| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2006 11:49:06 PM · #26 |
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. |
Ahhhh... this isnt helping me make up my mind :D.... What makes the d70 body better thant the 350D?? I know i looked at it, and all i could find was the doubled shutter speed. Is it really that important at such a Damn High speed? Is there anything else? |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 12:14:40 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by tapeworm_jimmy:
Ahhhh... this isnt helping me make up my mind :D.... What makes the d70 body better thant the 350D?? I know i looked at it, and all i could find was the doubled shutter speed. Is it really that important at such a Damn High speed? Is there anything else? |
Dont you know the people in DPC are VERY HELPFUL (as proven in this thread here) so I guess you'll have to decide for yourself, lol!
|
|
|
|
03/15/2006 11:31:37 AM · #28 |
A couple of things that make the D70 slightly better.
Slightly better construction in the weatherproofing department... I wouldn't say that either camera is designed to take a fall at any real height, although either stands a pretty good chance of being OK.
Flash Sync Speed... the D70 has a faster flash sync speed. That can be a big deal if you shoot portraits outside a lot. Might not be a big deal if you get a flash unit that supports FP, or high speed flash sync which allows you to sync faster shutter speeds than the X-sync speed. The reasonably priced Sigma 500 series has this, so I'm not sure this is a serious advantage at this point.
Slightly better exposure metering... apparently. I know guys who will swear till they are blue in the face that this is the case. I don't think that there's a real problem here with Canon...
High speed burst mode... Tends to be a bit faster writing to card on the D70 and you will get some really good performance here.... I'm a big fan of fast shutter speeds, but I don't actually use it that much and can't think of very many situations where I'd need to take more than 20-25 high speed shots in a row.
I've also heard that the Nikon system has better wireless flash controls.
The bottom line is, as I mentioned before, the D70 is actually a half class of camera above the Rebel series and fits in between the Rebels and the 20D.
The 350D is not all that far off from the 20D and has quite a significant improvement over the original Rebel against which the D70 was originally measured.
I'm pretty sure you will be happier with the Canon. You might not take better pictures one way or the other, but you will probably end up spending less once you get fully set up.
You probably won't lack any serious functionality that can't be worked around either. |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 11:58:56 AM · #29 |
I was faced with this decision myself a few months ago. I chose the D70s because:
1.) from a purely subjective/tactile perspective, the Canon felt on the cheap side and was too small for me. I couldn't get a comfortable grip on it with my hand -- it felt like I was doing most of the holding with my fingertips. People with smaller hands or who want a smaller "footprint" will like it -- I have two female friends who chose the Rebel primarily for this reason.
2.) the ability to do wireless remote "commander" flash set-ups using even Nikon's less expensive SB-600 flash unit. I've had tons of fun experimenting with off-camera flash for portraits, silhouettes, etc.
3.) the "on-demand" grid lines that you can superimpose in the D70s viewfinder are very useful for shots of architecture and horizons.
4.) the faster max shutter speed and faster flash sync, should I ever need them, could come in handy.
5.) the larger LCD screen is always a plus when reviewing shots |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 02:02:26 PM · #30 |
I played with the wireless features of my SB-800 for the first time last night...too cool! I was triggering the camera with my remote and the camera was triggering the flash that was sitting by itself across the room. Sweet!
And yes, the gridlines are extremely useful. I never turn mine off. |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 02:32:30 PM · #31 |
| I really like the sound of gridlines. I was actually tempted to mark some on the display of my P&S camera... i decided that would be a stupid idea tho.. haha. Right now though, im still liking the sound of canon better because of the more affordable prices on lenses etc. Ebay seems to have some really sweet deals from retailers. Package kits with two or three lenses, tripods, memory cards, carrying cases and all kinds of crazy stuff. Anybody ever gone for one of these sets? I was looking at some that price at about the same level as just the camera with one lens in a store. |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 02:34:11 PM · #32 |
| Caveat Emptor! If it sounds to good to be true... |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 02:58:41 PM · #33 |
I care a lot about the built quality. In my opinion, the D70 is very impressive and you really have a 'semi-pro camera' feeling. I think Nikon cameras are designed such a way that most important adjustments can be made without using the menu. I am not sure about the canon policy. Better ask a canon fan for this particular point.
Go to a camera shop and ask for the two cameras and pick the one that fits better in your hand. Nikon cameras are generally bigger but look more robust.
If you do not print bigger than 11 x 14, the 8MP vs 6MP is pointless. Do not worry too much.
If you chose Canon, I will go for the Canon 20D. That is a good camera. I wish Nikon will have something between the D70 and the D200. Maybe in a near future. So far, I have been very impressed about the Nikon D70 and its quality image. I think you cannot go wrong with it |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 10:30:01 PM · #34 |
A note on build quality and it's role in your decision.
