| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2006 12:45:43 PM · #1 |
| I know, i know, this one has been posted already, but the discussions I found are about half a year old. My main concern is the lenses. I was gonna go for the 350D and i like it, but started to reconsider when i saw the prices. Is it worth the roughly 200 Bucks to get the 350D over the D70? It has more MP, but im not really sure which company is known to have better glass. Since this is a huge investment for me, im having a hard time making up my mind. At least ive got it down to two right? :) Lemme know what everybody thinks. The one issue with the canon i was a little worried about is that i heard it tends to have a shorter life than the nikon? |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 12:56:00 PM · #2 |
I've been a Nikon user for quite some time, but as you see to the left I'm now a Canon user.
D70 is a good camera and was on my list of things to get. But after some research I found that going Canon was less expensive in the long run than staying with the Nikon brand. Price/performannce.
Other things that might lure you one way or another.
If you like wide angles, the bigger sensor in the Canons offer less crop factor, thus making wide lenses more efficient. If you want longer lenses, the smaller sensor (offering more crop factor) of the Nikon may be what you want.
Low light: the larger sensor of the Canons offers a bit less noise in low light. However, the Nikon's Noise Reduction technology is quite good and the smaller sensor is centered more in lens sweet spots.
Overall, if you are in the used market, I've found more variety and quality of used produces for the Canon brand. It's out there for the Nikon's too,, but from the perspective my research took, the Canon gear was more available.
I'm not going to sway you either way. Both are good brands.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 12:59:18 PM · #3 |
| They're both fine products. If they're both within your budget pick the one that feels best in your hands. You're likely to use it more often if it's a good fit. Both lens systems are fine. Buy one, take lots of phots and have fun. :) |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:05:31 PM · #4 |
The Nikon D70 is a good half-class above the 350D. I wouldn't say that they were at comparable levels at all.
The D70 simply rocks socks.
I personally think the 350 does too though.
I also had a chance to buy a D70 for cheap and I almost did. He didn't want to sell the kit lens and I didn't feel like paying full price or fiddling with Ebay (harder than it sounds when you don't live in America), so I held off.
What made the difference for me was not the quality of glass - most of it's pretty good these days, even the 3rd party stuff.... The big thing for me was the PRICE of the glass.
I am not afraid to go 2nd hand, but even the 2nd hand market for Nikon was just a HUGE number of old, overpriced manual focus lenses. I'm not terribly trusting of my visual acuity, especially through a tiny viewfinder, so autofocus is a must for me.
For accessibility of NEWER 2nd hand lenses, Canon seems to have the upper hand. Granted, the second hand market in Taipei blows big time, but I still haven't seen ANY newer Nikon lenses and there's more than 10 stores that stock dusty 2nd hand Nikon lenses. On the other hand, there are three stores that stock Canon lenses and while there are significantly less of these in those stores that also have dusty Nikkors, a significant portion of those lenses are newer AF lenses. One of these stores often has between 2 and 4 current AF lenses by Canon in their case. They sell before they get dusty too.
Additionally, I made a list of basic focal lengths that I wanted and in order to buy them in the Nikkor family, I was looking at around 500 dollars US more than with Canon.
I have since increased that gap significantly as I saved 600 dollars from that budget by buying a friend's 80-200 f/2.8L instead of a 70-200 f/2.8L That's saved me almost enough money as is equal to the price of a current 20D new.
I felt that Canon was simply more convenient that way.
On the other hand, if your major purchase is going to be the body and you intend on only picking up a few key lenses (for example, a kit lens and a 70-300mm Sigma that costs around 200 dollars US), I would say that the D70 will do you just fine.
If it was me however, I'd go for the Konica Minolta 5D over the D70, just because of that AS. The sensor is virtually identical and the D70 has a slight performance edge in a few minor areas, but the 5D beats it hands down in the bang for the buck department. You could do that for under 1000 dollars. Konica Minolta lenses are just as good as the other brands. But when you get to use anti-shake with a 70-300 and you DIDN'T pay 1000 dollars for the lens........
There are other plusses for the KM side of things too.
