Which camera?
June 18, 2004 10:21 AM Subscribe
Canon has better long (telephoto lenses), Nikon has better wide lenses.
Canon lenses always have the AF motor built in to the lens. Nikon only builds the AF motor into their more expensive lenses. Canon has had image stabilization technology longer than Nikon.
If you are shooting fast moving, distant objects, then Canon seems to be the better system. If you are shooting closer and more static scenes, Nikon is the way to go.
The current Canon system is not compatible with the older manual focus only (70's and 80's) lenses. Nikon lenses from any of Nikon's SLRs will mount on the D70. Some of the features may not work perfectly, but there are always workarounds.
This means that there are far more Nikon lenses available on the used market, and their values are more stable. A 15-year-old Nikon lens will probably be more expensive than the comparable Canon. But when you are done with it, you will be able to sell it for the same or more than you paid.
Unfortunately, the mirror in the SLR system makes building very wide angle lenses very expensive. Also, none of the D-SLRs seem to have focus screens that are useful for people who prefer to manually focus the scene.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:44 AM on June 18, 2004
Canon lenses always have the AF motor built in to the lens. Nikon only builds the AF motor into their more expensive lenses. Canon has had image stabilization technology longer than Nikon.
If you are shooting fast moving, distant objects, then Canon seems to be the better system. If you are shooting closer and more static scenes, Nikon is the way to go.
The current Canon system is not compatible with the older manual focus only (70's and 80's) lenses. Nikon lenses from any of Nikon's SLRs will mount on the D70. Some of the features may not work perfectly, but there are always workarounds.
This means that there are far more Nikon lenses available on the used market, and their values are more stable. A 15-year-old Nikon lens will probably be more expensive than the comparable Canon. But when you are done with it, you will be able to sell it for the same or more than you paid.
Unfortunately, the mirror in the SLR system makes building very wide angle lenses very expensive. Also, none of the D-SLRs seem to have focus screens that are useful for people who prefer to manually focus the scene.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:44 AM on June 18, 2004
I've not looked into the Canon option as realistically I'm already tied to Nikon through the lenses I own. One thing I did pick up on about the D70 though is that it compares less favourably to the Canon in terms of ISO equivalency, only going down to ISO 100. To most people this really won't matter, but I am starting to get into landscapes more and more and therefore use a tripod, meaning that I don't need fast "film" speeds and would benefit from the lower noise of the Canon.
posted by chill at 12:33 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by chill at 12:33 PM on June 18, 2004
Sorry, I meant ISO 200 for the Nikon, Canon is down to ISO 100.
posted by chill at 12:35 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by chill at 12:35 PM on June 18, 2004
I don't know that going down to ISO 100 buys you less noise as it would with film.
At the dpreview page, ISO 100 on the Canon 300D (same chip, IIRC) looks about the same as ISO 200 on the D70, and the Canon seems to have slightly higher noise at a given ISO.
We have a D70 with the lens kits and it's muy nice. The lens focuses astonishingly quickly... I'm not the photographer in the house, but She Who Is says that it seems to be quite the nice lens.
Real answer: go to a store and play with both. See which you like better.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2004
At the dpreview page, ISO 100 on the Canon 300D (same chip, IIRC) looks about the same as ISO 200 on the D70, and the Canon seems to have slightly higher noise at a given ISO.
We have a D70 with the lens kits and it's muy nice. The lens focuses astonishingly quickly... I'm not the photographer in the house, but She Who Is says that it seems to be quite the nice lens.
Real answer: go to a store and play with both. See which you like better.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2004
Cost savings - Its been widely known that the Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel and the Canon EOS 10D DSLR's are similar beasts. In fact, if you look at their Side-by-side comparisons you can see that most of the features that vary are catagorized as "Customizable".
Scroll half way down - - What IS the Russian Firmware Hack
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
posted by thomcatspike at 12:55 PM on June 18, 2004
Scroll half way down - - What IS the Russian Firmware Hack
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
posted by thomcatspike at 12:55 PM on June 18, 2004
I'm just basing that on a review I read in a photography mag, where the Canon won out in terms of sharpness and noise at the lowest ISO setting. I've not seen the difference with my own eyes though.
posted by chill at 12:57 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by chill at 12:57 PM on June 18, 2004
Oh boy. HornetsNestFilter.
I made this decision about two weeks ago, after painfully saving up the money for the past year for a 10D. Then Nikon released the D70 and my world got more complicated.
I've spent about every day of the past year reading reviews, many times the same review over and over again, attempting to ascertain small details that would make or break my decision.
In the end, I ditched the Canon and went with the Nikon D70, and I'll attempt to explain why.
