A quick camera question

[Grym]

I have been planning on buying a nikon d200 and just appropriated the funds to do so, but now I'm having second thoughts about possibly buying 2 lower end cameras that would sdtill do an acceptable job and give me the opportunity to get a feel for possibly a canon and a nikon to see which one feels right - which models would you guys suggest? I will probably be doing wedding photography with these, which I am going to be new to, but fortunately I already have a friend in the field and I have some relatives and friends of the family that are getting married and haven't booked photographers yet so I can use them for practice. Just wondering which models you guys would suggest?

 

[markc]

Rather than buy two, if you really want to spend time with them, I would rent. Many cities have pro shops that will rent equipment out. That way you can spend the money on the one you want and put the rest into the lenses.

 

[Grym]

what does everyone think about canon rebel xt and nikon d70?

 

[Arch]

They're both great cameras, and you would be saving a shed load of cash if you opted for either compared to the D200...... I use the D50 which is another for your consideration...... i would go for one of these and then spend the rest on some good glass...... lenses count for alot when it comes to quality in pictures...... spend some time over at dpreview.com and check out there reviews on these cams........


A D200 is tempting tho i know...... probably my next body.. if i could afford it.

 

[markc]

lenses count for alot when it comes to quality in pictures

That's usually the case for film cameras, but not for digitals. Since the sensor is part of the body, it would be a lot like if film came with the body. The right film can have a bigger impact on image quality than the lens, and I think the same can be said for the digital sensor.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

That's usually the case for film cameras, but not for digitals. Since the sensor is part of the body, it would be a lot like if film came with the body. The right film can have a bigger impact on image quality than the lens, and I think the same can be said for the digital sensor.

That is so not true

I would advise against getting two bodies, because you would need the lenses systems as well. They are not interchangeable. The good lenses with fast and quiet motors cost much more than the usual ones which make the bee sounds.

For the canon line the XT does not even come close to what you would want to shoot a wedding with. The focus in low light is bad. The servo is not there. The layout on the prosumer and pro bodies is different.

Now, if you want to compare them, get a 1D body and say D200 and compare those. Or maybe film bodies.

In the end IMO the canon wins because they offer the full frame sensors and the CMOS technology gives you less noise at higher ISOs. But you pay dearly for those.


Good luck deciding.

 

[thebeginning]

here's a different look...

some of the popular cameras used by weddings photographers (not the only ones that will work, just what's most commonly used from what i've seen), in order from most popular to less popular:

1. 1d Mark II/1dIIn
2. Canon 20d/30d
3. Canon 5d (getting close to the amount of 20d's)
4. Nikon d2x (pretty close to 5d)
5. Nikon d200/canon 10d
6. Nikon d70s/d100
7. canon 300d/XT/d50 (fairly far behind)

 

[markc]

That is so not true

I would advise against getting two bodies, because you would need the lenses systems as well. They are not interchangeable. The good lenses with fast and quiet motors cost much more than the usual ones which make the bee sounds.

For the canon line the XT does not even come close to what you would want to shoot a wedding with. The focus in low light is bad. The servo is not there. The layout on the prosumer and pro bodies is different.

Now, if you want to compare them, get a 1D body and say D200 and compare those. Or maybe film bodies.

In the end IMO the canon wins because they offer the full frame sensors and the CMOS technology gives you less noise at higher ISOs. But you pay dearly for those.


Good luck deciding.

??? How is that not true, and aren't you agreeing with me there? How is that not true? Digital sensors vary widely, and have a huge impact on how the image looks. While pro lenses have many pluses to them, the average person probably isn't going to see the difference in the final image. I'll bet they can tell the difference between a cheap low-density sensor and a good hi-res one though.

 

[markc]

I guess my mind misread Archangel's post. Good quality lenses do count, whether it's digital or film. Damn brain fart I didn't catch until I re-read it. My point is that body choice counts for a lot more in a digital body compared to a film body.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

All of it is IMO though. Let me desribe where I'm coming from:

1) The sensor at it's native sensitivity will not change the picture at all. It's all in the post processing. Canon/nikon is the same loaded into creative suite.