I wouldn't worry about the future of KM either. Sony will almost definitely use the Konica Minolta mount in future and that will keep your lenses valuable. The body itself will be worth the same as every other DSLR body too.
Another neat thing is that with the close relationship of Sony and Zeiss, it's possible that they may end up speaheading the Zeiss for DSLR lines in coming years.
EDIT to add:
Fotoman, Nikon sensors are larger than Canon sensors.
Canon has 1.6x crops (on their entry level cameras). Nikon has 1.5x.
Nikon therefore has slightly larger pixels, which theoretically should yield less noise, but because they use CCD sensors which have more energy loss/heat buildup than a CMOS type, they tend to be very slightly noisier before the noise reduction. This means that their noise reduction tends to work harder and you lose a bit of detail in the process. It's pretty slight, and the Nikons are all pretty good for noise, but Canon's offerings are usually a bit better.
In the noise department, many prefer Nikon's noise because it's more monochromatic and apparently looks more like film grain. I don't care myself.
Also, I'm a bit against the "feeling in the hand" ideology. I'm more of the opinion that a camera will always feel a bit strange in the store. If it feels really odd, of course, shy away, but generally speaking, most people report that once they get a camera, after a couple of weeks, they get used to it.
I'm pretty comfortable with my P&S S2 IS and it's quite a bit smaller than the 350XT. It's monstrously smaller than the 20D. I find the 20D to be quite heavy in comparison. So I will get used to it when I get one. First impressions are not really the best thing to go on here.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 13:14:44. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:13:06 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If you like wide angles, the bigger sensor in the Canons offer less crop factor, thus making wide lenses more efficient. If you want longer lenses, the smaller sensor (offering more crop factor) of the Nikon may be what you want.
|
I thought it was the opposite--Nikons had the bigger sensor resulting in a 1.5x crop instead of the 1.6x crop of the standard Canon APS-C sized line of sensors. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:18:43 PM · #6 |
After looking at thousands and thousands of images, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter at all which one you buy unless there are some specifications that you can't live without.
The different feel of the cameras might be an issue and cost can also come into play but either system will serve you very well. There are some details that might or might not be important but in the end....from what I can see, the images produced by both systems in the hands of the right person, are perfectly equal. Just and opinion, of course.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 13:20:23.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:19:28 PM · #7 |
| Thanks for the advice yall! Im still pretty sure im going to go with the canon judging from what Ive collected from past discussions and this one. I picked one up in the store the other day, and I really liked the feel of it. I never touched a DSLR before, but damn are they light! I love it, compared to my 20 year old nikormat SLR! Im going to check Ebay too, cause they seem to have good package deals, but i never know whether or not to trust them. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:21:24 PM · #8 |
You have been assimilated BUMMER!
 |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 01:35:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by tapeworm_jimmy:
Thanks for the advice yall! Im still pretty sure im going to go with the canon judging from what Ive collected from past discussions and this one. I picked one up in the store the other day, and I really liked the feel of it. I never touched a DSLR before, but damn are they light! I love it, compared to my 20 year old nikormat SLR! Im going to check Ebay too, cause they seem to have good package deals, but i never know whether or not to trust them. |
Check the prices at reputable dealers and you will find they compete very favorably with Ebay and no guessing games about reliability or gouging on shipping cost. Check Newegg.com for low price and really low shipping cost. Newegg is a top quality dealer with near perfect consumer ratings. Next best probably is B&H Photo & Video. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 03:18:12 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by m:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If you like wide angles, the bigger sensor in the Canons offer less crop factor, thus making wide lenses more efficient. If you want longer lenses, the smaller sensor (offering more crop factor) of the Nikon may be what you want.
|
I thought it was the opposite--Nikons had the bigger sensor resulting in a 1.5x crop instead of the 1.6x crop of the standard Canon APS-C sized line of sensors. |
Yeah, I forget exactly how the D70 compares to the 350D in terms of crop factor, but I do no the 350D is not a full frame sensor (I believe that's reserved for the 1D) so there isn't going to be a huge difference. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 03:33:04 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by tapeworm_jimmy:
Thanks for the advice yall! Im still pretty sure im going to go with the canon judging from what Ive collected from past discussions and this one. I picked one up in the store the other day, and I really liked the feel of it. I never touched a DSLR before, but damn are they light! I love it, compared to my 20 year old nikormat SLR! Im going to check Ebay too, cause they seem to have good package deals, but i never know whether or not to trust them. |
Nikkormat? Isn't that an old Nikon? Do you have lenses for it? You should be able to use them with a modern Nikon. Nikon hasn't changed it's mount in ages. Having additional lenses available from startup was one of the things that swayed me to Nikon (I do like the camera itself better, but that's for you to decide).
