300D, D70 or D10? - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

04/14/2004 05:57:15 PM · #26

Remember that you are buying more into a lens system than anything else. I've posted about this issue several times; see my posts in this thread and this thread; no need for me to try and make my point yet again in this thread, especially about all the pros that are jumping ship from Nikon to Canon in droves... =]

As for the spot metering issue; the 9% partial spot meter on the 10D/300D is more than adequate when you need it; I can count the times on one hand that I've needed to take my 10D off of evaluative metering. And I have to imagine that the metering in a camera like the 10D is much different than metering in a P&S...

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 18:07:44.

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

04/14/2004 06:00:07 PM · #27

All 3 together side by side.
Thanks to dpreview.com

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

04/14/2004 06:05:06 PM · #28

I went for the 10D, so admit I am biased, and have not really played with the D70, so can't speak directly on that. Both are sensational cameras though, as is the 300D, and I don't think you can go wrong at all here.

Two things influenced me in particular to go that route:

1) AT the time the 10D was winning the Gold award, or similar, in it's class in literally every digital photo mag I looked in. The D70 was coming second or even third. There may have been some, but I didn't spot one where the D70 was rated higher. Good Canon PR/marketing, maybe, but as a consumer and with what I knew at the time it was what I had to go on.

2) An indepth review, I forget where sorry - but was one of the major review sites, on both cameras. Both absolutely shined. One conclusion the author made was that there was nothing to make one leap ahead of the other, so if you have Canon lenses already go for Canon, Nikon lenses go for Nikon. I had 2 old Canon lenses (one is on it's way out now and the other broke before I got the actual camera *laugh*).

If you don't have lenses then this is obviously not a factor.

My brother in law has the D70, standard lenses so I assume the same quality, and we can't spot any difference between image quality at all.

I definitely prefer the 10D to the 300D .... but is it worth the extra price? The 300D was not available when I got mine, it had not even been announced. If I were buying now, as I am a pretty average photographer and do not give the 10D a good workout, I think I'd save my money and go for the 300D.

Having said that, I am also sort of glad I got pushed into paying the extra as I do love tghe 10D and will hopefully grow into the more advanced features over time :)

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

04/14/2004 06:06:55 PM · #29

Oh please EddyG, you sound like Canon salesman, no offence. Let me say this: ANY system will serve you very well. Yes, Canon are the biggest and their lens selection kicks ass, but you have to pay for it. Good lenses are expensive, most of the time. I still think that I did pretty good value out of the Olympus "kit" lens.
Just my 2c.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/14/2004 06:08:11 PM · #30

Originally posted by ganders:

I have to say I'm stunned by the spot-metering thing (and also a little alarmed I didn't notice it myself!) - I use the spot on the 7i plenty, and I'd really miss it.

Good point on getting used to the thing, too. We've managed to leave it pretty late, for sure (see dear, next time I tell you I want to go and buy a new toy trust me!)

its just a matter of degree - pun intended.

9 degree vs 1 degree is still a spot, its just a larger spot. The idea that a 'true' spot meter has one degree coverage is just kinda silly. Would that mean a half degree angle spot meter isn't a true spot meter ? or a better spot meter ?

Anyway - I've been vaguely considering getting an actual spot meter, but the partial metering in the canon cameras is certainly adequate for the majority of spot metering needs. I can probably count on my fingers cases where it was actually an issue where a smaller spot would have made a significant difference - and in those cases, I did what I'd do with film, and just bracketed. Mind you, I can probably count on the other hand the times I actually use the evaluative metering modes - I prefer making my own creative choices and not just letting the camera do it for me.

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 18:10:06.