2) You can't tell any difference when you're looking at pictures at a monitor. Even my 20 inch LCD doesn't reach 2 megapixels. You need to print 8*12 at 300DPI. There you WILL be able to tell the difference.

I'll bet they can tell the difference between a cheap low-density sensor and a good hi-res one though.

The funny part is that the low density sensors are the expensive ones. 5D is more expensive than 20D, yet 20D has a higher density sensor.

the average person probably isn't going to see the difference in the final image

The average person can do a lot of stupid things.

 

[markc]

2) You can't tell any difference when you're looking at pictures at a monitor. Even my 20 inch LCD doesn't reach 2 megapixels. You need to print 8*12 at 300DPI. There you WILL be able to tell the difference.

That's my minimum. 12x18 is important to me, too. 4x6s are just proofs for me, and I think for most people who lean towards the pro side. I wasn't talking about web viewing; I meant something that you would hang on the wall. If you mean web size, then I think lens choice is immaterial. At 12x18 I can get away with using the 10D, but I would much perfer the 5D over a D60.

The other day I saw some landscape prints someone had hanging in a coffee shop taken with a digital camera. They were very soft and not what I would consider "professional". I know that modern color printers can do amazing things, so it wasnt likely to be the printer, and if it was the lens, then it was a really super cheap lens. My guess is that the capture wasn't up to par to be printed at that size.

And you're right, it's not all about density, but there is a difference between a good sensor and a cheapo one. Noise and low-light capability can have a huge impact. It's one of the reasons why I waited for the 10D.

And again, I didn't mean that lens choice isn't important (I think I overstated myself earlier); just that body choice has an impact on the image when using digital. For film bodies, it doesn't at all (other than the basics, like flat film and no light leaks). It's all about the features. For film, you pick a body that goes with the lens system that you want. For digital, it's much more of a balance between the two. For current Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, it's probably not an issue, but I think it is when comparing to the older or cheaper cameras.

 

[964]

I think you have to consider what you are going to use it for.....and do a lot of research! I for example recently upgraded from a 20D to my current setup, and it was a hard decision as I tend to shoot sport/action/people and I like to have a high framerate to catch expressions on faces. The 20D has 5fps, the 1D has 8.5....so my quandary was could I justify another £1500 or so just for that...? I did research and found that the 1D has ISO in 1/3stop steps so I added that to the plus side and made the leap....

Since then, I am absolutely delighted with the upgrade and I wish I had never purchased the 20D in the first place......not that the 20D is not a great camera, because it is....but I find everything on the 1D much more natural to use - it *seems* faster to AF, IMHO it has less noise at high ISO settings, it has a quieter shutter, it has a lower crop factor (13. to 1.6), it writes faster to the same mem cards I had before, it has better battery life, it is sealed against the elements (at least to a degree)....so all of a sudden I had som many other reasons to love it...

My point here is, do as much research as you can and try them all out if you can. There is of course no point spending $$$$ if you don't need it, but there is also no point buying something not quite right and then spending again on something else....

Whatever you choose, have fun choosing!

 

[thebeginning]

That's my minimum. 12x18 is important to me, too. 4x6s are just proofs for me, and I think for most people who lean towards the pro side. I wasn't talking about web viewing; I meant something that you would hang on the wall. If you mean web size, then I think lens choice is immaterial. At 12x18 I can get away with using the 10D, but I would much perfer the 5D over a D60.

The other day I saw some landscape prints someone had hanging in a coffee shop taken with a digital camera. They were very soft and not what I would consider "professional". I know that modern color printers can do amazing things, so it wasnt likely to be the printer, and if it was the lens, then it was a really super cheap lens. My guess is that the capture wasn't up to par to be printed at that size.

