[Gllug] [Off Topic] Digital SLRs

[Mike Brodbelt]

Lyons, Myke wrote:

> 	I own a Nikon D70s and have to say that I have never been so
> amazed with shear quality of images.  I hadn't owned a Nikon camera
> before (actually owned a Canon non-dSLR) but after 3 months of research
> I chose the Nikon.  Here are some of the reasons I went "Nikon".

I have a Canon, so I just thought it was worth answering a couple of
points "from the other side of the fence", so to speak. It's also worth
noting that you're really not going to be disappointed with image
quality, whichever you choose.
 	
> 	-Metal chassis, I thought that as a beginner that I wouldn't
> notice but this camera feels and is solidly built.  The Canon is all
> plastic and feels it.

The Canon 20D (which the OP was enquiring about) is metal. The 300D/350D
are polycarbonate bodies, but they're cheaper too.

> 	-View finder extends from the back of the camera more than the
> 350, I am left eye dominant and didn't enjoy the nose squish every time
> I took a photo.  I even noticed this when using my right eye.
> 	-Size, when seeing other dSLRs I expected that I wouldn't be
> purchasing anything for my pockets, the Nikon is a good size not too big
> not too small.  I found the Canon to be too small for my hands [not to
> brag ;)]

Again, only really applies to the 350D. The 20D is much the same size as
the D70.

> 	-Lastly since I was springing for the camera so more lenses
> would be a later purchase.  I found and still find the 18-70mm kit lens
> to be fantastic as an all around lens.  While people I know and have
> read here, say the 18-55mm Canon to be a bit lacking.

The Nikon kit lens is better, from what I've heard. Personally, I'd buy
body only, and get a better lens anyway. DSLR lenses will outlast the
bodies, and if you have a fixed budget I'd suggest seriously thinking
about getting a cheaper camera and a better lens. The 20D for example
has a high precision auto-focus sensor as the center point that only
switches to high precision mode with an f/2.8 or brighter lens, so if
you stick with the kit lens you're already limiting the potential of the
body.

> 	After purchasing my camera I did some follow up research and
> noticed that some people found the Canon to be a better choice for
> sports photography, and the Nikon better for landscape.

That really has more to do with lenses than camera. Canon is the brand
of choise for sports shooters, but they tend to have EOS 1D cameras, and
an 8 frames/second drive with an image stabilised lens. The vast
majority of serious sports people use Canon gear, but when you're
comparing the 20D to the D70s with the kit lenses, I don't think it
makes a lot of difference. The 20D does do 5 fps compares to the Nikon's
3 though, so if frame rate is important it does have an advantage.

Looking at the slightly bigger picture, Canon has a couple of big
advantages, IMHO. They develop their own sensors, and the high ISO
performance of Canon CMOS sensors is significantly better than the Sony
CCDs that Nikon uses in the D70. If low noise at high ISO is important,
this is worth considering. Canon also have full frame 35mm sensors,
whereas Nikon have standardised on APS-C. They're still expensive, but
will come down, and the majority of the lenses in circulation are still
made for 35mm, not APS-C. There are no EF-S (APS-C) lenses in the Canon
pro range, so it's pretty clear where they see the market going. Nikon
are at this point committed to APS-C, and IMO the smaller photosites
this forces on them will always result in worse signal to noise
characteristics.

Mike.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug