gear to arrive from another part of my country. Now they say it'll be tomorrow. Won't hold my breath, but it would be great!

Davidoff · June 28, 2005

Sure thing, a nikon 8800 is under " novelties " ( spelling? ) and costs over 1000€. Plus I'm not so sure about mail deliveries, here at least.

Shay Stephens · June 28, 2005

Not to enflame the loyal...

Davidoff wrote:

Shay, my gut is probably just a bit to the nikon side, but don't you agree canon seems more stable in various ways?

Well, I do use a 20D

You might consider a 10D if you can find one for an afordable price. I used one for nearly a year. Or as Andy mentioned, the Rebel does a bang up job too.

Davidoff · June 28, 2005

Shay Stephens wrote:

Well, I do use a 20D

You might consider a 10D if you can find one for an afordable price. I used one for nearly a year. Or as Andy mentioned, the Rebel does a bang up job too.

The 10D is more expensive than a 350d or d70 with a 1gb card.... plus I think the rebel is better, no?

snapapple · June 28, 2005

Davidoff wrote:

The 10D is more expensive than a 350d or d70 with a 1gb card.... plus I think the rebel is better, no?

I recently got the 350D. I like it a lot. I got the kit lens, 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens. I almost always use the kit lens. I think I would have used a macro more than the longer zoom. I take close-ups of flowers and I find the bokeh distracting with the 18-55. I think a better lens with a softer bokeh would have been much more satisfying for me. But, cost was a big factor. I am planning to get a better close-up lens when I can afford it. I just took my 350D with me on a two week vacation. I like the size and weight for carrying around all day. It's nice and light. I also invested in a 2gb card. It was worth it. Filled the whole thing, plus my two 512s. Just my 2 cents worth here. Hope it helps.

Davidoff · June 28, 2005

snapapple wrote:

I recently got the 350D. I like it a lot. I got the kit lens, 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens. I almost always use the kit lens. I think I would have used a macro more than the longer zoom. I take close-ups of flowers and I find the bokeh distracting with the 18-55. I think a better lens with a softer bokeh would have been much more satisfying for me. But, cost was a big factor. I am planning to get a better close-up lens when I can afford it. I just took my 350D with me on a two week vacation. I like the size and weight for carrying around all day. It's nice and light. I also invested in a 2gb card. It was worth it. Filled the whole thing, plus my two 512s. Just my 2 cents worth here. Hope it helps.

Thanks for your input snapapple. I think the d70 felt better *because* of the size and weight ( the d70 kit lens are also much heavier ), altough I don't think it's such a difference that i'll feel it at the end of the day. By the way, when travelling, couldn't we save some weight/money/trouble if we burned the images in a camera shop to a cd or dvd instead of a lot of CF's, laptop or external HD ? Assuming we're going someplace with camera shops

:

Matthew Saville · June 28, 2005

Aaugh, buy a camera and start shooting! What matters is your talent, both in shooting and on the computer. I've shot quite a few jobs with my D70, thousands of images at ISO 1600. All I get are ooh's and ahhh's when I deliver prints.

Get the Rebel (or the D50) if you want less control and better automatic features, at an unbeatable price.

The D70 is in a league of it's own, still incredibly cheap, and in features / performance quite above the Rebel / D50 and a little below the 20D and D200 (out this fall) Get the D70 if you want professional control, professional flash capability, at a very affordable price. Oh and a dynamic buffer... (shoot till the card's full if you have a fast card)

Get the 20D or wait for the D200 if you need mirror lock up or a faster frame rate and if you're willing to spend a bit more. 20D's are probably the best bargain right now, bodies only going at under $1,000!!! But DO NOT get a camera if you're not ready to or planning on growing into it. DSLR's are beasts to be tamed which can take months or years to do.

With this bare-bones information, I think you should be able to decide right now lol...

Good luck! Get it over with soon, and start shooting.

-Matt-

Davidoff · June 29, 2005

Thanks Matt. I think my mind is almost set ! Another question...why should I use MLU if I can just use a timer? Does it blur less even on a tripod? I'm surely ready to take on the beast

Shay Stephens · June 29, 2005

The mirror lock up (MLU) will of course swing the mirror up and out of the way and keep it there until you take the picture. This allows ample time for the camera to be motionless after the mirror swing vibrations have dampened out.

The timer does not do this, it is designed for the camera/tripod to stop moving, but the mirror will swing up just before the exposure and that vibration may be present in the photo when using the self timer to take a critical shot.

Whether or not MLU is a key feature for you, only you can say. I personally don't use and haven't used the feature in any meaningful way so far. This of course does not imply that the feature is meaningless, I just want to illustrate that not everyone needs the feature, and they should make the decision for themselves on whether or not a particular feature is mandatory on their camera.