04/14/2004 06:14:33 PM · #31

I guess the partial metering thing being â��enoughâ�� is a really personal thing. I have never found it to be enough for those situations when I want a spot meter. The 1D and 1Ds both do have a spot meter and that is one of the things I really miss from my 1D. As far as a lens system is concerned, both Nikon and Canon have a pretty full range of lenses so it isnâ��t that big of an issue either. Both companies make awesome lenses but there are a few lenses in each system that arenâ��t exactly duplicated in the other. These are very specialized lenses. So unless you want something like a 200mm f/1.8 or a 200-400 f/4 the two systems are pretty comparable. Another example is the AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 ED-IF II vs the EF 600mm f/4L IS. Some people complain that Nikon does not yet have long tele-primes with VR. The nikkor comes in either black or white finish and weighs 10.7lb while the Canon is white finish only and weighs 11.8lb. IMO itâ��s again pretty much a wash.

Greg

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/14/2004 06:14:44 PM · #32

Originally posted by jonr:

Yes, Canon are the biggest and their lens selection kicks ass, but you have to pay for it. Good lenses are expensive, most of the time.

And comparable Nikon lenses are almost always more expensive than the comparable Canon versions.

Example (B&H pricing from today):
Canon 50mm/1.8 $69.95 (USA version)
Nikon 50mm/1.8D $99.95 (USA version)

Also see my post in this thread where I compare the pricing/features of the Canon 300/4L IS to the Nikon 300mm/4...

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 18:18:02.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

04/14/2004 06:25:44 PM · #33

How do the prices of non-manufacturer lenses stack up though - I'm more than happy to take a lens from Sigma/Tamron/; are Nikon-fit versions from them more expensive than Canon-fit ones?

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/14/2004 06:28:10 PM · #34

Originally posted by ganders:

How do the prices of non-manufacturer lenses stack up though - I'm more than happy to take a lens from Sigma/Tamron/; are Nikon-fit versions from them more expensive than Canon-fit ones?

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is an identical price on B&H for both EF and AF-D fits. ($739, btw. :-) )

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/14/2004 06:30:53 PM · #35

Originally posted by dadas115:

So unless you want something like a 200mm f/1.8 or a 200-400 f/4 the two systems are pretty comparable. Another example is the AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 ED-IF II vs the EF 600mm f/4L IS. Some people complain that Nikon does not yet have long tele-primes with VR. The nikkor comes in either black or white finish and weighs 10.7lb while the Canon is white finish only and weighs 11.8lb. IMO itâ��s again pretty much a wash.

Greg

It is probably worth pointing out to Kavey, that these lenses that Greg are talking about are all in the 5000 to 8000 GBP range and probably not something you should be too concerned about in general, I feel.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/14/2004 06:33:31 PM · #36

Originally posted by dadas115:

I guess the partial metering thing being â��enoughâ�� is a really personal thing. I have never found it to be enough for those situations when I want a spot meter.

I pretty much can always find something in the equivalent light that I can meter off, and work out the relevant exposure, that's why I haven't found it a problem. I'm thinking of getting a spot meter mainly for more complex cases, were a camera spot meter wouldn't help much either.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/14/2004 06:39:49 PM · #37

One thing you might want to consider is that Canon has a history of releasing more full-frame sensor cameras than Nikon. Nikon doesn't seem to be as interested in them. So if you want to place a bet on which lenses will be more useful at their native 35mm size in a few years, Canon looks like the way to go at the moment. :)

04/14/2004 06:49:18 PM · #38

I used the spot meter a lot in nature photography where I couldnâ��t get close enough to the subjects for the 9% coverage to cut the mustard. I could use a hand-held spot meter but that is another piece of equipment to have to hike around with (which I like to keep to a minimum since I am usually already carrying at the very least a 12lb lens.

Also as Gordon pointed out, the lenses that I mentioned are extremely expensive lenses that are very specialized. I doubt most people who would be looking at Rebelâ��s or 10Dâ��s or D70â��s will be rushing to the store to buy these lenses.

There has been a lot of talk by those who supposedly know that Nikon will be releasing a full frame digital body in the hopefully near future. The Kodak FF that uses Nikon mount lenses is already available and so far Canon had only released ONE full frame digital body.

Greg

04/14/2004 07:05:43 PM · #39

Originally posted by dadas115:

The Kodak FF that uses Nikon mount lenses is already available and so far Canon had only released ONE full frame digital body.