Yes, it can be nice, and yes, I do like the D70 for that, but I've never heard of serious issues with things breaking or falling apart on the 350D.
The notion even that plastic is less durable than metal at this point is somewhat outdated. True, Magnesium is the king of metals, but the only real difference that most users will ever really encounter with build quality with the 350 and the D70 is the "feeling".
I find the D70 to feel more solid, and the 350 to feel much more compact and purposeful in the hand. I like them both, but feel that the D70 may feel clunky and large in hand. I'm a guy with average sized hands. When I use the heavier lenses, I support the lens, regardless of the body.
I believe that both cameras can change most stuff without menus, with the possible exception of ISO on the 350. As far as controls being "intuitive", they can't think. They have their layout and the user must adapt to them. Most people can get used to their setup pretty quickly. If you practice using multiple cameras, you should have little difficulty.
I found the Nikon D2X (using a Chinese Firmware) to be overwhelming. For 10 minutes. After that, it's just another camera.
In dancing, if you can only dance well with one partner, that's considered the fault of the lead, not the follow. Regardless of the ability of the follow. Same deal with cameras. The user can adapt to anything.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2006 10:47:21 PM · #35 |
| D70 or D70S without a doubt! Nikon make the best lenses by far, closely followed by Sigma. |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 10:50:44 PM · #36 |
| ... Anyway, check how many with a Canon 350 have posted this forum. Thats got to say it all. |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 10:52:59 PM · #37 |
I really like your cat! Nice pic
|
|
|
|
03/15/2006 10:57:08 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
I really like your cat! Nice pic |
Thanks Mate!
Bandit |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 11:33:09 PM · #39 |
I thought the grip on my 350D was going to be a problem when I first got it and took some pictures around the house but I forgot about it as soon as I went out with friends and started taking pictures. Then I started worrying about the picture and the million things that go with it: aperture, focus, depth of field, light, etc. Not until I got back home and started looking at my pictures in the computer that I realized that I had not thought about that at all... so I think you should really forget the talk about build, etc. All that people say is that it "feels" cheap.. but is it? I think one thing that you WILL worry about after you get it is the lens you are going to use, so consider what camera is right for you taking into account the cost/benefit of a good lens.
I skipped the kit lens and went for something better with IS. for the people that compare the rebel xt with the D50, you could compare anything to anything but I think the rebel xt really competes with the D70 and not the D50; just look at the comparison charts on any review site...
Whatever you buy, I think everyone you will tell you you've made a good decision... wish every other decision was like this huh? hehe... |
|
|
|
03/15/2006 11:47:06 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
03/16/2006 12:00:46 AM · #41 |
I disagree with DrGee and I strongly suggest to look at the two cameras. The built quality is a strong argument, because you are spending quite a money for a camera that may last for more than several years. In my opinion, built quality for lenses is also quite important to consider.
I do not think you can go wrong with Canon or Nikon lenses. Nikon has no need to adverstise themselves, they have probably the toppest film camera with excellent quality lenses.
I believe that the electronic is a little better for Canon. But nor by far anymore.
I would never have bought the 350d because it just looks 'crappy' when I handled it in my hands. The Canon EOS20d is a very superior camera. In terms of built quality, there is a big gap between the 350D and the 20D. In terms of picture quality, it is almost the same. You may want to ask for people who bought the CanonEOS20D, I am sure some will tell you the built quality was an important factor to consider.
Message edited by author 2006-03-16 00:01:24.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2006 03:21:32 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by tapeworm_jimmy:
Ebay seems to have some really sweet deals from retailers. Package kits with two or three lenses, tripods, memory cards, carrying cases and all kinds of crazy stuff. Anybody ever gone for one of these sets? I was looking at some that price at about the same level as just the camera with one lens in a store. |
I got my D70s as a package through Cameta Camera (very well regarded shop in NY). I purchased a package that they had listed on eBay, but I called them directly to order it (which is fine with them) so that I could add a Nikon warranty and SB-600 flash. Got a MUCH better deal with the package. The same set would have cost me at least $300 more at Ritz or somewhere local. Beach camera is another reputable place that does good packages.
I don't think the 350D is necessarily more price competitive. It falls in between the D50 and D70s in the Nikon line, and is priced between those two. Except for the depth-of-field preview, I would actually call the 350D closer to the D50 in terms of feature set. Have you looked at the deals you can get on a D50? Here are a couple from Cameta on eBay:
D50 w/ Nikkor 18-55 & 55-200 DX AF-S ED lenses + 2GB card and extras, $850
D50 w/ Nikkor 18-70 & 55-200 DX AF-S ED lenses + 1GB card and extras, $1000
That 18-70 lens is the renowned one from the D70/D70s kit (which is the main reason I bought the D70s over the D50, and now you can get the less expensive D50 with that lens plus a telephoto zoom for the same price as the 350D kit retail. Or, for some D70s packages, check out these:
D70s w/ Nikkor 18-70 DX AF-S ED & 70-300 AF lenses + 2GB card and extras, $1280
^^ That is about the same package and price I got 3 months ago, but I didn't get the telephoto with it, so it's an even better deal now!
