| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2005 10:51:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Probably not, but it'll make you less snobbish :)
Originally posted by Damian:
Canon will not magically make you a better photographer.
You will spend so much money switching and see no improvement in the final picture you take. |
|
all that money just to get rid of snobishness......nah.....ill keep mine : ) lol
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 10:54:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Damian:
see no improvement in the final picture you take. |
How do you know that? I would say he will see a 2Mp improvement in his pictures if nothing else. I switched last year and didn't lose more then $400 over what I had paid for my Sigma and Nikkor lenses when I bought them years before. And I had a couple thousand dollars worth of lenses. If his lenses are in good shape he won't lose much at all. If he buys equivelent used lenses he may not lose a dollar.
Hey, if this is what he wants to do why don't you all just wish him luck instead of spreading doom.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:09:13 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Hey, if this is what he wants to do why don't you all just wish him luck instead of spreading doom. |
Because he asked for an opinion. Just because YOU switched to Canon, doesn't necessarily mean it is the right/best thing to do. Maybe people want to make sure he is positive he is making the best decision.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:14:29 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Hey, if this is what he wants to do why don't you all just wish him luck instead of spreading doom. |
Because he asked for an opinion. Just because YOU switched to Canon, doesn't necessarily mean it is the right/best thing to do. Maybe people want to make sure he is positive he is making the best decision. |
But telling him he will lose tons of money and that it can in no way help his photography is at best speculation, and quite possibly borders on BS.
Message edited by author 2005-03-13 23:17:33.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:18:25 PM · #30 |
The D100 is from what I understand (and bear in mind I'm certainly no expert) a pretty damn capable camera. If I were you I'd be tempted to take the advice of one of the other posters and hold out a few months to see if nikon comes up with an upgrade to the d70.
Of course if a few hundred dollars loss and the inconvenience of having to sell everything don't worry you in the least then definately go for it. That eight megapixel sensor is very tempting. |
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:22:21 PM · #31 |
I just love these Cannon / Nikon wars! Come on, one is not better than the other. Cannon gains on its marketing at the moment. Nikon on past rep. They end up leap-froging each other over the years.
The best advice I got when buying is to go out and feel, hold, and use the camera. Which feels more natural for you. For me the D-70 just seemed intuitive. For others the Cannon.
As long as you do not have a MAJOR investment in lens go with your heart.
And guys, we don’t need to justify our decision on a camera by dissing the other.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:23:40 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Hey, if this is what he wants to do why don't you all just wish him luck instead of spreading doom. |
Because he asked for an opinion. Just because YOU switched to Canon, doesn't necessarily mean it is the right/best thing to do. Maybe people want to make sure he is positive he is making the best decision. |
But telling him he will lose tons of money and that it can in no way help his photography is at best speculation, and quite possibly borders on BS. |
borders on BS?
Oh please...
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:35:04 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Damian:
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer. |
Who said anything about improveing his eye or his technique? If he gets higher resolution pictures his photography automatically improves. From what I have seen from his website he already has a good eye and good technique. And what makes you think that DPC is the reason he takes pictures? If he was only in it for DPC he could stick to a 4Mp P&S and do just as well.
Message edited by author 2005-03-13 23:43:41.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:42:44 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer. |
Who said anything about improveing his eye or his technique? If he gets higher resolution pictures his photography automatically improves. And from what I have seen from his website he already has a good eye and good technique. And what makes you think that DPC is the reason he takes pictures? If he was only in it for DPC he could stick to a 4Mp P&S and do just as well. |
If you look at my first message, I said switching to Canon will not make him a better photographer. I also never said he had bad photography, I think he is a good photographer, but what im saying is that two megapixels and switching to the Canon system will not make him a better photographer. I dont know how you think it will. You may think that megapixels make the photographer, but it's a little more deep than that.
I think both Nikon and Canon systems are fantastic, but in this case, I think switching over will do nothing. I really do not understand why you are pushing for a switch? Brand loyalty maybe?
Message edited by author 2005-03-13 23:44:33.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:47:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Damian:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer. |
Who said anything about improveing his eye or his technique? If he gets higher resolution pictures his photography automatically improves. And from what I have seen from his website he already has a good eye and good technique. And what makes you think that DPC is the reason he takes pictures? If he was only in it for DPC he could stick to a 4Mp P&S and do just as well. |
If you look at my first message, I said switching to Canon will not make him a better photographer. I also never said he had bad photography, I think he is a good photographer, but what im saying is that two megapixels and switching to the Canon system will not make him a better photographer. I dont know how you think it will. You may think that megapixels make the photographer, but it's a little more deep than that. |
Not a better photographer, better photographs. Who here does not want better photographs? He will have better tools to get better photographs if he switches from his D100 to a 20D. That simple.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:49:10 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Damian:
If you look at my first message, I said switching to Canon will not make him a better photographer. I also never said he had bad photography, I think he is a good photographer, but what im saying is that two megapixels and switching to the Canon system will not make him a better photographer. I dont know how you think it will. You may think that megapixels make the photographer, but it's a little more deep than that. |
I think he's just saying the photograph will be better because it will be a bit higher in resolution, not that his photography "skills" will improve..
