I find the D50 to be a bit chintzy in feeling compared to the D70. The D70 is a wicked peice of camera. The D70s was a nearly insignificant update, so I'd consider both to be pretty close.
The D50 is not a bad camera. I just didn't care for it because I felt that they made it large just to be larger than the 350XT.
The Canon equivalent is the 350XT. It's roughly the same camera, but feels MUCH more compact and purposeful. I like this. Others who have actually owned the camera for more than a couple of weeks USUALLY (not always) agree. Some think it's too small. I think it's up to you.
I believe the biggest real difference is that the D50 uses a plastic lens mount, where the 350XT uses a metal lens mount. Plastic CAN be just as strong and durable as metal, but I don't know many people that think that plastic actually makes sense here.
Having said that, I wouldn't discount the Nikon because of their bodies (I already mentioned that the D70 is very sweet), but I would (read: DID) discard them as an option after I compared lens prices with the lenses that I wanted to buy.
I would buy the Canon if I saw a big future in camera gear for myself (most, not all stuff works out cheaper for the Canon system 90% of the time... more range in cameras too), and indeed this is probably the case as I am more of a gadget nut than a photographer (see my portfolio).
If I hadn't already picked up an L series lens for the Canon, I'd be buying the Konica Minolta camera. I recommend it for people who just want a nice body and only want to pick up a small handful of lenses, mostly 3rd party.
It's pretty much as good as the other bodies, with a better kit lens and ANTI-SHAKE built right into the camera. ALL lenses will behave as IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon).
Superb lenses are available for the Konica Mount and while some will quickly point to the fact that Konica Minolta recently sold it's Camera division to Sony, this is probably more of a strength rather than a weakness. Sony is going places in the Digicam world.
A beginner lens layout for the Konica 5d MIGHT include:
18-70 Kit lens
50mm f/1.7 Konica Minolta
70-300mm Sigma APO
If you want to do macro, get a reverse thread mount and slap that 50mm backwards on the 70-300mm Sigma, but it's probably not necessary as the Sigma already has 1:2 macro ability.
You are not going to get InSanE results from those lenses, but you will get some Very Good results from the Sigma, Good results from the kit lens and Superb results from the 50mm. That whole lens set will probably cost you around 400 dollars US on top of whatever deal you get for that body.
Where I live, local vendors are offering fantastic deals on those things.
Bobster Lobster shoots Konica Minolta and he's Pro. No complaints from him about quality, and he's hardly alone.
There's something truly wild about shooting a camera that can go to ISO 400 usably with a 50mm f/1.7 and Anti-shake.
Benefits for DSLR's are MANY.
The biggest one is simply image quality.
Between VASTLY improved light gathering abilities and HUGE differences in signal to noise ratios, you are also getting the ability to take shots at apertures only dreamed of by P&S cameras. Shooting a prime f/1.7 through the viewfinder pretty much rocks. Taking macro shots at f/11 is tha funk. Taking anything at f/22 is simply impossible to do even passably with a P&S.
Then there's autofocus speed, accuracy, manual control, lens quality...
It's just a totally different world.
Message edited by author 2006-03-17 14:21:04. |
