D SLR bodies/brands...

greg

greg

Its a G thing
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
0
Location
Wiltshire UK
I've half hijacked garyi's thread on PFM, but thought I'd do the decent thing and put the question to the photographers amongst you here...

In context, I'm trying to decide what D SLR format to invest in having held off for far too long, sceptical about the technology and future proofing (as with anything digital I suppose).

I have a Nikon F80 with a AF NIKKOR 24-85mm 2.8 - 4.0 D.

I like the F80 a lot, find it easy to use, etc. and will continue to use it, but in considering a D SLR I've been trying to decide whether there are any reasons to jump ship to Canon (currently I dont see a compelling reason). If sticking with Nikon I'm trying to decide which body would be worth investing in.

In trying to understand how Canon bodies map to Nikon's I'm told by AJ Purdy (www.ajpurdy.co.uk) that the Nikon D70s is not comparable to the EOS 30D. Though it seems perhaps better built than the 350D. They said they considered the 30D to be aimed at the D200, but that the D200 kind of sits above the 30D, but below the 5D. I still cant really decide whether there is any like for like comparison between the models in each range.

I'm a bit sceptical about the technology employed by both Nikon and Canon. I dont like the logic which lies behind the c.2/3rd sized CCD's in the Nikon range, though I understand why it is that way. Though their offering of the DX lenses provides a solution, rather than a compromise. It seems Nikon dont plan to offer a full frame CCD so I would like to think buying into their tech and compatible lenses would provide a reasonable investment vs lifespan (presuming Sony dont pull the rug on the use of the CCD technology).

Conversely from what I've read, there are some technical issues with the full sized CMOS in the Canon 5D and anything below that is reduced frame anyway.

It's stuff like this that has always held me back from committing to D SLR in the past and even now I'm finding it hard to decide how much to spend and what gains could be had in spending more.

I dont plan to skimp on optics, though if buying a more expensive body, I would only buy one decent lense initially.

What are your thoughts and experiences...?
 
A thought. Bodies come and go. A year ago, Canon seemed to have the edge (IMO), now Nikon seems to have the upper hand (depending upon the price range you're talking about). The point being that bodies have short lifespans and are being replaced quickly.

In comparison, lenses are around for years and will almost certainly outlast your camera body. Link in the fact that a couple of good lenses will cost more than a good body, and I'd like to suggest that you should focus on chosing the lens supplier you want, then worry about a body afterwards.
 
Interesting point regards bodies. I take your point about lenses, how would you recommend I decide which lense supplier would suit me best?

The other issue which I touch upon is how sensor size of one body versus another means if deciding by lenses alone, you can end up tied to a body which may then be superseded with a different sensor design. Eg. the difference between the 0.66(ish) CMOS in the 30D down vs the 5D upwards full frame CMOS. Do you see what I mean?
 
First point to make is that although individuals may have specific brand loyalties, both Canon and Nikon make fantastic kit. There are various reasons that I would not opt for any other SLR system (What is konica-minolta/sony's future? 4/3rds is full of missed opportunites (eg no image stabilisation in a 600mm equiv??!) and compromise (sensor is too small resulting in poor noise performance compared to nikon and canon, 4:3 aspect ratio is squarer than N&C's 3:2 (same as film) amid a world that's going widescreen. Sigma - HAHAHAHA)).

Both Nikon and Canon are solid, well-established systems. They have their strengths (Canon's Great White Lenses, Nikon's Flash metering) and weaknesses (Canon's Flash metering, Nikon's lens compatibility issues and mechanical linkages).

Since you're used to nikon and intend keeping the F80, it would seem to make sense to stick with what you know. The 24-85 F2.8-4.0 is a good lens and should work will a DX body (although the crop factor obviously alters the range effective range).

Nikon have at least made a clear statement that they're choosing one sensor size and sticking with it, and producing DX lenses for it. Canon, by contrast, are a bit of a mess with three sensor sizes (1X on 1Ds and 5D, 1.3X on 1D and 1.6X on consumer bodies), and EF-S lenses for 1.6X. That said, the likelihood is that 1.6X is here to stay for consumer bodies, and 1X is here to stay for pro/semi-pro bodies, whilst 1.3X will probably not be seen in another body. However, they are starting to release some pro-quality EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55 F2.8, 60 F2.8).

In terms of bodies... The line-ups of the two manufacturers don't quite compete head-on. Both have excellent line-ups of cameras, and in my case certainly the weakest link is me, whichever I were to use.

As Mr sukebe says, choose your lenses. Coming from Nikon, you might find it hard to get used to the rings on canon lenses turning the right way :p. Image-stabilised telephotos might be a big deal to you, maybe a clear strategy to reduced-frame lenses is?
 
Isaac - as usual - practical and fairminded advice. I think my decision is - I'll stick with Nikon, especially as they have committed to a single CCD size.

Apart from my Nikkormat for which I have three manual lenses, I only have the one AF lense for the F80 so will be able to use it and wont feel too sore about buying new DX lenses.

Now I need to decide whether to get going with a D50 or save a few pennies for a D200.
 
Personally.... I'd go for the D200.

Higher frame rate, FAR better file buffering (37JPEG 10MP vs 12JPEG 6MP. If you shoot raw (which is the entire point of a DSLR) you'll find yourself hitting the D50's buffer limits frustratingly quickly), better AF system, better LCD, lower high-ISO noise, use of CF media, etc. Oh, and it's higher res, but that's actually a pretty minor point.

The D50 might seem disappointing in some respects compared to your F80 (my D30 (note, not 30D) was compared to my EOS 3. The 20D is a lot better than the D30, but still not as good as the 3 was. I want a 5D), whereas the D200 is a better camera as it stands, quite apart from being digital also.