Don't forget that Kodak also has a full-frame Canon-mount DSLR... meaning there are now 2 FF Canon-compatible DSLR's. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that Canon will just rest on their laurels and not release a new FF DSLR soon, especially considering how successful the 1Ds has been.

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 19:06:33.

04/14/2004 07:07:59 PM · #40

Who said Canon wouldn't release more. The only reason I pointed it out was that 1-0 isn't exactly a huge margin. I hardly think that Nikon has no plans to produce a FF body in the near future so the FF thing is really a non-issue.

Greg

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/14/2004 07:12:30 PM · #41

Originally posted by dadas115:

There are more cameras using Canon mounts and larger sensors than in the Nikon stable. The non-FF high-end Canon 1.3X multiplier is a lot nicer than the 1.5X on Nikon's equivalents. My basic point is that, historically, Canon seems a lot more interested in sensor size than Nikon. Place your bets now.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

04/14/2004 07:18:01 PM · #42

Originally posted by dadas115:

There has been a lot of talk by those who supposedly know that Nikon will be releasing a full frame digital body in the hopefully near future. The Kodak FF that uses Nikon mount lenses is already available and so far Canon had only released ONE full frame digital body.

My intent is not to hijack the thread but just to temper the emphasis I perceived on the "ONE" FF digital by asking Greg (or anyone else),

Don't you think that Canon is several years ahead of any other manufacturer when it comes to FF sensor technology? My understanding is limited as I've never shot either the Kodak 14/n/c/etc or the 1Ds but only two manufacturers have ever supplied a FF 35mm digital body and Kodak's first foray was less than successful from what I've read on DPReview and FredMiranda as well as more mainstream publications like Outdoor Photography or Studio Photography and Design. It seems that their signal-to-noise ratio was less than acceptable except at extrememly low ISO's. It's always been my assumption that Nikon wasn't passing over the FF market because of lack of interest; rather I assumed that they didn't want the "bad" press that Fuji bought themselves with consumers when they mislabeled the S1 as though it didn't perform interpolation or the same as Kodak appeared to garner with more professional studios when their FF entry didn't measure up to the quality output the 1Ds generated. I just always figured that once Nikon felt that they could dependably produce a digital body that would compete at around 15mp and a decent dynamic range (still not like the Foeveon sensors), they would add enough extras to the camera to make it more attractive than the 1Ds and bring it to market. Of course, that leads back into my initial question of isn't Canon at least 12 months ahead of anyone else with having FF sensor digital bodies out in the market and doesn't that give them an edge at least for the next round of high-end products to be delivered.

I know this doesn't necessarily deal with the D70/300D/10D question but I echo earlier posts that any of the three will generate good images and have comparable feature/price benefits that can quickly be evaluated for what Kavey and Ganders need. I think the decision will be made when you two pick up one of these beauties and just fall in love with the handling. I happen to love my 10D and I'm just saving up for both the EF 400 f/2.8 L IS and the 1Ds or its successor. Hey, everyone has to have some hobby don't they? I'm sure many of the Nikon folks are just as satisfied with their purchases, too.

BTW, I'm very envious of your trip. Take some more beautiful photos to share with us.

Kevin

EDIT: forgot Ganders' "s"

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 19:19:05.

04/14/2004 07:21:06 PM · #43

If we talk details:

Nikon has released the D1, D1X, D1H, D100, D2H and D70; every one of these has used the Nikon "DX" sensor size (23.7 x 15.5 mm, 1.5X crop factor). Nikon also has 4 DX-series lenses that will only work on their DX-sensor sized cameras. (Meaning that if you have Nikon DX lenses and upgrade to a FF sensor camera later, your DX lens will not be useful.)

Canon has released the D30, D60, 10D and 300D (22.7 mm x 15.1 mm, 1.6X), 1D and 1D Mark II (28.7 x 19.1 mm, 1.3X) and the 1Ds (35.8 x 23.8 mm, 1X). Every retail EF Canon lens will work on any of these cameras.

Looking at it another way, Canon has 3 DSLR's that have larger sensors than any Nikon digital body...