The megapixel marketing ploy is pretty much like the ol' CPU marketing ploy of a couple years ago. Sure a couple megapixel makes a little bigger image, but is it enough to make that much of a difference?
Ken Rockwell has a pretty interesting article on the "megapixel myth" I read the other day.
Edit: I'm a slow typer, but at least I was understanding. :)
Message edited by author 2005-03-13 23:53:22.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:51:47 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer. |
Who said anything about improveing his eye or his technique? If he gets higher resolution pictures his photography automatically improves. And from what I have seen from his website he already has a good eye and good technique. And what makes you think that DPC is the reason he takes pictures? If he was only in it for DPC he could stick to a 4Mp P&S and do just as well. |
If you look at my first message, I said switching to Canon will not make him a better photographer. I also never said he had bad photography, I think he is a good photographer, but what im saying is that two megapixels and switching to the Canon system will not make him a better photographer. I dont know how you think it will. You may think that megapixels make the photographer, but it's a little more deep than that. |
Not a better photographer, better photographs. Who here does not want better photographs? He will have better tools to get better photographs if he switches from his D100 to a 20D. That simple. |
I was refering to photographic ability from the start.
Minimal gain in quality for a lot of trouble (selling lenses, body, etc)
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:53:17 PM · #38 |
Wow - I feel like in in the Bronx in the middle of a Red Sox/Yankees game. LOL.
Stephanie
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:54:36 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
Wow - I feel like in in the Bronx in the middle of a Red Sox/Yankees game. LOL.
Stephanie |
All is well, no hard feelings towards anyone. : )
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 11:58:01 PM · #40 |
Well, I would also consider this, and I am putting this in with zero bias to either camp ....
Look to the long term, and some potential lenses you might want.
Do you see yourself with a heap of Nikon or Canon glass on your Santa list?
It is just as much about glass, including FUTURE glass, as it is about bodies.
Do you have a preference for either flavour of glass? I'd be considering that as well, not only current glass but speculated future glass (if there is such information).
P.S. Isn't it about time someone sparked in with the usual "Why are you not considering Pentax/Olympus/xxxxxxx style comment? Come on, someone has to do that or this thread has no credibility ;)
Message edited by author 2005-03-13 23:59:22.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:14:01 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Damian:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer. |
Who said anything about improveing his eye or his technique? If he gets higher resolution pictures his photography automatically improves. And from what I have seen from his website he already has a good eye and good technique. And what makes you think that DPC is the reason he takes pictures? If he was only in it for DPC he could stick to a 4Mp P&S and do just as well. |
If you look at my first message, I said switching to Canon will not make him a better photographer. I also never said he had bad photography, I think he is a good photographer, but what im saying is that two megapixels and switching to the Canon system will not make him a better photographer. I dont know how you think it will. You may think that megapixels make the photographer, but it's a little more deep than that. |
Not a better photographer, better photographs. Who here does not want better photographs? He will have better tools to get better photographs if he switches from his D100 to a 20D. That simple. |
I was refering to photographic ability from the start.
Minimal gain in quality for a lot of trouble (selling lenses, body, etc) |
He is going to trade up the body anyway, and he doesn't have that much in lenses. The gain in quality is not as minimal as you might think. The difference how my prints look from the 6Mp 300D I had and the 8Mp 1D Mk II I'm using now is quite obvious.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:17:16 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
How will his technique be improved or his eye be improved with a camera that has higher megapixel? Or more importantly, on DPC, where we see only 640x480 file sizes.
You know what borders on bs? the megepixel comment.....apart from getting a slightly better crop and printing slightly bigger, it does not do one thing to make a person a better photographer. |
Who said anything about improveing his eye or his technique? If he gets higher resolution pictures his photography automatically improves. And from what I have seen from his website he already has a good eye and good technique. And what makes you think that DPC is the reason he takes pictures? If he was only in it for DPC he could stick to a 4Mp P&S and do just as well. |
If you look at my first message, I said switching to Canon will not make him a better photographer. I also never said he had bad photography, I think he is a good photographer, but what im saying is that two megapixels and switching to the Canon system will not make him a better photographer. I dont know how you think it will. You may think that megapixels make the photographer, but it's a little more deep than that. |
Not a better photographer, better photographs. Who here does not want better photographs? He will have better tools to get better photographs if he switches from his D100 to a 20D. That simple. |
I was refering to photographic ability from the start.
