|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2004 09:00:28 AM · #101 |
Christie,
If you are looking to do sports photography, there is simply no substitute for the 10D in the price range you are looking at. Many of the capabilities that are present in the 10D and absent in the dRebel are highly relevant to sports photography (continuous AF and the alternate metering modes spring immediately to mind). There is simply no DSLR at these price points that outperforms the 10D for sports photography.
If you absolutely need to save a few dollars, I would strongly recommend that you consider the Nikon D70. The D70 is at the same price point as the dRebel and gives you far more camera for the money. Though it is not the same level of camera as the 10D, it significantly outperforms the dRebel. The fact that most Nikon D70 reviews make comparisons between against the 10D, rather than the dRebel, is telling. Simply put, I see no reason for anyone who does not already own Canon glass to be considering the dRebel over the D70.
In summary, my opinion and experience is that the 10D is far and away the best camera of the three for sports photography, but that the Nikon D70 performs respectably in that area. If sports photography is a primary objective of upgrading, I'd urge you to go with the 10D as it is the "no regrets, no compromises" choice. If it will be an occasional aside, the D70 is a good choice at a lower price point.
If you would like to see some sample images from the 10D, please check my baseball portfolio. All the images in that folder except "Employee Theft" were created with the 10D.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 10:52:16 AM · #102 |
Folks,
I never criticize another person's choice when they buy camera equipment. The truth is there is very little difference in the upper end of the spectrum and boils down to personal choice. I have owned virtually every pro Nikon camera since 1977, a few Canon EOS models, and still own 2 Leica rangefinders.
I started modestly with a Nikon 950 digital, bought a couple of small Sony (DSC-U30, DSC-U60) compact digitals, then (bucking lots of negative publicity) bought a Sony DSC-F828. Why? Andy Williams' photos using an 828 on dpreview were superior to 95% of the "pro" camera pictures on the same forum - still holds true, the photographer makes the pics not the camera. I bought the 828 because it was a superbly designed camera with lots of features, a great, fast lens, and double media type capability. Pictures are indeed super if you follow the 828 "rules" - no severe contrast scenes and no high-ISO settings (unless you use Neat Image!).
Finally I convinced myself that I could be an all-digital guy and started researching DSLRs. As much as I like the 828, it's not as capable in some scenarios as a DSLR and heck, I like toys. I spent the last 6 months holding, using, and reading about the D70, D100, 300D, 10D, and E-1. I ruled out the D100 based on old-tech and a requirement for some substantial post processing in some images. Is it a bad camera? No way, just not as "fresh" as the D70.
Ruled out the D70 and 300D because they are, well, plastic. I don't care what anyone says about the super duper polycarbonate bodies, I like metal and substantial bodies (on my cameras!). That left me with the 10D and E-1. I know, you've read the dpreview review of the E-1 that talks about slightly more noise than the 10D, etc. Well, I challenge anyone on an 11X14 pic to tell the difference in noise and resolution between the two. I have good eyes and I can't. We're splitting hairs at this level of hardware. What really sold me on the E-1 were a few key advantages:
1) Lack of need for heavy post-processing of any kind.
2) More "film-like" images - remind me of my Leica images (and yes Leica images do look different than most other film image whether you think so or not).
3) Much smaller lenses and the ability to cover 99% of shooting needs with 2 relatively small lenses.
4) The undeniably most robustly built body of any camera in its price range.
5) Superb ergonomics and features.
Now, that said, I could use a 10D all day long and love it. I just prefer the features of the E-1. You may feel differently. One thing I know for certain, you should not let anyone tell you that the performance or image quality of the 10D, D70, or 300D is superior to that of the E-1. It's just plain not true. The converse is equally untrue. Finally, I think there are a great many of you who bash the E-1 and tout the virtues of Canon or Nikon that, after using an E-1 for a day, would sing a different tune. In the end that means that there are several great cameras out there to choose from and you should try them all before you buy (and I have my eyes on a Leica Digilux 2 as we speak!). Regards, Chuck.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 12:02:48 PM · #103 |
Wow - some really strange reasons for one camera over another.
OK, what do I think? Well, I would consider either a Sigma SD or Olympus E series. Why? Because both systems offer dust protection. The Sigma has a dust cover over the sensor, and the Olympus E-1 has a sensor cleaner, activated on every start up (the older E-10 and E-10 offer closed systems). I think this is very important if you have to change lenses in less than clean conditions (the E-10 and E-20 are SLRs, but have a fixed lens and optical viewfinder with no moving mirror).