04/14/2004 07:26:16 PM · #44

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

I'm sure many of the Nikon folks are just as satisfied with their purchases, too.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. =] Read some of the posts (like this one) in professional photography forums and you'll find more than a few pros who have shot Nikon gear exclusviely for 25+ years seeing that the grass is greener on the other side and switching to Canon. I've yet to read about the reverse (a long-time Canon shooter switching to Nikon)...

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 19:26:45.

04/14/2004 07:50:42 PM · #45

I have shot with the 14n and the 1Ds. Also, Contax also had a full frame digital body and there are several manufacturers that make larger than full frame sensors. Yes, the original 14N wasnâ��t the greatest camera in the world and the 1Ds is a very nice camera. I think it is pretty short sighted to think that Nikon wonâ��t be coming out with a FF DSLR soon and I also expect it will be very good. Canon came out with the 300D first but the D70 is very clearly a better camera. The D2h is clearly better than the original 1D and I will expect that the F6 or whatever Nikon will call their new body will be better than the 1Ds. Yes, so far Nikon has been slower to market with these cameras and I sure hope Canon pulls a similar trick that they did with the 1D2 when the F6 is announced but the fact is that Nikon isnâ��t just laying down in the grave here. Furthermore, Nikon has released DX lenses for those who want the full focal length range and donâ��t want to wait for what will surely be a very expensive FF pro body. I hardly think that someone who is debating between the 10D, DR and D70 is chomping at the bits to plunk down several thousand dollars for a FF digital body right now. I would expect that Nikon will have theirs available by the time they are ready to buy such a camera if they ever are ready. Yes, as a Canon user with extensive amounts of EOS system equipment it feels good to think that Canon is way ahead of Nikon and everyone else. In reality I think I benefit a lot more from a strong Nikon and other competitors for Canon. I have used several of the Nikon bodies and lenses and I can tell you first hand that they have some great equipment that I would be proud to own and use. You donâ��t need to look far to find LOTS of great pictures taken by people using Nikon DSLRâ��s so I stand by my statement that the two systems are more or less comparable with a few special exceptions. I canâ��t think of a single picture I have seen from a Canon DSLR that couldnâ��t have been made using Nikon equipment. This really is good for someone who is about to get in the DSLR game because you can concentrate on the really important things like which camera feels better in your hands and which camera handles better for you.

Those who think that Nikon is so far behind Canon in DSLR's might also like to check out the D70 review over at imaging-resource

Greg

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 19:53:54.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/14/2004 07:57:52 PM · #46

To further clarify my point, I'm coming at this from the position that it's not the back that's the investment, it's the lenses. So get the lenses that you think will support the most interesting backs in the future, and for me, those backs appear to be Canon's. The camera you buy today probably won't be the camera you use for the rest of your life, but the lenses you buy could very well be. Don't just think about what specific camera model you're buying now based purely on features, think about which system you're investing in... into the future!

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 20:05:32.

04/14/2004 08:01:01 PM · #47

And that was exactly my point way back towards the beginning of this thread when I said "Remember that you are buying more into a lens system than anything else."

04/14/2004 08:14:30 PM · #48

Originally posted by dadas115:

The D2h is clearly better than the original 1D

I don't know that I'd agree with that statement, even though the D2h came out 2 years after the 1D. They are both 4MP cameras (why Nikon didn't improve the resolution after 2 years left a lot of Nikon users scratching their heads), and the noise issues on the D2h are an issue. Quoting from the Imaging-Resource review:

On a purely visual basis though, the EOS-1D seems to win the noise derby most of the time under good lighting.

and

To my mind, a bigger issue is the D2H's color, specifically the extent to which it loses saturation at very high ISOs. Given that the this camera's primary market is sports shooters and photojournalists, both of whom will often need to push the camera's ISO to the limits, the color falloff at high ISO could be a concern.

So your "clearly better" comment isn't necessarily the case from what I've read, and the D2h's performance is one of the reasons many pros have switched to Canon...

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 20:15:50.