Minimal gain in quality for a lot of trouble (selling lenses, body, etc) |
He is going to trade up the body anyway, and he doesn't have that much in lenses. The gain in quality is not as minimal as you might think. The difference how my prints look from the 6Mp 300D I had and the 8Mp 1D Mk II I'm using now is quite obvious. |
It comes down to his choice really. I dont see a huge difference between the image quality in the D100 and the 20D
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:20:05 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Damian:
It comes down to his choice really. I dont see a huge difference between the image quality in the D100 and the 20D |
Have you printed from both? I haven't but I was just asking.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:23:49 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Damian:
It comes down to his choice really. I dont see a huge difference between the image quality in the D100 and the 20D |
Have you printed from both? I haven't but I was just asking. |
I havent also. Just seen image quality tests online before and nothing jumped out at me that screams one over the other.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:27:42 AM · #45 |
I just went to Steves Digicams and the difference in the M&M image at ISO 400 taken with the D100 and the 20D was substantial. Look at the titles on the magazines at expanded resolution.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:40:08 AM · #46 |
Yes the Canon cleans up noise nicer the the nikon. And at 100% does look a bit better. Id like to point out that the exposure and white balance in the canon picture are bang on, in the Nikon one, not really, hence the noise in the shadows. From these two very somewhat different pictures, I find that the 20D with its newer technology does not run away with image quality. My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 12:46:46 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Natator:
P.S. Isn't it about time someone sparked in with the usual "Why are you not considering Pentax/Olympus/xxxxxxx style comment? Come on, someone has to do that or this thread has no credibility ;) |
Buy an ist*DS :P!
hehehehe...
realistically though, my camera isn't really aimed at the same market as the 20D, which for us brisbanites retails for almost twice the price. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 01:58:03 AM · #48 |
hmm my school has a d100, and my boss has a 20d. I’ve worked with both a lot, but mostly with the d100. I’ll tell you now I shoot with a Nikon film camera, but I don’t think I’m all too biased one way or the other. I think you’re going to be going through a lot of trouble for the sake of a body, but its your call. The canon’s image quality at high isos kicks the d100 all over the place. Of course, this is due to the newer technology, not an inherent superiority to the platform. At 1600 iso, you’ll be blown away by the 20d. at 100, not so much.
Another important consideration is the lenses you’re using now. If you keep using tamron and sigma, there’s no reason to have a fierce brand loyalty. what you’re going to take a loss on in trading is the d100 body. People wont pay top dollar for used electronics like they will for used optics. You’re going to get maybe 500 for it at a store, maybe more on ebay, though I know I wouldn’t pay more than 400 for one When its all said and done, youll be doing well to take a 150 dollar hit on trading in the lenses, and (assuming you bought the d100 new) about a grand lost on selling the body. The money for the lenses will be reinvested, so if we are generous and say you get 800 dollars for the body, you will be spending 700 for the 20d, and probably an extra 200 to switch lenses. So like about a thousand dollars to switch. The guys that point out that their 1500 dollar lens retained its value are right, but the same doesn’t really apply to Sigma or Tamron offerings as much. That nikkor 50mm will resell for almost what you bought it for sure, but that’s because its nikkor and people are willing to pay more for it, and trust the quality of its used equipment more (the same can be said for canon please don’t yell at me!) the 70-300 sigma retiails for 169, and people are willing to pay a bit more to get it new from a store. Same with the tamron 28-70. Sigma and Tamron do not enjoy the brand loyalty that Nikon or Canon do, so the resale value goes down. Most people hunting the used market (that I know) are looking for expensive glass at good prices, so they wouldn’t be interested in what you have. Now, find a photography student, and youll probably get the best return. The guy that pointed out that Nikon might top the 20d is probably right. Right now theres a 200 dollar rebate on the d70 kit, which puts it at 1100, a good deal for the quality of optics you get with that lens. Its also a sign that Nikon is planning a newer camera, similar to what canon did with the digital rebel. Stick a big rebate on it, come out with an 8 meg version 6 months later.
I honestly think the magnesium alloy body of the 20d does not make a huge difference. When I was buying an slr, I picked an n90s in large part because it was heavy and I figured I was getting something of superior quality. After trucking that thing around, ive come to appreciate a light camera, even if it doesn’t feel like it could stop a bullet. If youre not taking this thing to the jungle, I wouldn’t place too much value on the weight. I think the d70 is just as ergonomically sound as the 20d.
Now I know this isn’t something a lot of people take into consideration, but if you’re willing to buy used, Nikon is generally the way to go. I just cannot find the same variety of the same good lenses for Canon on the used market that I can for Nikon. All of my stuff has been bought used, and I’ve saved almost 2 grand that way. But most people don’t like buying display items, much less something that’s been (gasp!) USED before. Anyway, that’s something I’d think about if I were you.
I don’t know what else to say. I know I wouldn’t change, but that’s because im a student and cant afford to go through the hassle of selling everything then learning all the quirks of a new system all over again. This might be something to consider for yourself. Also, unless you are not getting acceptable results with the d100, why go through the trouble. I know its awesome when you try out some brand new equipment and fall in love with it, but unless your images are disappointing you, you’re doing a lot for possibly not much gain.
sorry if this is a bit long...
Message edited by author 2005-03-14 01:59:56. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 06:51:54 AM · #49 |
Bought 20D tested it for a week, and exchanged it for D70.
If you shoot RAW 20D is almost useless, if you shoot JPGs than 20D is a better choice. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 07:55:27 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
If you shoot RAW 20D is almost useless ... |
Why?
|
|
