Nikon / Canon DSLR ... other makes ?

[James79]

Hello, sorry if this has been asked a million times before. I get the feeling this is probably a standard thing to ask (no wish to stoke an old debate either), but I couldn't find what I needed with searching.

Anyway ... the world of the DSLR beckons, mostly for travel photography but also landscape shots, maybe some portraits when I get home. What I would like out of a camera is :

• Image quality - obviously I want the best results for my dough !
• Good colour reproduction - the point and shoot I'm using just looks washed out
• Reliability - I can't afford to buy another within a couple of years.
• Versatility - something I'll be able to learn with as I get more experienced

Phew ! So, I've used Nikon film SLRs a bit in the past ... the temptation is to go with this, or maybe a Canon. Within my budget, the Nikon D70s / Canon EOS 350D looks just what I want (I won't say 'need' just yet Is the 6MP resolution of the Nikon likely to be any sort of barrier in the future ? I'm not thinking of printing any larger than standard photo sizes, but wondered if the 8MP of the Canon is worth it for similar money. I've heard that the Canon has bolder colour reproduction, but really I haven't seen any direct comparisons. Any comments on this ?

But ... am I being blinkered in terms of thinking of just two major brands ?? Are there others that are suitable that I'm missing ? Ease of buying new lenses out and about is a consideration for me ...

Many Thanks,

James

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

Any of the models from Nikon or Canon are great. You didn't mention the Nikon D50, which is an entry level model and cheaper than the D70s. Quite a few people here have one, and they seem to love it.

Don't be fooled by Mega Pixels...the image quality from a 6MP DSLR is outstanding...and very capable of making prints 8X10 or even larger.

As for color, most DSLRs are pretty good but to really get the most out of your camera, you need to know a bit about image software (Photoshop for example). As long as you can get a good clean image from the camera...it's easy to make the color pop. While the entry level DSLRs may not have all the options...they are very capable...so you shouldn't have to replace them any time soon.

There are plenty of other brands. Pentax, Sony (formerly Minolta), Sigma (I think). I believe that Canon and Nikon are clearly the leaders though. When you buy an SLR, you are buying into a system...so look at that. Canon and Nikon clearly have the widest selection of lenses and accessories.

Go to www.dpreview.com and compare the D50 and Rebel XT (350D). If you can, go into a store and hold them...pick the one that feels best to you.

I think Canon currently has a rebate in place. $100 off the Rebel XT.

 

[summers_enemy]

Pentax has a line of DSLRs, there are still Minoltas available as well I hear. Panasonic has one coming out that looks very promising, and Olympus has at least 1 out as well (though I wasn't very impressed with it). Most of these DSLRs are a fair bit cheaper in price than a 350D or D70. But have you checked into Nikon's D50? Excellent camera (yes, I own it ).

To me, and I'm also not trying to cause any kind of debate, it was the wisest choice on the market. Takes SD cards which I already had from my compact digital, can be had very cheaply, smaller in size than a D70, and on auto modes in my tests it far out performed Canon's 350D in terms of color rendition and contrast.

Whatever you get though, remember that your lenses are every bit as important, if not more so, than the camera body you choose.

Happy shopping!

 

[jophassa]

What do people think of the Samsung Pro815? Is the lack of OIS a really bad thing?

 

[thebeginning]

• Image quality - obviously I want the best results for my dough !
• Good colour reproduction - the point and shoot I'm using just looks washed out
• Reliability - I can't afford to buy another within a couple of years.
• Versatility - something I'll be able to learn with as I get more experienced

i'll just give you some info that might help in these four areas. big mike pretty much nailed all of it, but all add in what i can.


Image quality - like he said, both are very good. IMO the nikon's images have a tad more punch straight out of the camera, but that's not necessarily a good thing in some cases. the overall image quality (resolution, noise, etc.) tips slightly in the canon's favor though in my opinion.

good colour reproduction - both are good, but don't expect to get everything perfect out of the camera. Like mike said, you'll want to get used to some editing software, like photoshop.

reliable - both cameras are equally reliable in my opinion

versatility - each camera is different as far as controls and menus go. both can do essentially the same things, but each one has 'special features' that the other does not. I recommend going to a store and checking them out yourself, as they are very different in body style and size...

 

[DocFrankenstein]

You can print ok 8*12 from either one of them. With XT you get a little bit less sharpness because of the smaller photosites...

 

[thebeginning]

You can print ok 8*12 from either one of them. With XT you get a little bit less sharpness because of the smaller photosites...

depends on what you mean by 'ok', and what you're used to.

and what are 'photosites'?

 

[Big Mike]

If I'm not mistaken, Photosites are the tiny light receptors that are on the image chip. The more Photosites the chip has, the more mega pixels the images will be. When they try to cram more photosites onto a chip, it can make for noisy images. That's why the small sensors in non-DSLR cameras get noisy images, especially at higher ISO.

With XT you get a little bit less sharpness because of the smaller photosites

I'm not sure I believe that...sounds like something a Nikon owner would say

There are plenty of other factors, like the type of sensor (CCD in the Nikon and CMOS in the Canon) and the in camera processing of the sensor data.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm not sure I believe that...sounds like something a Nikon owner would say

Yeah, I know.

But I shoot canon and you do see that the XT is a bit less "informational" than the 300D... at least at ISO 100.

PURE IMO.

I'd shoot nikon with their MF lenses if I weren't hoping to get a full frame digital someday.

 

[Richard Daley]

One advantage of staying with Nikon is that if you have any lenses, virtually all will work (the very wide angles for film won't work on the Nikon digitals) great and, depending on what Nikon you've been shooting with, you will find the controls very similar whereas they are different on the Canon or other brands.

Why do pros nearly all stick to Canon and Nikon, well, various reasons but including durability (nod in my opinion to Nikon), engineering (nod in my opinion to Canon) and the huge range of accessories that fit as your wants and needs change (other brands like Pentax also good at this, but Nikon and Canon are the leaders).

You won't be sorry with the D50, D70, or Rebel - I've shot most of these myself and have students that use them all and love them.

Richard Daley

 

[thebeginning]

If I'm not mistaken, Photosites are the tiny light receptors that are on the image chip. The more Photosites the chip has, the more mega pixels the images will be. When they try to cram more photosites onto a chip, it can make for noisy images. That's why the small sensors in non-DSLR cameras get noisy images, especially at higher ISO.

i always referred to those as pixels...(?)

 

[DocFrankenstein]

One advantage of staying with Nikon is that if you have any lenses, virtually all will work (the very wide angles for film won't work on the Nikon digitals)

They will also work on canons just as well, even better.

 

[thebeginning]

They will also work on canons just as well, even better.

that's a little misleading, you'd have to get a different mount and you wouldn't have metering (pretty obvious)

 

[DocFrankenstein]

that's a little misleading, you'd have to get a different mount and you wouldn't have metering (pretty obvious)

well... the funny part is that you wouldn't have metering on most of nikon bodies but would on canon. And it's just an adapter...

 

[thebeginning]

well... the funny part is that you wouldn't have metering on most of nikon bodies but would on canon. And it's just an adapter...

wait, you mean that canons can meter with nikon MF lenses attached? whoa. if that's true, i'm going to grab some old nikkors, definitely. those have got to be killer with a FF viewfinder (like you, i plan on getting a 5d/1ds next). PM me with info, i'm interested.


sorry for hijacking your thread, james