Davidoff wrote:

Thanks Matt. I think my mind is almost set ! Another question...why should I use MLU if I can just use a timer? Does it blur less even on a tripod? I'm surely ready to take on the beast

Bodley · June 29, 2005

Davidoff wrote:

Thanks Matt. I think my mind is almost set ! Another question...why should I use MLU if I can just use a timer? Does it blur less even on a tripod? I'm surely ready to take on the beast

Food for thought - Which has the most available glass in your area, new and used? Glass seems to enhance the experience more than the body.

With the Canon we have an endless supply of used "Pristine" glass from Andy and Windoze.

Davidoff · June 29, 2005

Bodley wrote:

Food for thought - Which has the most available glass in your area, new and used? Glass seems to enhance the experience more than the body.

With the Canon we have an endless supply of used "Pristine" glass from Andy and Windoze.

That's the thing, there isn't a lot of glass for any of them, but I'd only need 3-4 lenses. Second hand market here is inexistent because of the very very minute market for dSlr's ( or very much every other interesting thing ). Thanks Shay.. I doubt I'll need that. Shouldn't a firmware control that kind of action?

ajgauthier · June 30, 2005

andy wrote:

obrigado

i try to do my part for the cause, y'know?

actually my suggestion would be the canon 20d, but you didn't mention that camera. super fast, great performer, amazing image quality

ok Andy - I've got a question for you regarding Rebel XT vs. 20D

To me...the difference is price, 20D is almost twice the Rebel XT. I have lenses - nice fast astrophotography lens (mucho mucho dinero), the usual Canon kit lens for the Rebel 2000, and a (please don't slap me) Quantary 100-300mm zoom (I was figuring out if I liked photography before I invested in an expensively awesome lens). So -- all I need right now is the camera body...nice lens comes later.

I digress...

When I talk to folks about purchasing a home telescope, like an 8" Meade for instance with a set of spectacular eyepieces...I always say "If you can save $3000 for the telescope and tripod and lenses, go ahead and save $2000 more and buy a 12" next year instead, better investment for the backyard hobbyist"

Does that logic follow for the Rebel XT vs. 20D? Should I suck it up and wait and save and get the 20D in 6 months instead of the Rebel XT now?

thoughts? anyone anyone?

Adrienne

erich6 · June 30, 2005

ajgauthier wrote:

ok Andy - I've got a question for you regarding Rebel XT vs. 20D

To me...the difference is price, 20D is almost twice the Rebel XT. I have lenses - nice fast astrophotography lens (mucho mucho dinero), the usual Canon kit lens for the Rebel 2000, and a (please don't slap me) Quantary 100-300mm zoom (I was figuring out if I liked photography before I invested in an expensively awesome lens). So -- all I need right now is the camera body...nice lens comes later.

I digress...

When I talk to folks about purchasing a home telescope, like an 8" Meade for instance with a set of spectacular eyepieces...I always say "If you can save $3000 for the telescope and tripod and lenses, go ahead and save $2000 more and buy a 12" next year instead, better investment for the backyard hobbyist"

Does that logic follow for the Rebel XT vs. 20D? Should I suck it up and wait and save and get the 20D in 6 months instead of the Rebel XT now?

thoughts? anyone anyone?

Adrienne

The interesting thing about waiting is that by the time you are ready the next model will be out and then you'll be looking at deciding waiting longer to afford the new model or going for what you saved for. If you are disciplined you'll go for what you saved because if it was good before it should still be good then.... Make sense?

Erich

marlof · June 30, 2005

ajgauthier wrote:

Does that logic follow for the Rebel XT vs. 20D? Should I suck it up and wait and save and get the 20D in 6 months instead of the Rebel XT now?

I think there's one difference in the analogy. With the different sized telescopes, the results will be completely different. With the different camera bodies between the 350XT and the 20D, they way to get to those results will be different, but you might get similar results from both. The 20D has several nice advantages over the 350XT (like speed, buffer, second wheel (very nice), build quality) that makes it worth the price difference in my book. But... if I were to buy a Canon body, and I had the choice between shooting now with a 350XT or shooting in 6 months with a 20D, I'd be very tempted by the 350XT. I think (if the advantages of the 20D are not a necessity for your type of shooting) the 350XT is a great way to start in DSLRs, giving you great results. That said: if you know for sure that this will be the last body you'll get for a few years, it might be worth to save up for the 20D.

ajgauthier · June 30, 2005

Get the 20D or wait for the D200 if you need mirror lock up or a faster frame rate and if you're willing to spend a bit more. 20D's are probably the best bargain right now, bodies only going at under $1,000!!!
-Matt-[/QUOTE]
where in the world did you find a 20D body for under $1k through a reputable reseller?? please share!