If noise is important, get the E-10 or E-20 (no moving mirror). If fast start up is important, the D70. If you like to do landscapes and nature, the SD-9 and SD-10 offer the Foveon sensor. If you like high ISO (with reasonable noise levels), get any CMOS sensor camera (10D, DR, etc). If you want metal (vs plastic), then rule out the D70, DR, and Sigma).
Between the 10D and DR, both work, both will have an update soon, and neither is better than the other (cost vs performance - the body difference buys a lot better lens for the DR for the same system price).
So, what you buy should be based on what you shoot, how you shoot, and what 'feels' right to you. Don't buy a Nikon or Canon because 'everyone' has one or because 'pros' use them - ultimately, it is the photographer, not the camera.
Some of the old timers might remember the story about Ansel Adams and the father and son watching him take some photos...The father turns to his son and says 'some day I will buy you a Leica so you can take pictures like him (refering to Ansel Adams)'. Yeah, right, It isn't the camera, it is the person using it.
Incidently, the reason why so many pros use Nikons and Canons is because they have a large collection of lenses (from the film days) and because they were (along with Leica and Contax) the cameras used by most pros in the 70s and 80s (Minolta was in there for awhile, but dropped the XK when they decided to concentrate on the consumer market). Pentax, Olympus, Rollei, and some others had their followings, but were heavier in the amateur (although high end in some cases) market.
Wayne
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 03:23:07 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Christie,
The D70 is at the same price point as the dRebel and gives you far more camera for the money. |
I have to quibble with this point. There is nothing on the market at the price point of the D300, which is why it is so popular. The current B&H price of the 10D body only is $1,400, the D70 with the kit lense is $1,300 and the D300 with the kit lense is $880.
The Oly line looks very strong and I know a lot of people who swear by it, but alot of them loved their Betamaxes which were superior to the VHS video standard, and I worry that the whole unique lens line designed for that sensor size might be orphaned by future developments.
Like any technology the next thing will be better than the current thing, I'm waiting for the D10 MkII.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:06:02 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I have to quibble with this point. There is nothing on the market at the price point of the D300, which is why it is so popular. The current B&H price of the 10D body only is $1,400, the D70 with the kit lense is $1,300 and the D300 with the kit lense is $880. |
Brennan,
To compare the kit prices obscures the meat of the argument when comparing the bodies, as the value and price of the included lenses comes into play. The price of the 300D body alone is $800, where the D70 body only is $1,000. The incremental cost of the Canon kit lens is $80, while the Nikon lens adds $300 to the price of the kit.
The difference is in the quality of the lenses. The dRebel kit lens is an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, while the Nikon D70 includes an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. In other words, the Nikon kit lens is a faster lens with a longer reach than the Canon kit lens. This, and not the difference in camera, is the largest factor in the difference in kit prices.
As for the bodies themselves, I think the D70 is well worth the $200 premium over the dRebel. I also think that for a sports photographer, the 10D is well worth the $400 premium over the D70.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 05:13:46 PM · #106 |
Terry,
Most people who are looking at the 300D are moving into the world of DSLRs without the benefit of already owning any Canon lenses. If a potential buyer is coming from P&S digital, or another line of film SLRs, most bottom of the line bodies are sold with a lens because most of the buyers of said body don't already own a compatible lens.
Had the D70 been out last September, I would have kept my old Nikon F gear and happily slapped my old lenses on it. It wasn't, so I got the D300 with the kit lens, because if I had gotten the body by itself, all the shots would have come out blurry. On the other hand my brother Forsook all his old Canon gear and got the D70 with the kit lens for $1,560. His is a nicer setup, but to get it woking at any level it cost about half again what mine did.
If you are looking at the MarkII or the D1x you most likely already own leses made to fit the manufacturer's range and will buy just the body. If you are just starting out in the world of DSLRs you have to quote a working lens with the price of the body.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 06:01:51 PM · #107 |
Or, you can forego the kit any buy the buy the body only, buying the lenses you really want separately, rather than the lenses included in the kit. The kit lens for the Nikon D70 is a good lens that is worth the money spent. The Canon kit lens is of limited usefulness, and I think in most cases the purchases would be better off to buy the body only (rather than the kit) and purchase a different lens than the one included in the kit. In reality, many dRebel users end up quickly replacing the kit lens anyway.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-07-10 18:02:25.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 06:33:51 PM · #108 |
| While the 18-55 kit lens is not a great lens, like the D300 it is a great value. While I have bought other lenses in some of the same range, it is the only lens I know of that sells used on EBay for more than it costs new. Since you can only buy it as part of the kit you can only do this once. In my opinion that makes it worth more than worth the money it costs. I still keep mine since I can't afford to get below 28mm with better glass yet, though the Sigma 12-24 keeps calling my name. Now to find that $700. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:07:58 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:07:58 PM EDT.
|
