Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Nikon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 1, 2002, 8:22 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 29
Default

The N5700 is 280 mm while the E-10 is 140 mm at maximum telephoto. So the E-10 is 100% longer.
Frank B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2002, 2:19 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Lenow ...

I do not understand your messge about the D100. Lets start with cost. You claim a difference of only 1400. How can that be? The 5700 sells for about 1100, the d100 for 2000. Did you buy the zoom lens for 500?
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2002, 2:50 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Can you also comment on totalcosts for your camera? Batteries?
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2002, 2:53 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 42
Default

I purchased the 5700 because there was *no way* I could justify the difference in $$$ between the 5700 and the D100, at least for my purposes.

Lenow, can you break down your total cost piece by piece? Thanks!
crowmama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2002, 5:01 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Me too! I had guestmated the cost difference at more like $2k min.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2002, 11:21 AM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 71
Default

Rough Cost Breakdown:

D100 kit*** (no lens) - $2000
Lens - $200 and up
256M memory - $140
Skylight Filter - $20

Total - $2360 + tax

*** kit contains: D100 body, strap, battery, charger, USB cable, software, VF cover, and manual

[Edited on 9-6-2002 by JoeSlotz]
JoeSlotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2002, 11:53 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Here's my breakdown on cost for my 5700:

- US Market Camera ( included Nikon US warranty, battery, teeny capacity CF card, battery charger, manual and strap) = $1199

- two 256 mb CF cards @ $99 each = $198

- two extra EN-EL1 batteries (generic) @ $25 each = $50

- CF card reader, USB compatible (it reads both CF cards and Smart Sticks) = $18

- Lowe Pro generic camera bag = $15

Total investment: $1480
crowmama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2002, 10:45 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

The comparisons are not correct. Card reaaders and cards are not camera specific and for 200 you can nto buy a lens that rivals the 8x zoom on the 5700.

A more accurate comaprison may be:

5700

camera and lens 1200

D100

camera 2000
lenses 1000 total 3000

the question is are lensES needed for the D100 to be roughly comparable? I suspect the answer is yes.

My opinion...

the comparison is really apples and oranges.

The 5700 is an evolutionary camera. The next generation will be better in some of the features we discuss here, but the5700 (and the 7i) will remain useful for a very long time since they are both at about the limit of technology needed in a small handholdeable all in one digicam.


The D100 package will become obsolete as soon as someone introduces a 2000 camera body that has a full frame sensor OR a camera line built on a smaller chip size. This is inevitable.

If one is willing to commit to Nikon, the in built obsolescence of the D100 is mostly an irritation since Nikin will either be fisrt with thiss next gen digicam or will imitate it soon after. In that cases the lens purchases will be a good investment and all you will be depreciating is the 2000 for the camera.

For me 2000 is a lot. I do not hink the D100 will be worth much once the new gen appears.


In the eman time, the cameras remain very different. The 5700 is a LEICA ... small an unobtrusive. The D100 cum lens is huge. I suspect I will buy a dSLR as sson as the full frame cameras become available. I will then use my Olympiac on my home grounds and use my 5700 when I want a small camera for travel.

Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2002, 7:28 AM   #29
PDC
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2
Default

You guys make some interesting points, but also some very strange.

I absolutely can't see how you can reason that one will be obsolete with a new model release, but that the other won't.

Obsolete or not, who cares.
Your camera will still work and do what you bought it to do.


The right camera choice here is really dependant on what you want to do with it.


I donít own a 5700, but do have a friend who owns a 5000. Though, the 5700 will share some of itís shortcomings. One of the strangest to me being that the minimum aperture is just not small enough to do slow shutter work.
If the shutter lag is the same as the 5000, you can pretty much forget about shooting sport, unless that is, timing doesnít count.

Finally, because the CCD is so physically small on point and shoot cameraís, youíre depth of field pretty much looks like you only have the one aperture settings (permanently in F22 compared to the much more controllable DOF of the larger CCD DSLRís).

Owning a 6 megapixel D100 hasnít made my D1H useless. Itís still my primary camera and produces faultless images at A4, and perfectly acceptable A3ís.

Iím looking forward to a full frame DSLR, but when it comes out Iíll be glad I also own one with a 1.5 times mag factor. Why, check out the price of second hand 300mm F2.8. My Nikkor 300mm F4 is effectively a 450mm F4.
PDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2002, 10:40 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default Sorry, there is no free lunch

Again,

this stuff about free tele on the dSLRs is nonsense. If that is you belief, just crop your fil miages and voila ... a 50mm lens is a zoom tele.

Similarly, there is simply no way a low pixel count (6mp is very low) can rival film.

Lin's remearkeable experiences arfe real ... but they reflct his way of working. If he were to digitalize every frame it would get very $$$ and the time lag before getting to see the image would still be there ...BUT the digital version of a picture made with a full frame SLR will be technically superior to the digital frame taken from a small area of the frame.

Of course one COULD believe in a free lunch! And there is one. Digital has other advantages over film.

1.Obviously digital is a hell of a lot ore cponvenient and the convenience translates into creativity.

2. If you are comaprinmg digital to transparency, transparnce film has a veru short response curve, with proper lectronics there may be no theoretical limit to the ability of a chip to deal with extremes of bright and dark.

This may even give digital a quality edge ... e.g it seem to me that my 5700 is better than film in discriminating betweeh high zones.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pro's & Con's - D100 v's 5700 (went with the 5700) Mollyman General Discussion 7 Dec 25, 2003 9:12 PM
Nikon Coolpix 5700 vs. Minolta A1 III: Macro shene Nikon 1 Dec 9, 2003 10:38 AM
Minolta A1 vs. Nikon 5700 III: Macro shene Konica Minolta 0 Dec 8, 2003 12:59 PM
Nikon 5700 vs Minolta A1 II: Converter Lenses shene Nikon 0 Dec 4, 2003 10:31 AM
Minolta A1 vs Nikon 5700 II: Lens Converters shene Konica Minolta 0 Dec 4, 2003 10:29 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 AM.