Adrienne

ajgauthier · June 30, 2005

erich6 wrote:

The interesting thing about waiting is that by the time you are ready the next model will be out and then you'll be looking at deciding waiting longer to afford the new model or going for what you saved for. If you are disciplined you'll go for what you saved because if it was good before it should still be good then.... Make sense?

Erich

True Erich, that's part of my logic too...but...I don't know enough about the real differences and quality between the 350XT and 20D to make a truly informed decision. Like marlof asks...will this be the last body I'll buy in the next few years? Bet your bottom dollar...I need to buy one or the other...no room in the budget to buy a 350XT now and then 2 years from now buy a 20D - unless I win some money or something. It's like buying a car for me...I want it to be a real good investment, but, I really want a DSLR *now*

Thanks everyone for your input, it's definitely affecting my decision making

Adrienne

BenA2 · June 30, 2005

Differentiating features...
Speaking as someone who went through this same dilema a month ago, this is my take. Unless...

1) You need the 20D's faster frame rate
2) You need the 20D's extra 2 focus points
3) You're really going to beat the camera up, or
4) The 350D is too small to be comfortable in your hands, then...

you will definitely not regret the purchase of the 350D. And, I think it will serve you well for several years.

I've shot with both cameras and the only two things I definitely preferred on the 20D over the 350D were the ISO adjustment without having to access a menu on the LCD screen and the second adjustment wheel. And, quite frankly, after now shooting with the 350D for a while, I don't really miss the second wheel, and I've gotten used to the ISO thing. Personally, I love the small size and light weight of the 350D, but I have small hands and like my equipment to pack light.

In my opinion, the 350D has much more value for the dollar for people who don't make their living off of photography.

Hope that helps you out,
Ben

ajgauthier · June 30, 2005

BenA2 wrote:

Speaking as someone who went through this same dilema a month ago, this is my take. Unless...

1) You need the 20D's faster frame rate
2) You need the 20D's extra 2 focus points
3) You're really going to beat the camera up, or
4) The 350D is too small to be comfortable in your hands, then...

you will definitely not regret the purchase of the 350D. And, I think it will serve you well for several years.

I've shot with both cameras and the only two things I definitely preferred on the 20D over the 350D were the ISO adjustment without having to access a menu on the LCD screen and the second adjustment wheel. And, quite frankly, after now shooting with the 350D for a while, I don't really miss the second wheel, and I've gotten used to the ISO thing. Personally, I love the small size and light weight of the 350D, but I have small hands and like my equipment to pack light.

In my opinion, the 350D has much more value for the dollar for people who don't make their living off of photography.

Hope that helps you out,
Ben

thanks for your insights Ben!

Angelo · July 2, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

Aaugh, buy a camera and start shooting! What matters is your talent, .-

Matthew - is a wise man. Here's another opinion: http://rinderart.net/photosite/page.php?page=F.A.Q

Red Bull · July 2, 2005

I was sort of in the same situation. I really, REALLY wanted a dSLR as soon as possible, and I was saving up for the 300D. I always though "Oh I can never afford the 20D" When it came time to really make my decision, I decided that the 20D would probably last me a lot longer than the 300D so I waited and saved up some more money for the 20D. Waiting to buy the 20D was worth it. If I had gotten the 300D I would have just wanted to upgrade in 6 months.

I would say save up your money and get a 20D. Very comfortable to hold, great ISO performance, mirror lockup, second wheel on the back of the camera is very convenient and is WAY better than using those annoying buttons like on the 300D and 350D.

Sure it will take a while to sae up for some nice glass, but if I could wait and buy the 20D, then I can wait and get some nice glass to go with it.

P.S. I am in the same boat as you. I'm 16 and don't have much money!

Andy · October 21, 2005

question from the email bag
got this in an email

emailer wrote:

Well, I need some assistance, I am getting ready to take the plunge into the DSLR world and I would like your opinion. I am really interested in 2 cameras, I know they aren't apples to apples but they are my 2 choices. I have been looking at the Canon 20D and the Nikon D70s. I realize you are a Canon shooter, but I am interested in your opinion if you didn't own any lenses or gear would you still shoot Canon? Also, for the money is the 20D still one of the strongest cameras on the Market? or have you heard anything about a replacement for the 20D. I wished I could afford the 5D or the MKIIN, but my budget is peaking for the 20D and a couple of pieces of glass. Which by the way, leads me into my next question, what 2 lenses would you recommend for general all around shooting, and one for wildlife and distance shots.

I know these questions are very subjective, but I am really serious about getting a new camera, no one loves their Sony's more than I do, but I am getting into more and more situations where I can't even get the shot, and don't even try, which is very discouraging.

Dslr Headache post #59082

Comments