Going DSLR : why should I stay with Canon ?

[ilkka_nissila]

It's just that a lot of photographers like myself never need to go higher than iso 400. And up to about iso 400, the Nikons produce excellent image quality. Noise reduction of various sorts exists in the Canons as well. Above iso 400, all cameras become abit muddy. Normally one would use a tripod and shoot iso 100. The one obvious advantage that Canon has is the FF and 1.3x sensor cameras, at least for the time being. On the other hand, Nikon makes better small-sensor cameras. Mirror lockup? It's needed for some shutter speeds with 300 mm and up, which most people don't even use. Never had a problem with my 180 mm and lack of MLU (the effect of the vibration is smaller than 1 pixel and difficult to see). On the 300mm the D70 mirror movement is a disaster at 1/15 s. For that one needs at least a D200, which any serious photographer should consider entry level anyway. And for that camera, with its price point and features, there isn't much competition.

 

Need >= iso 400? Shoot Canon. Otherwise you can use Nikon and a tripod, and enjoy the miracle which is beyond Canon's comprehension - seeing the whole viewfinder image at once even with glasses on and without twisting them.

[lovcom_photo]

Ilkka, how is a tripod going to save your image if the subject is moving? Even slight movement? Grandma walking slowly across the livingroon during Christmas, for example?

 

I cannot believe most photogs don't shoot faster them ISO 400...anyone that has kids, shoots events, weddings, museums, castles, travel, nighttime images, the list goes on and on and on, including sports, fast motion, there are many, many reasons to expect that 99% of us often need faster then ISO 400...to shoot at ISO400 or slower, is not realistic, nor practical.

 

Bodies at each price-point, from the Nikon D50 and Canon Reb-XT up to the big dogs that cost $5,000 plus, Canon's bodies all provide less noise in each DSLR class.

 

I hope that Nikon comes in stronger the Canon in the future, as the competition will only be good for us consumers.

 

Go Nikon, GO!

[karl_lehmann]

If Canon would offer a full frame pro body the size and weight of the XT I'd buy two of them in a heartbeat! If Nikon would I might switch systems.<P>A "credit card-sized gizmo" that did the same thing would be even better but unfortunately that ain't gonna happen...<P>Karl Lehmann<br><a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World Arts</a>

[ky2]

Your 70-200/4L has no modern Nikkor equivalent, and although Nikon's 80-200/2.8 AFD is a remarkable performer, its more expensive, heavier, and slower to focus. The Nikkor 18-200VR is a nice all-arounder, but I promised myself would never buy an f/5.6 lens ever again.

 

As a Canon and Nikkor aficionado, I'm cursed by both worlds. The D200 seems like a great better of using all of my delicous AIS/AI Nikkor primes, but I've got some very nice L's too.

 

As noted above, if you want to switch, do it only once... The D50/70 don't interest me at all though.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>For what it's worth, I like my XT <i>because</i> it is small, yet it handles the best

lenses that Canon

sells.</p>

[John Crowe]

In any given year Canon will produce a superior DSLR to Nikon. If you stick with Canon you will have the option of going to full frame much sooner. My entry level DSLR was a 10D that I bought used a couple of months ago. Buy one yourself, for under $600 USD, and don't worry about upgrading for 2 or 3 years.

 

 

I know it's been said already but it bares repeating, the D200 does not even belong in the same sentence as the 5D. There I just did it myself! Every DSLR manufactured for the next 6 years will be obsolete within 24 months but that does not mean that some of them won't still be useful for sometime.

[andrew robertson]

Go ahead and switch. I'm sure that there will be many folks here who will be happy to get

your lenses for a song!

[ifeito]

Ilkka,

 

I've frequently read your posts and consider them very sensible, this one seems typed by someone using your computer during your absence.

 

Usable high ISO's give you hand holdable and motion stopping shutter speeds where a tripod would have been a necessity in the days of film. I agree, great pictures could be made then, but why deny the benefits that technology can bring to photography?

 

On MLU, it's certainly not only for 300 mm lenses! I have a 100 mm 2.8 Macro lens and haven't bought the collar yet. When the mirror slaps I can see the lens vibrating. If you're using shutter speeds around 1/30th of a second (right where an f/16 puts you on Macro) the vibration is certainly there. And no, I'm not using a flimsy tripod or head when shooting.

 

Great shooting!

 

Ignacio

[kelly_flanigan1]

What matters in the long run is lighting; seeing it, learning to understand it. With my Leica and Zorki LTM I use Canon, Nikon, Leica, Steinheil, Zeiss and Russian glass. Alot of these gems have been bought in the valleys/furrows of pricing when folks discarded them as "obsolete". These pricing valleys happen when folks chase/surf the lastest buzz in photo gear, and older stuff is dumped. Get the Canon or Nikon dslr that fits your needs. Switching brands alot can sometimes be expensive. Chasing the latest gizmo can be expensive too. The tools you need depend on the job. The question reads alot about "tools" and little for what job(s). You might be a wedding photographer, a shoot and scoot newspaper sports shooter, a serious portrait shooter, a wide angle real estate/house/architectual shooter, or all of the above. The future may be never clear to make a decision. XYZ might pop up and release a new camera the day you buy yours. The cheap Full frame sirens may lure you in to the rocks, or cause a delay in buying your dslr while others are shooting away getting images for clients.

[vincent_j_m]

Pentax's entry level DSLR's are very cheap and the lenses are good. Feature wise they are very adequate. Nikon's D50 or D70s are excellent cameras. Lens wise, they can match and often beat canon (eg. 18-70 AFS, for which canon has no equivalent).