And you're right, it's not all about density, but there is a difference between a good sensor and a cheapo one. Noise and low-light capability can have a huge impact. It's one of the reasons why I waited for the 10D.

And again, I didn't mean that lens choice isn't important (I think I overstated myself earlier); just that body choice has an impact on the image when using digital. For film bodies, it doesn't at all (other than the basics, like flat film and no light leaks). It's all about the features. For film, you pick a body that goes with the lens system that you want. For digital, it's much more of a balance between the two. For current Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, it's probably not an issue, but I think it is when comparing to the older or cheaper cameras.

some good points there.

about not seeing the difference on a computer...it certainly is possible, but not while viewing the entire image. I can zoom in to 100% or even 50% in photoshop and easily be able to distinguish between lenses, so that can definitely be determined on the computer...almost more so for pixel peepers.

I, too have been to places where they had shots for sale that were pretty soft, but that was both film and digital. Poor selection of film or aperture has a huge impact on the film print's quality, as does proper focus and printing. With digital, it is quite similar but post processing is tossed in there. The photos saw may have been taken with a P&S, or just improperly shot or processed. You can't determine quality just from a few prints. How large were they?

 

[hobbes28]

I think you have to consider what you are going to use it for.....and do a lot of research! I for example recently upgraded from a 20D to my current setup, and it was a hard decision as I tend to shoot sport/action/people and I like to have a high framerate to catch expressions on faces. The 20D has 5fps, the 1D has 8.5....so my quandary was could I justify another £1500 or so just for that...? I did research and found that the 1D has ISO in 1/3stop steps so I added that to the plus side and made the leap....

My point here is, do as much research as you can and try them all out if you can. There is of course no point spending $$$$ if you don't need it, but there is also no point buying something not quite right and then spending again on something else....

Whatever you choose, have fun choosing!

Probably the most overlooked point here, thus far. It really depends on what you are wanting to use the camera for. I shoot weddings and would love to have the D200 or D2X to shoot with if I had the money for them. I currently shoot with the D70 and am a Nikon fan but we also use the 10D and would love to upgrade to the 30D or 5D as well. We need to have good glass for ours and we need to have faster lenses due to the situations we shoot in primarily. Now you take all of that and put it into me just shooting for fun and you get me staying with the D70 until it dies, dreaming about the D2X, and eventually replacing the D70 with another one or the comparible replacement. I am also a lot less picky about the lenses I use personally because I like to shoot landscapes and architechture where having a fast lens doesn't really make too much of a difference.

I also agree with markc's point of renting one from a local place for a day to see how you like them. When we bought ours, I was leaning heavily towards another 10D but went for the D70 because I really like the way it feels to me better than the Canon and that was important to me.

 

[Richard Daley]

Yet another consideration to factor in is what post-processing will you be using? I shoot Nikons and when I went from the D70 to the D200 - which I love (I also think the D70 is a fine camera) - I had to upgrade to Photoshop CS2 (from Photoshop CS) since CS doesn't have a very good RAW converter for the D200 images. Also, I had to buy more backup disk space.

If you need to shoot wide angle, the full size sensor of the high end Canon's is an advantage because a 20 mm wide angle for example is still a 20 mm, but on a Nikon it becomes a 30 mm. SO with the Nikon to shoot wide angles, you have to buy very wide angle lenses (the Tokina 12-24 has excellent optics and much less than the comprable Nikon). Still, a factor (conversely, if you are shooting telephotos, the "magnification factor" works in your favor for a Nikon as a 300mm becomes equivalent of a 450mm etc.)

Finally, look at the size and the quality of the digital screen. While shooting weddings you won't have much time to examine shots until you are back home, the larger screen on some of the cameras makes them much easier to read. The D200's is quite a step up from say the D70, for example.

Ditto on the idea of renting, though, and remember that Nikon's and Canon's have a different "feel" in the hand and each matches some hands better than the other. You only know when you've handled both.

Good luck,

Richard Daley