As a film user, I do not have to wait for my camera. If I choose an SLR with a built-in meter, I might have to turn an 'ON' button, but other then that, it's instantly ready to take a shot. This may seem trivial, but 2 or 3 seconds waiting for the power to come on your Canon and you can miss the shot you wanted. 2 or 3 seconds spent looking at a shot to see if it's in focus, or the white balance is correct, etc. -- compounded over a year or two of use... that's just not something I want to deal with.
The Nikon is in "I'm always ready to take a shot"-mode. Even if you're 3 menus deep configuring settings, when you tap the shutter, it's ready to fire. And after you take a shot, it's ready to view. Instantly. Turn it on, and take your shot. No waiting.
The next thing is that Nikon is the first company to fully utilize the faster read/write speeds of today's CompactFlash cards. What this means is, you can take a burst of shots and it's instantly dumping it all as you're taking pictures. 3 frames/second of JPG's at highest resolution until your memory card is full. That's incredible. With the Canon, you're back waiting for the shots to dump before you can even USE the thing. No good.
Image quality between the two is basically the same. The ISO issue is moot, since Nikon has achieved optimum signal/noise at a higher speed. Even if you could somehow tweak it to offer a 100 ISO, what would be the point if the CCD sensitivity is the same? Your shots will be identical. Just increase the aperature/time a half stop.
Lenses are basically the same. Canon has IS lenses, Nikon has VR lenses. I would give the edge to Canon, but its so slight, and the lenses in question are so expensive that it's irrelevant to my decision.
The last thing that convinced me is the flash/sync speed. With the 10D, I believe you're saddled to 1/200th of a second. If you're trying to freeze action in a studio, 1/200th of a second isn't good enough. The Nikon is the _only_ dSLR on the market (except for the extremely salivatory, but extremely expensive 1Ds) that supports a flash sync up to 1/500th of a second. That's more like it.
What struck me about the two cameras is that the Canon seems like it was designed by engineers, while the Nikon seems like it was designed by photographers. I want the camera system I go with to have my interests as a photographer in mind.
Anyway, my two cents.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:01 PM on June 18, 2004
I made this decision about two weeks ago, after painfully saving up the money for the past year for a 10D. Then Nikon released the D70 and my world got more complicated.
I've spent about every day of the past year reading reviews, many times the same review over and over again, attempting to ascertain small details that would make or break my decision.
In the end, I ditched the Canon and went with the Nikon D70, and I'll attempt to explain why.
As a film user, I do not have to wait for my camera. If I choose an SLR with a built-in meter, I might have to turn an 'ON' button, but other then that, it's instantly ready to take a shot. This may seem trivial, but 2 or 3 seconds waiting for the power to come on your Canon and you can miss the shot you wanted. 2 or 3 seconds spent looking at a shot to see if it's in focus, or the white balance is correct, etc. -- compounded over a year or two of use... that's just not something I want to deal with.
The Nikon is in "I'm always ready to take a shot"-mode. Even if you're 3 menus deep configuring settings, when you tap the shutter, it's ready to fire. And after you take a shot, it's ready to view. Instantly. Turn it on, and take your shot. No waiting.
The next thing is that Nikon is the first company to fully utilize the faster read/write speeds of today's CompactFlash cards. What this means is, you can take a burst of shots and it's instantly dumping it all as you're taking pictures. 3 frames/second of JPG's at highest resolution until your memory card is full. That's incredible. With the Canon, you're back waiting for the shots to dump before you can even USE the thing. No good.
Image quality between the two is basically the same. The ISO issue is moot, since Nikon has achieved optimum signal/noise at a higher speed. Even if you could somehow tweak it to offer a 100 ISO, what would be the point if the CCD sensitivity is the same? Your shots will be identical. Just increase the aperature/time a half stop.
Lenses are basically the same. Canon has IS lenses, Nikon has VR lenses. I would give the edge to Canon, but its so slight, and the lenses in question are so expensive that it's irrelevant to my decision.
The last thing that convinced me is the flash/sync speed. With the 10D, I believe you're saddled to 1/200th of a second. If you're trying to freeze action in a studio, 1/200th of a second isn't good enough. The Nikon is the _only_ dSLR on the market (except for the extremely salivatory, but extremely expensive 1Ds) that supports a flash sync up to 1/500th of a second. That's more like it.
What struck me about the two cameras is that the Canon seems like it was designed by engineers, while the Nikon seems like it was designed by photographers. I want the camera system I go with to have my interests as a photographer in mind.