[ifeito]

EFS 17-85 IS Vincent.

[majid]

Loic, I traded my 10D for a Rebel XT for the weight savings. DSLRs are tightly packed with electronics and are much more dense than film cameras, something that can surprise you at first.

 

If you are having problems handling the XT, try it with the optional portrait grip. It might make all the difference and allow you to keep your investment in Canon glass. Certainly, you would be hard-pressed to find reasonably priced Nikkor glass as good as your 70-200mm f/4L.

 

Canon is a much bigger company than Nikon, and they control their destiny in terms of sensors et al, not like Nikon who are dependent on the likes of Sony. This alone makes them a better bet in the long term, even if their current 30D is disappointing compared to the D200.

[StuartMoxham]

If anyone is interested here is the comparison between the Nikon D70 and the Cannon 300D at ISO 1600.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page23.asp

 

They don't really look that different do they. I would say that the cameras are fairly even the biggest difference will be the glass and the photographer.

 

Here is the 300D compared the the 20D and the 350D pretty close there too.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page26.asp

 

So if the D70 high ISO is unusable the others must be too. Now lets be honest they all look rather good to me the biggest difference with the APS size sensor cameras is going to come from the person using it.

[andrew robertson]

Stewart, they are very comparable for short exposures. However, long exposures are

unthinkable with Nikon DSLRs.

[StuartMoxham]

Yes the Nikons are worse at longer exposures. Here is an intersing page.

 

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

 

and here is another that shows how the D70 CCD is heating up.

 

http://www.nies.ch/tech/nikon-d70/noise.en.php

 

I would guess that most of us are not photographing stars but using long exposures of a few seconds to blur water and such. For someone shooting long exposures of more than 1 minute the D70 could be a bad choice and that would be a good reson to avoid it. But many are looking to avoid long exposures so they can hand hold at events, shoot moving subjects etc and don't want to use a tripod.

[ifeito]

Stuart,

 

Is it just me or why do I see a very significant difference between the D70 and the 350D? I agree, D70 vs. Original Rebel are a tie, but 350D blows the D70 out of the water on high ISO!

 

Ignacio

[Jim_Tardio]

There's so much mis-information, fabrication, and out right lies & bullsh*t in this thread that it makes my head hurt.

<p>

You should ask this question in a less biased forum...or at least visit Nikon's site for the actual specs on their cameras.

[ifeito]

Jim,

 

I shoot with Canon and I'm happy with it; however I've only heard good things about Nikon cameras most of my life.

 

However on my comments I'm going off from the information I have available (Photo.net, DPReview, Fred Miranda). If I have stated something wrong please point us in the right direction!

 

Thanks!

 

Ignacio

[StuartMoxham]

I am looking at this link here and I don't see the 350D blow the 300D out of the water.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page26.asp

 

and on this one I see D70 and 300D lookingpretty much the same.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page26.asp

 

Not much blowing out of the water being done at all. I have seen far greater differences comparing different ISO 400 films than what can be seen by looking at these DSLR samples.

[robert_potts1]

The Nikon D200 is superior to Canon 30D and 5D. See April edition of Popular Photography page 58 for details.

[sloopjohne]

<i>The Nikon D200 is superior to Canon 30D and 5D. See April edition of Popular Photography page 58 for details.</i><br><br>

 

Yeah, I read that same PP "camera test" myself last week whilst at my local Borders Books coffee shop since I refuse to pay good money for that rag. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this gem:<br><br>

 

"...But the real surprise is that the D200 captures images with slightly higher resolution and color accuracy than Canon's full-frame 12.8MP EOS 5D ($3,000, body only)..."<br><br>

 

The resolution of Nikon's 1.5x 10 MP sensor trumps Canon's FF near-13 MP sensor?<br><br>

 

I don't think so, unless by that you mean only two-thirds of the EOS 5D's sensor. (Hey, perhaps that's what PP's "tester" meant. LOL)<br><br>

 

In any case, so far PP is the *only* source, either in print or on the internet, making such as an asinine claim. The rest (such as <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp"><b>DPReview.com</b></a>, for example) place the image quality of the D200 at the same level as or below the 20D (ergo, the 30D) and below the 5D --especially when it comes to tonal range and high ISO noise.<br><br>

 

And unlike PP, those reviewers actually publish side-by-side comparison photos to back up their conclusions. <br><br>

[conraderb]

comparing a 18-200 stabilized digital lens to a 70-200 Canon L is just not fair to the 18-200. unless I missed the news, the 70-200 is going to win just on principle, regardless of the fact that it is an excellent optical performer.

 

the principles, from my experience and what I have read are:

 

primes beat zooms.

zooms beat megazooms.

[matthias_meixner2]

> I deeply dislike the XT for its being so tiny

 

Simple solution: Add a the battery grip. This has some additional advantages:

 

- additional shutter release

 

- you may use two rechargable batteries

 

- you may alkaline batteries for emergency

 

- "professional look" :-)

 

If you don't need one of the special features only found on the 30D, you are probably better off with the XT plus battery grip than with the 20D/30D without additional grip.

[andrew robertson]

BTW, Stuart, sorry for misspelling your name.

[daniel_taylor]

Not sure if it's too late or if you'll even read this far down, but...

 

"I can afford that, but then I checked out what Nikon had in the D70s. The price point is a good $400 cheaper than the 20D."

 

At B&H it looks like the D70s is about $200 cheaper than the 20D. Not sure how much longer you will be able to get the 20D new, but right now it's cheap and that might affect your decision.

 

Good luck!