OK, yes I'm big on Nikon because I've always loved the Nikons I've owned. That said, you won't go wrong with either brand. Just have fun! |
|
|
|
03/17/2006 03:50:24 PM · #43 |
A note on the "build quality" of the 350XT.
I've handled about 6 of them paying close attention to detail.
I've spent some time with quite a number of other cameras including shooting time with the D50, D70 (with 80-400VR amongst other lenses), the 20D, and occasional use of a couple of different 300D's (others too, but that's irrelevant). Ok, so I'm no expert, but my point is that I've tried a lot of cameras.
I'm with DrGee on this one. The 350 feels a bit small at first, when compared to other DSLRs but nothing else gives a feeling of poor build quality. I don't mind a plastic body instead of Magnesium. I am confident that the quality of plastic is quite high and it's certainly better than the 300D. I haven't seen any serious wear and tear issues with the 300D's that I've used either.
Nothing squeaked, rattled, moved, lurched, groaned or squozzled on any of the 350XT's that I used. The only real gripe that I keep hearing about it is that it's small.
Since when is small synonymous with cheap?
Naw, when people say that it felt cheap, what they really mean is that it felt small and different from what they are used to. In their minds, they associate cameras with big, clunky machines, the bigger the better.
That's fair enough. They are entitled to that opinion and that feeling.
But the bottom line is that small is not the end of the world. There IS a battery grip. You CAN get used to something different, and as DrGee mentioned, this can happen very quickly and naturally.
I used to drive a lot of different cars when I worked at a service station. I HATED the pedal layout of older Triumphs and MG's. Then one day, I had to drive one to deliver it to someone's house 20 minutes away. It was fine. I hated it for about 30 seconds. I complained about it (to myself) for about 2 minutes. And I forgot about it after 5 minutes. By the time I got to my destination, my only real complaint was the lack of padding in those nasty little seats. :)
With my steel-toed boots, I had to use the pedals on tip-toes the whole way.
Now, the outside of the body is made of Polycarbonate or whatever, and it doesn't get a lot of real stress and strain in most circumstances. On the other hand, the lens mount is one place that I would really expect a company to pay attention to strength. 350XT has a metal mount. The D50 is a plastic mount.
How's that for chintz?
If you like their lenses and you can afford their lenses prices, by all means, go for the D70. I wouldn't go D50 myself.
Either cam will make you happy.
Don't forget to choose your lenses BEFORE you buy your body. |
|
|
|
03/17/2006 03:57:17 PM · #44 |
| Just posted this.....This is a Great Spec Chart of Nikon D70 v.s Nikon D70s v.s Nikon D50 and it looks kinda good.... some good info......its almost half way down the page.... I like my D70 the grip...size...weight.....D50 kinda just felt kinda cheap..... But i liked it as well.... Good Luck!=) |
|
|
|
03/17/2006 05:48:10 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
A note on the "build quality" of the 350XT. |
It's cheap and nasty.
Nearly all? other bodies have a solid sub-frame on which the chassis is built around. The 350D has no sub-frame as such but has a few metal plates that hold the plastic chassis together.
It has a pentamirror viewfinder which is the cheapest implementation of a VF thats available. Better built cameras have pentaprism VF's.
It has a small and low res, (by todays standards), LCD display. Infact, the smallest of all current models. This was done to save costs. ie cheap.
Infact everything about it except for the sensor is cheap. It just happens to have a very, very good low ISO sensor in it.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/17/2006 07:21:25 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
...It's cheap and nasty...
...Infact everything about it except for the sensor is cheap... |
I knew there were some hardcore fans of the 350D here... lol |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:41:07 AM · #47 |
Ok, well uhm, Sir_bazz, I'm sorry, but your reply is both needlessly harsh and ignorant.
The bottom line is that it doesn't manner HOW it's built, it matters HOW it works.
Do you NEED a subframe chassis to have a well-built camera?
Unibody construction worked just fine for VW's for a little while. They were crap right? That's why they sold so many of them and they worked so well for so long right? Obviously doing things differently in a way that inventively cuts production costs makes a camera cheap.
My point is that even with a different construction method, I have not heard of anyone having actual performance issues with the build quality of the 350. It's strong enough where it needs to be strong enough. This actual performance is based on the fact that the camera is built in such a way that cuts costs in less stress-intensive areas.
