Nikon D100 vs Canon 10D - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/17/2003 01:20:27 PM · #1

I was going to wait a few years until 10+ MP DSLR's were available and affordable, but I don't think i can wait! Does anyone know of a Nikon D100 vs. Canon 10D thread I can refer to? I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just to go back and review another thread if available...
Thanks,
JD Anderson

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

08/17/2003 01:26:52 PM · #2

here's one..

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=32101

bod

08/17/2003 01:27:26 PM · #3

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=35293

There's a link in there to another discussion.

I'd also suggest searching the dpreview forums - I did see a link to a review comparing the two in there once.

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 13:27:53.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/17/2003 01:38:25 PM · #4

//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/10dd100.htm

Ken's comparison of the two cameras.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/17/2003 01:41:11 PM · #5

//www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004vUF

Here's a discussion on Photo.net

08/17/2003 01:56:14 PM · #6

Personally I'm going with the 10D because I like the lens selection and like that I'll be able to use the lenses for film, and for a full-framed sensor some day if Canon ever makes an affordable body with a full-framed sensor. The new Nikon 4/3 system means that you can't use those lenses with film.

My first two will be the 50 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.8L (the prime). I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L but I'll be using it for track and field, cross country, etc. and I can stand where I want and I know where my focal point will be ahead of time. I also figure I'll need the extra stop sometimes, as I live on the west coast where it's frequently dark and gloomy, and a lot of events I shoot are in the evening. I'd love to get the 70-200 f/2.8L but it's not currently in my budget.

Mainly, the wide and midrange L zooms are the reason to get the Canon - the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70 f/2.8L are two really professional lenses that, when combined with a 70-200 f/2.8L, would give you a terrific range at a constant aperture with only three lenses.

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 14:00:27.

08/17/2003 02:25:11 PM · #7

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

My first two will be the 50 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.8L (the prime). I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L but I'll be using it for track and field, cross country, etc. and I can stand where I want and I know where my focal point will be ahead of time. I also figure I'll need the extra stop sometimes, as I live on the west coast where it's frequently dark and gloomy, and a lot of events I shoot are in the evening. I'd love to get the 70-200 f/2.8L but it's not currently in my budget.

Mainly, the wide and midrange L zooms are the reason to get the Canon - the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70 f/2.8L are two really professional lenses that, when combined with a 70-200 f/2.8L, would give you a terrific range at a constant aperture with only three lenses.

That's funny... I was also looking at the 1.4 50 and another prime telephoto. I like having zoom, but the image quality from a prime lens is hard to beat. Several primes over a good range, along with walking a little here and there will be fine.

Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning to the Canon 10D, but I don't like that it does not have rear curtain sync for flash, and that it does not have a manual calibration for white balance. (correct me if I'm wrong). From various reviews, it appears that they are both excellent cameras. I have Nikon film SLR's, but my lenses are lower end Tamron and basic Nikkor that I'm not impressed with.

08/17/2003 02:30:28 PM · #8

That 200 f/2.8L II USM is supposed to be absolutely dynamite...razor sharp and very quick USM, and at $650ish a great value. Every review I've read about it is a rave. With the 10D it's essentially a 320mm lens at f/2.8, but as it's a crop and not a magnification it retains the optical qualities of the 200 in that it doesn't flatten facial features like a 300 on a film camera would.

Originally posted by smellyfish1002:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
My first two will be the 50 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.8L (the prime). I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L but I'll be using it for track and field, cross country, etc. and I can stand where I want and I know where my focal point will be ahead of time. I also figure I'll need the extra stop sometimes, as I live on the west coast where it's frequently dark and gloomy, and a lot of events I shoot are in the evening. I'd love to get the 70-200 f/2.8L but it's not currently in my budget.

Mainly, the wide and midrange L zooms are the reason to get the Canon - the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70 f/2.8L are two really professional lenses that, when combined with a 70-200 f/2.8L, would give you a terrific range at a constant aperture with only three lenses.

That's funny... I was also looking at the 1.4 50 and another prime telephoto. I like having zoom, but the image quality from a prime lens is hard to beat. Several primes over a good range, along with walking a little here and there will be fine.

Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning to the Canon 10D, but I don't like that it does not have rear curtain sync for flash, and that it does not have a manual calibration for white balance. (correct me if I'm wrong). From various reviews, it appears that they are both excellent cameras. I have Nikon film SLR's, but my lenses are lower end Tamron and basic Nikkor that I'm not impressed with.

08/17/2003 02:48:22 PM · #9

Does anyone have any experience with Canon's macro lenses? I love 'prosumer' digital cameras with a great Macro mode. With SLR, macros are a little more involved.

08/17/2003 03:31:36 PM · #10

I believe Gordon has the 100mm macro, and it's widely considered to be close to L quality. It's also a good portrait lens...

08/17/2003 03:36:47 PM · #11

100mm lense on a 10D would be a like a 160mm
Cant see how that would make a good portrait lens

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 15:38:34.

08/17/2003 03:38:08 PM · #12

Originally posted by Nazgul:

The Sun to me is dark, and silent as the Moon

Try going outside! LOL

Excellent Right Angles submission, by the way. I liked "Broken Home" a lot!
JD Anderson

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 15:46:23.

08/17/2003 03:38:56 PM · #13

what does that mean?

08/17/2003 03:39:52 PM · #14

Originally posted by Nazgul:

what does that mean?

I've never heard anyone say the sun is dark...
just curious about that.

08/17/2003 03:41:57 PM · #15

Listen to Nick Cave and you get the point;)

its "Broken Home" not Broken Homes":o

Thanx:D

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 15:44:07.

08/17/2003 03:47:44 PM · #16

Originally posted by Nazgul:

Listen to Nick Cave and you get the point;)

its "Broken Home" not Broken Homes":o

Thanx:D

OK, I fixed it... I've never heard of Nick Cave... I know all the 80's, and 90's bands. Now I have three little kids and I know nothing of current culture! LOL

08/17/2003 03:48:22 PM · #17

Originally posted by Nazgul:

100mm lense on a 10D would be a like a 160mm
Cant see how that would make a good portrait lens

160mm is an awesome focal length for portraits. Here's an example of it used as a portrait lens (from the DPReview Canon SLR Lens Talk forum):

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 15:49:01.

Niten

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/17/2003 03:53:08 PM · #18

Originally posted by smellyfish1002:

Does anyone have any experience with Canon's macro lenses? I love 'prosumer' digital cameras with a great Macro mode. With SLR, macros are a little more involved.

I have only had mine about a week (canon 100mm macro)but I really like it. The 180mmL is really the one to go with but it is hard to justify that kind of cash.

Tim

08/17/2003 03:53:19 PM · #19

shows how little I know:/

08/17/2003 04:04:54 PM · #20

With the prime SLR lenses (which can all produce exceptional background blur in all but the most extreme wide-angle shots) it's more the flattening effect of a lens as the focal length gets longer which determines whether or not it's a good lens for portraits. A 600mm lens would give a very two-dimensional look to a person's face, as the distances are quite compressed. A shorter focal length has a wider perspective, and as in the 100mm portrait, the facial features still have a very three-dimensional depth.

Originally posted by Nazgul:

shows how little I know:/

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/17/2003 04:48:26 PM · #21

JD,

the 10D has both of those features.

Originally posted by smellyfish1002:

Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning to the Canon 10D, but I don't like that it does not have rear curtain sync for flash, and that it does not have a manual calibration for white balance. (correct me if I'm wrong).

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/17/2003 04:54:30 PM · #22

"Understanding the DSLR Magnification Factor"

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

With the 10D it's essentially a 320mm lens at f/2.8, but as it's a crop and not a magnification it retains the ...

08/17/2003 05:04:56 PM · #23

Right...thanks for the link. Like I said, the 200mm is still a 200m with the center cropped out. The field of view is different but the magnification remains the same.

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 17:08:10.

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/17/2003 05:18:19 PM · #24

yup :) .. putting that up for others who might not be as up on the theory :) ..

Message edited by author 2003-08-17 19:54:38.