Also a couple things related to your original post. The difference between 6 and 8 megapixels isn't as big as it seems. Also, if you're worried about lifespan, from what I've heard/read/experienced, Nikon customer service is a lot better than Canon. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 06:25:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kearock:
Nikkormat? Isn't that an old Nikon? Do you have lenses for it? You should be able to use them with a modern Nikon. Nikon hasn't changed it's mount in ages. Having additional lenses available from startup was one of the things that swayed me to Nikon (I do like the camera itself better, but that's for you to decide).
Also a couple things related to your original post. The difference between 6 and 8 megapixels isn't as big as it seems. Also, if you're worried about lifespan, from what I've heard/read/experienced, Nikon customer service is a lot better than Canon. |
Yeah it sure is :D i asked the salesman about old nikon lenses (which the ones i have are) and he told me they would most likely work (bayonette clip -- is that what you call em... i dunno). He also was very keen on selling me the nikon over canon which made me a lil sceptical. I dont really trust salesmen... i trust you guys. The other thing he told me is that the old lenses will mount, but probably not allow me to use the metering.... does this make sense??? I dont get it, but its a DSLR, and i have no clue how the metering differs in those. Anybody have some advice or experience with the older nikon lenses on a nikon DSLR camera? |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 06:29:40 PM · #13 |
| The guy was probably a Nikon user which was why he was pushing the D70. They are both great cameras however, and you should go with whichever one you find most comfortable with in your hands. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 06:47:45 PM · #14 |
see what feels better for you..
I personally believe that the Canon is a superior machine.
I have shot with both and I like the Canon a lot better. To me the button layout and the way it works and feel the Canon makes a lot more sense. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:00:55 PM · #15 |
Its a trade off with either body.
One has a lot more features and the other has a few more megapixels.
Ask yourself which you prefer and you have your answer.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:11:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by tapeworm_jimmy:
Originally posted by kearock:
Nikkormat? Isn't that an old Nikon? Do you have lenses for it? You should be able to use them with a modern Nikon. Nikon hasn't changed it's mount in ages. Having additional lenses available from startup was one of the things that swayed me to Nikon (I do like the camera itself better, but that's for you to decide).
Also a couple things related to your original post. The difference between 6 and 8 megapixels isn't as big as it seems. Also, if you're worried about lifespan, from what I've heard/read/experienced, Nikon customer service is a lot better than Canon. |
Yeah it sure is :D i asked the salesman about old nikon lenses (which the ones i have are) and he told me they would most likely work (bayonette clip -- is that what you call em... i dunno). He also was very keen on selling me the nikon over canon which made me a lil sceptical. I dont really trust salesmen... i trust you guys. The other thing he told me is that the old lenses will mount, but probably not allow me to use the metering.... does this make sense??? I dont get it, but its a DSLR, and i have no clue how the metering differs in those. Anybody have some advice or experience with the older nikon lenses on a nikon DSLR camera? |
providing they wre made after 1976 they will work
though you will lose metering on D50/D70/D100
depends which lenses you have it may be worth it to keep --
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:21:20 PM · #17 |
Both would be great choices; they are both good bodies and the Nikon and Canon lens systems are very competitive with each other. There are more used Canon lenses around though, that's a fact. The Canon EOS system will also accept a very wide range of older manual focus non-Canon lenses (using adpapters of course). If you want to trade in used lenses, that might be a deciding factor.
Sales folks often push Nikon, they often have a greater financial incentive to do so (comission).