Pays your money though... the D50 is far from a bad camera, but things like lack of DOF preview and the dimmer pentamirror viewfinder (as opposed to the F80 and D200's pentaprisms) could easily frustrate you.
 
Yes I'm now leaning toward the D200. I was particularly hoping the viewfinder would be better than those models lower down in the range and you've answered that question. For me that's vitally important.

The other features/spec will be a bonus. Cheers.
 
If I might venture just one comment.

I have frequently used my D50 on highest JPEG or RAW and have never had any issues with continuous shooting.

This is another area where we all need to hold our hands up and except that we are not Andy Rouse. On raw the D50 will happily shoot away at around 1.5 a second until the battery runs out, on jpeg in the middle settings this goes to 2.5 a second.

Really as general amateurs which we are who is going to be needing more?
 
4:3 aspect ratio is squarer than N&C's 3:2 (same as film) amid a world that's going widescreen
Click to expand...
Whilst it's a pity that 4/3rds is 4:3 (which incidentally has nothing to do with the name 4/3rds) and not 3:2 with 8Mp and more it's really not an issue to crop down to 3:2.

My Oly E-10 shoots 4:3 and these days I get all my prints done at a shop and they always crop to 3:2 anyway. If the position of the crop is critical then I'll do it myself first.

When I eventually upgrade from my E-10 I'll certainly check out Olympus's D-SLRs but will probably go for a Canon or Nikon in the end.

Michael.
 
Gary - I have done and do. With digital, there's no reason not to shoot 10 shots and keep the best one. 5fps+ "machine gunning" is a coarse but effective method (and one that pros have used for a long time, since they could afford the film to do it - Hence cameras like the F3HSMC, F-1HSC, EOS 1NRS and EOS 1VHS).

Of course, it depends what you shoot. I've used the frame-rates (and had huge problems with the incredibly feeble D30 buffer) when shooting birds and hovercraft racing. Shooting landscapes it obviously isn't that important. So whilst you might not need more, that can not be flatly applied to all amateur photographers.
 
Fair enough Issac, but I still fail to see that if you are not the press how you can find it and issue. I was at the hawk conservancy for a fantastic 'day with the birds' as a birthday present. this involved flying them etc. When not flying the birds I was taking pictures and a Kyte in flight has to be the most demanding of shots. Yet the buffer not once was an issue for me (the POS zoom lens I had at the time was but thats a different story)

I am not for one minute saying I am as good as you etc but I am saying the for the average guy at D50 quid the D50 (which is not a D30) is very quick indeed. If the consideration between prices came down to just one thing, I would be looking at other things to the buffer anyhow.
 
I would concede that there is plenty of other stuff that makes the D200 better, but then its three times the price at least.

Greg, I have a book by Andy Rouse which basically explains why he went from film to digital and I think its aimed squarly at you. I have read it and you are welcome to it if you PM me your addy.
 
The machine gun option is often a life saver when taking groups such as family gatherings, weddings and such but only if when required your flash can keep up with the shutter. I often find that the more natural shots come when your subjects think that you have finished shooting and so they relax a bit it is then when you strike with a few quick ones some of the better images are caught. The late Lord Litchfield when taking formal posed images of the Prince of Wales's at the first wedding used this as a means of capturing ihmo one of the better wedding shots.
 
garyi said:
Greg, I have a book by Andy Rouse which basically explains why he went from film to digital and I think its aimed squarly at you. I have read it and you are welcome to it if you PM me your addy.
Click to expand...
Hi Gary - that sounds very interesting, I appreciate the offer! I'll PM you shortly. Cheers
 
I'd certainly agree Auric - even with seemingly slow moving targets (ie. the family :) ) I approach it at full frames per sec pace. I'm not talented at firing the trigger at the ideal moment so I go for quantity and hope. At most get togethers I'd easily shoot three or four rolls hoping to get perhaps 3 or 4 good shots per roll, but of those there will always be the best shot simply because I shot rapid fire. Same applies to stepped exposures etc. Blimey the more I think about it - a digital SLR is gonna save me a feckin fortune.
 
Hmmmm... having gone down the Canon route myself (albeit 2.5 years ago) there's no way I'd switch to Nikon or any other dSLR brand. I find the Canon system works for me - but the fact you have already got a Nikon system makes me feel you'd be better off sticking with what you know.

Personally, I'm just biding my time for affordable full-frame from Canon - a kind of EOS 5D but with a lower price-tag - as for my photography the thing I miss most is those wider angle shots.

Canon clearly still have a considerable lead over Nikon in the pro market (their 16MP 1Dsmk2 is unrivalled in 35 mil land) but at the keen-amateur/entry level it's six-and-half-a-dozen based I'd say.

John
 
jtc - I'm not convinced it's that clear cut in pro-land. The D2x could not by any objective measure be called a bad camera (and I'm an EOS user of 15 years standing, and my dad's been a canon user for around 40 years), and it's half the price of the 1DSII. It's also more compact and 350g lighter (bit of a turnabout, given how svelt the EOS 1, 1n and 1v were compared to the boat-anchor inspired F4 and F5). At the end of a long day's shooting, that 350g will be felt.

Competition is good. Nikon keep Canon honest. Canon keep Nikon honest. No one else keeps them honest though.
 
One thing I didn't notice until the other day is that Nikons have the mode dial on the left of the body whereas Canon's have everything on the right side allowing, theoretically, one handed operation, or at least, keeping your left hand supporting from below or on the zoom/focus rings (out of reach of the mode dial).

I'm pretty sure that having to constantly move my left hand to access the mode dial would quickly irritate the hell out me. A small but potentially important difference.

Michael.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top