Contrast that with the D50 which has a MAJOR point of stress in the lens mount which is made of plastic. That's where it counts. That sounds like a "break-away" design to me. With a metal-mount lens, placing stress on a plastic mount... you figure it out.
The 350XT has a metal lens mount and after that stress point, the weight of the lens will be more evenly distributed throughout the camera. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable design to me.
I realize that the smaller cameras do have smaller and darker viewfinders, but again, it works. It works just fine. Once you get used to a camera, you seldom worry about an issue such as this. You might if you were constantly switching back and forth though.
To compare the LCD of a camera is fine, but don't forget that the 350XT wasn't exactly released in "Today's Standards". The successor will address this probably within 6 months or so. DPI is more important than actual image size anyways.
To say that the 350XT is "cheap and nasty" is ridiculous.
To say that certain parts of it have areas where corners were cut and more cost-effective solutions were used which impacts overall quality in some ways is fair to say, but it is the entry-level camera. What do you expect?
My feeling is that the D50 is cheaper and leaves me with the impression of lower overall build quality.
If you say that the 350 is cheap and nasty, then the same must be extended to the D50.
Want to plug a Pentax camera? Go for it. They can do some nice stuff and have good build quality in many areas too. Great lens mount.
Great bang for the buck and really fantastic potential for getting cheap lenses that work great with it.
Neither I the original post of this thread were even considering the Pentax system because it's just too limited with a field full of nearly identical cameras which, while being good cameras, do not compare very well in some areas which are important to some users.
I do not live in an area that has a 2nd hand Pentax lens market, so it's even less attractive to me.
To each his own. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:55:52 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Ok, well uhm, Sir_bazz, I'm sorry, but your reply is both needlessly harsh and ignorant.
|
See I don't see it as ignorant or harsh. You raised the point of build quality and I offered an alternative view with facts to back it up.
That cheap build quality that people refer to is not just the feel in the hand that you commented on but also the components that were put into it. It's the sum of the parts that make it so damn cheap. But yes it does make very nice pictures.
Now having cleared that up I have to ask what fun would it be if we all had the same view on things ? Personally I like diverse thinking as it helps to see things from different views. Hope you can respect that.
cheers,
bazz.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:23:04 AM · #49 |
Ok, pardon me, you provided some facts about what was cheap about the 350XT, but you didn't provide any facts to back up your statement about why it was nasty? Are facts the kind of thing necessary to back up such a claim?
My comments on the build quality were specifically applied to the comparison between the 350XT and the D50 (if you read up above the thread, you will understand this better).
As you said, there's a value in the variance of opinions in how things ought to be done. Cars can be well-built with a uni-body construction or a Chassis construction. Your facts about the 350XT's build quality are actually a difference of opinion.
Yes, it is not a top-end machine. It doesn't have weather protection or an internal aluminum chassis or a pro-level viewfinder, but it does what it needs to do and it does it well. The 350XT does not have a history of being loose, falling apart, breaking easily, or in general being any worse for wear and tear than any other entry-level consumer DSLRs. This tells me that the build quality is sufficient regardless of the method.
You and whoever feels inclined can go and ask around as many 350XT users as you like to find the same "facts".
To be honest, I've not heard of any D50's having the lens mounts breaking off, but I have heard of plastic mount lenses breaking off in metal mounts. The same logic ought to apply to to metal mount lenses in a plastic mount.
Logic tells me that strength and build quality of the internal chassis (which is subjected to much less stresses) is significantly less important than build quality at a point of major stress contact.
Ask any engineers or mechanics.
You can put any engine you want in any car, even including Uni-body OR chassis type, but if you don't mount it into something solid, the engine will tear itself out of the car. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 03:01:29 AM · #50 |
In our country, "Cheap & Nasty" is a slang term that refers to cheaper products on the market that do the job. Most of them are manufacturered in third world countries and usually don't last as long as the better built equivalents. It appears that I may have used this term incorrectly as in our country the 350D is the most expensive entry level camera on the market. So apologies as in truth it's not really "cheap and nasty".
The 350D is only just on 12 months old. I think the next 12 months, (rather than the first 12 months), will determine whether it's reliable or not. Unfortunately this will be outside of the warranty period for most people.
One thing I did read with interest however was your line about asking the 350D owners what they think about it. Reading the owner reviews at dpreview the 350D has the lowest overall rating for all the entry level dslrs. It's owners have also voted it the lowest of any dslr in regards to construction and features. And thats coming from the people who have bought the 350D. Interesting stuff huh?
See here for the results.
I'm not an enginner so I have one more question if thats OK.
Is a body that has the lens mount constructed of metal and incorporated as part of the metal subframe stronger or weaker than a body that has a metal lens mount fitted into a plastic mould?
cheers,
bazz. |
|