Bottom line, make the decision based on what feels right to you. Take into consideration what types of lenses you think you'll want, and price the Canon & Nikon versions, and look at reviews of those lenses. You really can't make a bad decision, but it will be difficult to change down the road, so do your research.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:31:02 PM · #18 |
Whilst both cams in your original Q will give excellent results if your moving to dSLRs without 'baggage' then glass (imho) is the deciding factor. If you want the finest (read most expensive) glass then I'd suggest Canon. if your happy with third party glass then its down to the feel good factor I think. In the dSLR market I do believe that the body becomes the consumable and will be changed/unpgraded many more times than the lens. I'm thinking make your choice and spend as little as possible on the body and as much as possible on the glass.
Showing a 640 by whatever image on the web with poor glass is a world away from printing the same image @ 30x20 with 'L' series glass. Think a little about what your after before going the dSLR route.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 07:33:02 PM · #19 |
| The reason I got the Nikon was because of the lens in the kit. I dont plan on taking it off. It does everything I really need. If I need a macro, I will use my F717. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 10:15:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
Originally posted by tapeworm_jimmy:
Originally posted by kearock:
Nikkormat? Isn't that an old Nikon? Do you have lenses for it? You should be able to use them with a modern Nikon. Nikon hasn't changed it's mount in ages. Having additional lenses available from startup was one of the things that swayed me to Nikon (I do like the camera itself better, but that's for you to decide).
Also a couple things related to your original post. The difference between 6 and 8 megapixels isn't as big as it seems. Also, if you're worried about lifespan, from what I've heard/read/experienced, Nikon customer service is a lot better than Canon. |
Yeah it sure is :D i asked the salesman about old nikon lenses (which the ones i have are) and he told me they would most likely work (bayonette clip -- is that what you call em... i dunno). He also was very keen on selling me the nikon over canon which made me a lil sceptical. I dont really trust salesmen... i trust you guys. The other thing he told me is that the old lenses will mount, but probably not allow me to use the metering.... does this make sense??? I dont get it, but its a DSLR, and i have no clue how the metering differs in those. Anybody have some advice or experience with the older nikon lenses on a nikon DSLR camera? |
providing they wre made after 1976 they will work
though you will lose metering on D50/D70/D100
depends which lenses you have it may be worth it to keep -- |
Yeah, the mount itself is completely compatible. I've generally heard it called the F-mount, but I've heard it called bayonett too. The thing is, though the attachment hasn't changed, the electronics have so lens to camera communications don't work on a lot of older lenses (such that you loose autofocus and perhaps metering). Salesmen are always hard to read. If you don't think he's being genuine, then there's no need to trust him. Go with what feels right in your hand and the use you'll get out of it (that's why I bring up the lenses, because they may allow you to get more use out of it). Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras and excellent lenses. What's most important is that you're comfortable using your camera. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 10:16:39 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
The reason I got the Nikon was because of the lens in the kit. I dont plan on taking it off. It does everything I really need. If I need a macro, I will use my F717. |
I don't mean to be obnoxious, but doesn't this defeat half the point of an SLR? |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 10:33:58 PM · #22 |
One is a good body with nice ergonomics and design. The other couldn't be made any cheaper but has a very good sensor in it. Well actually it could be made cheaper but they'd have to use a non-Canon sensor.
They will both make very good pictures though.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 10:39:03 PM · #23 |
hi fellas, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always had the impression that the 350D is actually more on par with the D50 than the D70?
So in this D70 or 350D, isn't the D70 a better body?
please dont fry me in flames, I'm not familiar with dSLRs. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 11:24:31 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by crayon:
hi fellas, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always had the impression that the 350D is actually more on par with the D50 than the D70?
So in this D70 or 350D, isn't the D70 a better body?
please dont fry me in flames, I'm not familiar with dSLRs. |
I think even the die hard Canon fanbois would have to admit your correct.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 11:47:20 PM · #25 |
I think you will have to make the decision.
Asking about camera brands on the internet in a forum is akin to discussing religion. You just aren't going to get to the bottom of THE right answer.
People put their money wherever and then will justify it till the end of time.
My advice..do like I did...try them. I would have bet you a nice piece of change that last fall I was going to go with a Canon kit.
Obviously I didn't :-D If I were to explain why many people here would dispute my beliefs with theirs so I won't :-P
Good luck :-)
|
|
