|
Post by MikeDotBe on Mar 22, 2005 14:37:35 GMT 2
Hi guys,
i have seen saner and slash talking about digtal camera, and as i'm planning to buy a digital camera soon i will ask you this : my heart is between the Canon EOS 300 (no need of the 8 MP from the 350) and the nikon D70
Which one would you recommand and why?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Mar 22, 2005 18:29:19 GMT 2
Hello Mike, The Canon 350D is not just the 300D with 2 MP extra. It's got a different chip (Second generation CMOS) and loads of extra options. Anyway, the 300D is a great camera aswell. I am just warning you that you don't get "just" 2 MP extra for 200 euros more. If I had to choose I would go for the EOS 300D instead of the Nikon D70. But that may speak for itself as I've just bought a Canon. Good luck with your choice. Whatever you will choose; buy the right lenses. The lenses are probably gonna cost you more (per lens!) than the price of the camera. But always remember; it's the glass what makes the perfect picture and not the black box. After all; the camera is just a (very expensive) box. Be prepared to spend between 500 and 1000 euros per lens! Regards, sAner
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Mar 22, 2005 23:10:26 GMT 2
Yer, I recommand the 350, or if your set on a 300, I can sell you mine cheap ;-)
The 350 has a few extra options that I would not mind getting my hands on.
I personally prefer canon, because they have had longer in the digital market and have been producing printer and imaging equipment for some time, even before the digital boom. Nikon had placed minimal funding into digital technology until they were forced to.
-B
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Mar 23, 2005 0:12:22 GMT 2
Slash is right and that's why I also prefer Canon.
On top of that; a comon problem with the Nikon D70 should be the fact it attracts way more dust (when you swap lenses) than the Canon 300 or 350D. I've heard many Nikon users complain about getting a dirty chip fast. I have never owned a Nikon before so I don't know if it's 100% true but i-net is full of stories like that. It must be a little true at least.
Regards, sAner
|
|
|
Post by pulse8 on Mar 23, 2005 1:52:05 GMT 2
After all; the camera is just a (very expensive) box... Regards, sAner It's not the first time we've seen people pay a lot of money just for a box pulse8
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Mar 23, 2005 8:56:46 GMT 2
It's not the first time we've seen people pay a lot of money just for a box pulse8 :smilewinkgrin: :biggrin: :laugh:!! sAner
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Mar 23, 2005 11:07:13 GMT 2
Well, Thanks for your comments... I'm used with both Canon and Nikon camera, but lower models (canon ixus and nikon 995 serie). i' happy with all of them, but i wan't to buy a "more expensive" one... should i say a more professional one instead . The think that attract me in the Canon is the CMOS system that is more performant than the Nikon system. But i don't know why, my heart goes for the nikon, with no objective reason. Between the EOS 300 and the EOS 350, okay, it's not only a 2MP difference, but as i'm not proffessional , i did not see other "important" difference (of course the price is also different)... concerning the lens, i'm a complete NEWBIE all i want is a lens that enable me to do MACRO photo and another one that i could attach to a telescope. Mike ps thanks for the offer slash, but i will buy a new one
|
|
|
Post by jonwiththewind on Mar 23, 2005 20:18:13 GMT 2
I am having this dilemma too (!) My wife has said I can buy EITHER the Canon 300D or Nikon D70 if the car sells: cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4537073453&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT(still a bit off the reserve - fingers crossed ) Right, how about this for an amateurish reason to pick one over the other: I prefer the Nikon because it has a metal body, and somehow feels chunkier - yes, I know - crap reason. I should add they both seem very good, and I should be loyal to Canon because my first ever camera was an EOS 650 (the very first one they ever produced about 17 years ago - ish ??) I must check out the Canon 350D though. It does sound very impressive......