Anyway, my two cents.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:01 PM on June 18, 2004
Oh yeah, and the lens that the D70 kit is bundled with (a 18mm-70mm f3.5-4.5) is fabulous. The lens normally goes for about $300 more if you buy the two separately.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:05 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:05 PM on June 18, 2004
oooh ... I've been saving for a D10, but I'm now lookng hard at the D70. But: does it have a vertical grip available? That's a deal breaker, in all sorts of ways.
posted by bonaldi at 5:42 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by bonaldi at 5:42 PM on June 18, 2004
My decision on Canon was based on the Canon and lenses already owned. We sweated longer over the choice between the 300d and the 10d, then chose the 10d because the controls were the most like the old one, and the camera is built considerably more sturdy than the plastic 300d.
The start-up delays ARE a pain, even if only occasionaly. The worst thing is the value of the equipment. Too easy to get stolen, too easy to drop, too many $$$ in that equation!
posted by Goofyy at 11:01 PM on June 18, 2004
The start-up delays ARE a pain, even if only occasionaly. The worst thing is the value of the equipment. Too easy to get stolen, too easy to drop, too many $$$ in that equation!
posted by Goofyy at 11:01 PM on June 18, 2004
They're pretty much equal in image quality (very good).
They're probably pretty much equal in durability (probably not so good, but who's volunteering for destructive testing?).
The kit lens on the Nikon is a good deal and much better than the Canon.
Both brands have excellent aftermarket lenses available for either (if you have the cash) and there's some good third-party stuff available, too.
Neither brand offers affordable wide-angles.
Neither brand offers fast enough wide-angle lenses at all (unless you want to use manual focus Nikon AIS lenses, most of which won't work with the D70's meter).
The Nikon writes to memory much faster.
The Nikon has much shorter lag times.
The Nikon is much better for flash.
The Nikon's user-interface is cleaner and less fussy - but that's arguably subjective - neither has a pleasant interface if you're experienced with film cameras.
I prefer the handling/ergonomics/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of the Nikon, but that's very subjective.
They both have crappy viewfinders, which is a shame, because it's probably the most important part of all; neither comes close to a 30 year-old Nikon F2.
They were both nearly-but-not-quite, for me.
posted by normy at 1:42 AM on June 19, 2004
They're probably pretty much equal in durability (probably not so good, but who's volunteering for destructive testing?).
The kit lens on the Nikon is a good deal and much better than the Canon.
Both brands have excellent aftermarket lenses available for either (if you have the cash) and there's some good third-party stuff available, too.
Neither brand offers affordable wide-angles.
Neither brand offers fast enough wide-angle lenses at all (unless you want to use manual focus Nikon AIS lenses, most of which won't work with the D70's meter).
The Nikon writes to memory much faster.
The Nikon has much shorter lag times.
The Nikon is much better for flash.
The Nikon's user-interface is cleaner and less fussy - but that's arguably subjective - neither has a pleasant interface if you're experienced with film cameras.
I prefer the handling/ergonomics/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of the Nikon, but that's very subjective.
They both have crappy viewfinders, which is a shame, because it's probably the most important part of all; neither comes close to a 30 year-old Nikon F2.
They were both nearly-but-not-quite, for me.
posted by normy at 1:42 AM on June 19, 2004
a review I read in a photography mag
Never believe reviews in photography mags. There hasn't been an objectively honest review of any product in a photography mag for decades. They don't exist to inform their readers. The readership are merely statistics to sell to advertisers.
posted by normy at 2:07 AM on June 19, 2004
Never believe reviews in photography mags. There hasn't been an objectively honest review of any product in a photography mag for decades. They don't exist to inform their readers. The readership are merely statistics to sell to advertisers.
posted by normy at 2:07 AM on June 19, 2004
That seems like a bit of a sweeping statement. What are you basing it on?
posted by chill at 6:55 AM on June 19, 2004
posted by chill at 6:55 AM on June 19, 2004
For what it's worth, CNET's digicam reviews seemed to prefer the Nikon.
Also, for what it's worth, I've been in love with my Canon S30, and talked three or four friends into buying Canon digicams. I can not say enough about Canon (the one time my camera broke, within warranty, I sent it back to be fixed -- when it was returned, in addition to the needed repairs, there was a little note that said, "Noticed the LCD screen was scratched, replaced it.")
But after a lot reading up, I struck the 10D off my wishlist and am drooling over the D70. Now I just need to come into a boatload of money.
Related question: as an avid digital photographer, one of the things that always irked me about my S30 is the inability to get really small depths of field -- when I upgrade to a digital SLR (say the 10D or D70), will I be able to get a depth of field as small as on a 35mm? Will I be able to get a depth of field as large as on my S30?
posted by rafter at 10:32 AM on June 19, 2004
Also, for what it's worth, I've been in love with my Canon S30, and talked three or four friends into buying Canon digicams. I can not say enough about Canon (the one time my camera broke, within warranty, I sent it back to be fixed -- when it was returned, in addition to the needed repairs, there was a little note that said, "Noticed the LCD screen was scratched, replaced it.")
