DSLR: Nikon D50 or Canon 350(Rebel XT)?

[vinter]

Hi Guys, I am torn between these two models, and I think that by now I have read and understood most pros/cons for them, noise, buffer, Megapixels, black/white, etc.

SO, for now I would like to hear your comments based on ONLY two factors - the size and the weight of the two!

I have medium sized hands, and like many others, I think the Canon felt a little small and cramped, (but great weight!) while the Nikon felt bigger and better fit to my hands.

The question is, since I have only owned compact cameras before - how much does the weight difference mean for allround use of an DSLR? I can imagine the Canons smaller size and weight will mean that I will bring it with me more often, and also that it will be less of a burden to carry around? (less bulky under a jacket, less strain on the neck, etc)

Although I like the concept, brand and the build of the Nikon the best, I think the Canon will just be used more since it is lighter and less bulky to carry around...?

Allright, enough from me - let me hear what you think and what you have experienced regarding weight/sizes of cameras...

Thanks! Mads

[rey]

Welcome to the Forum.

I think of all the features of these cameras, the weight and size issue is the only feature that ONLY YOU can decide which is right for you. There is nothing technical about it, it's your personal preference and how it feels in your hand.

You can always get the XT and if it feels too small or too light in the future (and I think it will once you have a heavy lens on it), you can buy the vertical/battery grip.

Good Luck!

[ruchai]

You can not just compare weights of the camera bodies. It also depends on the lenses you are going to use. If you plan to use only the kit lens then you better stick to your present compact camera.

If you use heavy lens it is better to have a heavier camera body other vise it will be front heavy and will be difficult to hand hold. On the other hand if you use light lenses heavy camera body will make it real heavy. DSLR are all heavy because of the lenses.

To me buying a DSLR is like buyinga PC. Get the latest model. Technologies go fast, a 3 years old DSLR should be consider obsoleted.

[hercules]

I picked the 350D because i personally liked it better, i'm also 6.1 and i didn't find the grip to be that small i love it.

[longside1]

With respect to ruchai i think it is unfair to say that a 3 year old dslr would be termed obsolete.

Clearly the issues here is what you want the camera for. I accept the argument relating to pc's, they do become obsolete as the requirments, due largely to software is constantly being pushed.

With cameras if your an amateur and all you want to do is take good shots i fail to see how the camera you are using can become obsolete. The only thing that can become obsolete in this respect is your creativity and ability to capture great shots.

If your a pro then things may be a little different but from what i can gather your not so i wouldn't worry too much about this 'obsolete'issue as clearly the latest technologies are the most expensive. I would love a D200 but cant afford one, but at my level i dont think owning such an advanced camera would improve the quality of shots i take withmy D50, ehich incidentally I think is absolutely brilliant and i would reccomend you get one!

[vinter]

Hi Guys, thanks for your replies.

I am definitely a rookie, but intend to learn more about DSLRs and get more lenses along the way. So at this stage I am not sure which lenses I will get and how much they will weigh - so very hard to choose based on that.

I will go to the store and try handling both houses some more..

Thanks all!

Mads

[ruchai]

longside1 wrote:

With respect to ruchai i think it is unfair to say that a 3 year old dslr would be termed obsolete.

Clearly the issues here is what you want the camera for. I accept the argument relating to pc's, they do become obsolete as the requirments, due largely to software is constantly being pushed.

With cameras if your an amateur and all you want to do is take good shots i fail to see how the camera you are using can become obsolete. The only thing that can become obsolete in this respect is your creativity and ability to capture great shots.

If your a pro then things may be a little different but from what i can gather your not so i wouldn't worry too much about this 'obsolete'issue as clearly the latest technologies are the most expensive. I would love a D200 but cant afford one, but at my level i dont think owning such an advanced camera would improve the quality of shots i take withmy D50, ehich incidentally I think is absolutely brilliant and i would reccomend you get one!

I have both the D50 and D200. I did not say the D50 was obsoleted because of the D200. I keep both the D200 and D50 because they are both new models and have many advanced features when compare with older DSLRs.

I also compared 350D and D50 before I bought my D50 last July. I plan to use the camera for wild birds. So I had to choose between Canon and Nikon lenses. I decided on the Nikkor 80-400VR so I bought the D50. The 350D was already obsoleted(for my requirements) then. With small birds I needed spot meter and spot focus. D50 has both but only Canon 30D and 5D which was not available at that time have such very important (to me) features. See attached picture and you will understand why i need spot meter and spot focus.

I bought the D200 not because D50 was obsolete. Far from that, I still consider D50 is the best DSLR available today. It's low noises @ ISO 1600 is better than most Nikkon and Canon DSLR costing many times more. It's sure better than my D200. I bought the D200 because it focus the 80-400VR much faster than D50 focusing the same lens. I use 80-400VR lens most of the time. I still keep my D50 for macro works which it also perform better than the D200.

Wait two more years and you will be able to get new cameras from Nikon and Canon that will perform better than both the D50, D200, 30D, 5Dand for fractions of the prices we have to pay now.

[hercules]

D50 has more noise than the 350D...

[chrisdsa]

Quote <<I still consider D50 is the best DSLR available today. It's low noises @ ISO 1600 is better than most Nikkon and Canon DSLR costing many times more. It's sure better than my D200>>

Im not sure on what basis you have so boldly asserted that the D50 has less NOISE at ISO1600 than "Canon DSLR costing many times more".

I have compared the D50 to the Canon 350, 20D and 30D. And the D50 is certainly not "better". Sure it is low noise in its own right as as compared to the Nikon D70, D100 and D200. However, in no way does it have a clear and convincing lead at ISO1600.

I think personally that the Canons have the lead at low noise and in fact the 350 has less noise at ISO1600 and dont forget that the 20D and 30D can go up to ISO3200..

[ruchai]

chrisdsa wrote:

Quote <<I still consider D50 is the best DSLR available today. It's low noises @ ISO 1600 is better than most Nikkon and Canon DSLR costing many times more. It's sure better than my D200>>

Im not sure on what basis you have so boldly asserted that the D50 has less NOISE at ISO1600 than "Canon DSLR costing many times more".

I have compared the D50 to the Canon 350, 20D and 30D. And the D50 is certainly not "better". Sure it is low noise in its own right as as compared to the Nikon D70, D100 and D200. However, in no way does it have a clear and convincing lead at ISO1600.

I think personally that the Canons have the lead at low noise and in fact the 350 has less noise at ISO1600 and dont forget that the 20D and 30D can go up to ISO3200..

DSLR and PC do have one thing in common. New models are always better and cheaper. How much a DSLR cost has nothing to do with how good it is. Fast technology change makes new models which take advantage of themable tosell better DSLR for less. An other factor is Nikon moved their plant to Ayuthaya, Thailand while Canon are still made in Japan. Lower labour cost may also be the factor.