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Mar 24, 2005 0:13:03 GMT 2
|
|
|
Post by lio on Mar 29, 2005 8:55:01 GMT 2
Hey, when does this forum become a photo forum??? I think anyone wanting an entry level digital SLR at this time must seriously consider the 350D (I got mine with the EF-S 17-85mm lens). It's way faster than the 300D (0.2s start up, 3 shots per second) so it's more intuitive when shooting (important when you take pics of kids but less so if you focus on landscape). It's also a lot more compact and portable with a body weighing lless than 500g (no good for big hands though). The 20D is no doubt better but it's 50% more expensive (ie not entry level). In fact, D70 was made to kill the 300D while the 350D is made to kill the D70. When the D70 was released last year, no one bought the 300D anymore. What I see in shops now is no one is buying the D70 anymore. Budget conscious people may find it a good deal to buy the D70 though because of the (rapidly) falling price. Well, I heard rumours about a D70S. The problem is how long you want to wait.
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Mar 31, 2005 8:46:44 GMT 2
Yesterday I received my Sigma lens AF 100-300/f4.0 EX APO for my 350D. It's HUGE and fantastic! Regards, sAner
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Mar 31, 2005 9:33:13 GMT 2
i have to say that i'm a complete NOOBS concerning lens...
could someone explain the main difference i have to know between lens..
EF-S 17-85mm lens or AF 100-300/f4.0 EX APO are both chinese terms for me
[glow=purple,2,300]MikeWantToLearn[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Mar 31, 2005 10:03:38 GMT 2
Hey All
I'd have to agree with the argument to go with Canon, and the main reason is that they have a much better history with digital cameras, and digital SLR's in particular. Nikon just came in on the DSLR act recently. I think I know why you're drawn to the Nikon, Nikon has a great name in cameras, but their strength was always the great reliability of the mechanics, and there are a lot less mechanics and moving parts in a digital camera than a 35mm one, so the great name isn't so important. On lenses, the numbers on a lens represent the focal length (how big you can zoom in), e.g. 17-85mm or 100-300mm. 17mm is wide-angle so everything will be small and you can fit a lot in a photo, 300mm is extreme zoom, you can fit a small object like a bird in the frame without having to get close (eh, Pieter!) And the aperture size e.g. F4.0 or F4-5.6. This tells you how wide the shutter will open, and how much light can get let in. The lower the number the better, because that means in low light conditions you will get less blur due to camera shake. Having said all that, if you mainly want to concentrate on macro photography (like G&W) then the standard kit lens that comes with the cameras will be fine unless you're REALLY concerned with image quality and sharpness, then you'll have to spend approx 300 euros or more on a dedicated macro lens.
sAner's right about getting a good lens, though, you really do get what you pay for. Compare an identical scene taken with a cheap lens and an expensive one and you'll see where the money goes.
If you need advice, come here, don't listen to the salesmen in the shops! Unless it's a dedicated camera store, they probably don't know what they're talking about!! Andy.
Edit: P.S. I have a 300D since Christmas and I love it. Second edit: I think for the telescope, you just need an adaptor which allows you to connect ANY lens to a telecsope eyepiece, you don't need a special lens.
|
|
|
Post by lio on Mar 31, 2005 11:14:51 GMT 2
Another strength of Nikon is also the quality of their lenses. They have arguably the best collection of SLR lenses in the world. People are buying the Nikon digital SLR partly because of its fame, and partly because they still want to use their old Nikon lenses.
I agree that Canon is a very strong contender in the digital camera market (both compact cameras or SLR). I actually tend to think that Canon will take over Nikon as the leading brand in digital SLR in the longer term, just as Nikon replaced other brands when SLR came of age a few decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Mar 31, 2005 11:49:41 GMT 2
Thanks Andy for all thos details.... i thinks that i have to go in a shop to see every lens that will match my needs, and perhaps try them i nthe shop. When i was talking of macro, of course, my first need is game and watch games, but it's also for "nature" pictures => i need a good lens. for the telecsope, i don't know why i was thinking that i need a lens on my camera... The comment of lio about the lens seems to be a good argument too... that's why i need to see both lens made. as i have no old cameras thus no lens, i do not need to buy a nikon absolutly... it was just a question of "fame". Mike
|
|