But after a lot reading up, I struck the 10D off my wishlist and am drooling over the D70. Now I just need to come into a boatload of money.
Related question: as an avid digital photographer, one of the things that always irked me about my S30 is the inability to get really small depths of field -- when I upgrade to a digital SLR (say the 10D or D70), will I be able to get a depth of field as small as on a 35mm? Will I be able to get a depth of field as large as on my S30?
posted by rafter at 10:32 AM on June 19, 2004
Depth of field is related to sensor size. (Well, it's related to other things, but these are determined by sensor size.) A D70 -- or D-Reb for that matter -- has a sensor much larger than the minuscule one used on your S30, but about a third smaller than 35mm film (it's APS-sized). So you will be able to get a much narrower DOF than you can on your S30, but not quite as narrow as 35mm.
As for getting a large depth of field, that's easy -- set your aperture small and focus your lens at its hyperfocal distance. Basically, hyperfocal focusing takes advantage of the fact that the depth of field extends in front of and behind the focus point. If you're focused at infinity, half your DOF is beyond infinity and is wasted. By focusing closer, you move the front part of the DOF much closer to you, while the back DOF still goes to infinity! It sounds like magic, but it's not. So if you want point-and-shoot convenience with everything in focus, just stop down the lens as far as possible, focus to the hyperfocal distance, and tape the focus ring so it stays that way.
posted by kindall at 11:54 AM on June 19, 2004
As for getting a large depth of field, that's easy -- set your aperture small and focus your lens at its hyperfocal distance. Basically, hyperfocal focusing takes advantage of the fact that the depth of field extends in front of and behind the focus point. If you're focused at infinity, half your DOF is beyond infinity and is wasted. By focusing closer, you move the front part of the DOF much closer to you, while the back DOF still goes to infinity! It sounds like magic, but it's not. So if you want point-and-shoot convenience with everything in focus, just stop down the lens as far as possible, focus to the hyperfocal distance, and tape the focus ring so it stays that way.
posted by kindall at 11:54 AM on June 19, 2004
That seems like a bit of a sweeping statement. What are you basing it on?
I suppose it is a bit cynical, but it's based on years of reading nothing but glowing reviews of new products that turn out to be mediocre, articles that read like manufacturers press releases, and how the mags always tell you about a product's faults only when the new improved version is being marketed. Go and browse the mags at your local bookstore and see if you can find a review that even hints that the latest and greatest widget isn't marvellous compared to anything that went before. See if you can find a review that says viewfinders in modern digicams are generally abismally bad, for example. Photo magazines make money from advertising sales, not the cover price, so it's no big surprise that things are this way.
Given there's more critical, more thorough, more detailed and more up to date information available on the web, how the product-oriented photo magazines survive is a mystery.
when I upgrade to a digital SLR (say the 10D or D70), will I be able to get a depth of field as small as on a 35mm?
No. This is not something the marketers want you to think about, but it's a big problem for folks who want to have some control over depth-of field, especially with wide-angles. Hence my comment above about lack of fast wide angle lenses. The truly wide lenses that are at least moderately fast (f2.8, say) are too horribly expensive for most amateurs. The optics involved, as a consequence of the smaller sensors in digital cameras, also mean these lenses are bigger and heavier than their 35mm equivalents.
posted by normy at 12:18 PM on June 19, 2004
I suppose it is a bit cynical, but it's based on years of reading nothing but glowing reviews of new products that turn out to be mediocre, articles that read like manufacturers press releases, and how the mags always tell you about a product's faults only when the new improved version is being marketed. Go and browse the mags at your local bookstore and see if you can find a review that even hints that the latest and greatest widget isn't marvellous compared to anything that went before. See if you can find a review that says viewfinders in modern digicams are generally abismally bad, for example. Photo magazines make money from advertising sales, not the cover price, so it's no big surprise that things are this way.
Given there's more critical, more thorough, more detailed and more up to date information available on the web, how the product-oriented photo magazines survive is a mystery.
when I upgrade to a digital SLR (say the 10D or D70), will I be able to get a depth of field as small as on a 35mm?
No. This is not something the marketers want you to think about, but it's a big problem for folks who want to have some control over depth-of field, especially with wide-angles. Hence my comment above about lack of fast wide angle lenses. The truly wide lenses that are at least moderately fast (f2.8, say) are too horribly expensive for most amateurs. The optics involved, as a consequence of the smaller sensors in digital cameras, also mean these lenses are bigger and heavier than their 35mm equivalents.
posted by normy at 12:18 PM on June 19, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Hackworth at 10:32 AM on June 18, 2004