Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 24, 2004, 5:21 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

I am movin on up. I have not had the chance to lay hands on Nikon's 8800 yet, but have tried Canon's D20. I do love the Canon, but the price leaves me twitching. Up in the frozen north I am looking at $2,500 Canadian pesos for the body and lense combo. The Nikon 8800 caught my eye big time! Lower (presumably) price, lense stabilizer, 8mp, and 10x zoom, all the big features I want. What would you do? I am not in any rush, and features for the dollar is a major consideration. Any comment is appreciated. Thanks,

KennethD
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 25, 2004, 10:02 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6
Default

Hi. I can say that both cameras would make a great choice for the serious amature and possibly semi pro. The both offer good resolution and the nikon's large zoom would cover most focal lengths you are likely to need to cover. However, it can not match the range of interchangable lenses available to the canon range of slrs.

Its important to remember that more than just megapixels count when it comes to camera quality as has been said soooo many times and on most fronts the canon would be superior and is considerable more versatile with better noise control, wider iso settings etc etc.

You would have to spend more on the canon with different lenses and so on but you do get the potential for wider angles for landscaping and closer focusing with macro lenses which would, at the end of the day, keep you interested for longer. And don't forget that when you next upgrade in a few years time, you can take all your lenses with you.

Therefore i would recommend you go for the canon if you can afford it and if where you live really is a s cold as you say it is then the canon would take the conditions much better. Hope i've been of some help. And let us know what you decide upon.
gdebasly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 10:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

KennethD

I owned the Nikon 5700 before I went with DSLR. The Nikon was a great camera and I captured alot of great memories and pictures. However, the Nikon 8800 can not compare to the Canon 20D. As already pointed out, the cost of the DSLR camera does not stop at the purchase with one of the kit lens. IMO you will want different lenses to capture different type photos. You will be spending more for accessories and more lenses. You will also have to carry all of the equipment around with you. I can not see myself going back to a point and shoot camera. I love all the things I can do with the 20D and my lenes. The speed of the 20D is fantastic. If you are willing to carry around more equipment, spend more money on accessories and become addicted to the 20D -- go for it. If you want to keep you photography more compact then the Nikon 8800 may be the camera for you.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 11:06 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

Thanks for the replys. Yes it really is as cold ...look at this...this is a picture taken last week out my front door! And this is OCTOBER for PETE'S SAKE. Got to get away to Florida. But back to the 20D, etc. I was REALLY impressed with how fast that camera is. That is another reason I might just bite the bullet financially and buy it. I have a Minolta 7i just now and I have taken over 10 thousand pictures in the last 2 and a half years. An honest count right out of the camera. I have only begun to experiment in Raw pics. My camera is dead in the water for about 25 seconds while it writes that file. I hate waiting that long. I tried the 20D in the store, used my own flash card, and shot with the 20D. I am going back to try it again, because I can't believe how fast it was. I want to double check. So I am going to do it again just so I know I had all the settings right on that shot.It shot the Raw shot full 8mp and it was finished before I could lower the camera to check it. Does that sound right to you? Maybe I had the settings wrong. Any way, I then took the card out and put it in my 7i and shot the same exact shot. I took the card home home and...well as I said, I am going to go back and repeat that experiment because I can't believe the difference!Best regards, and thanks for your help. Is your 20D really that fast?

KennethD
Attached Images
 
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 11:35 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

The speed of the 20D is increddible. FAST FAST
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 3:17 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

A couple more questions, concerning the 20D, what is the length of the manufacturer's warranty? Do you notice noise levels at different iso? I was using a sigma 10x lense in the store (28 - 300) and it seemed like a good (for the dollar) choice. Since I shoot wildlife I do want a zoom, but do you get a lot of blurring if you cannot get a tripod quickly set up? (I find wildlife won't always cooperate and wait...)

Thanx, KennethD
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 3:25 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

The 20D handles noise very well. It is another major improvement for this camera. I am not familar with the lens you mentioned.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2004, 4:34 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6
Default

With regard to the lense, i'm not familiar with that particular lense but the important thing to look for is the speed or how bright the lense is. I don't know how much you already know so sorry if i patronise you but look at the numbers on the lense that will say something like f3.4/5.6-22 etc etc. The lower the numbers the faster the lense... therefore a faster shutter speed can be used meaning less blur. Increasing the iso in camera will slightly increase noise but will decrease blur as its akin to using a faster film.

If you can spend $1000 or more on lenses then you can get "is" image stabilisation (canon lenses) which makes quite a difference but as you mentioned earlier, you wont be willing to spend such amounts.

a couple of options are to take a bean bag support with you if you have fence or something to rest the lense on or otherwise a monopod, which are considerably quicker to use than tripods and are very light and portable.

You mentioned a 28-300mm lense. Remember that on the 20d you have the multiplication factor so that will extend the length of that zoom compared to 35mm film slr's.

Instead of buying one lense to cover such a long range, you might want to consider having a standard 24-70 ish zoom and something like a 70-20 or 100-300 mm lense as well. Basically the lense is likely to be faster/brighter with a lense covering not such a long range and may focus faster too, both vital for wildlife shots.

sorry to waffle on so much.... good luck.
gdebasly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2004, 4:43 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6
Default

With regard to the lense, i'm not familiar with that particular lense but the important thing to look for is the speed or how bright the lense is. I don't know how much you already know so sorry if i patronise you but look at the numbers on the lense that will say something like f3.4/5.6-22 etc etc. The lower the numbers the faster the lense... therefore a faster shutter speed can be used meaning less blur. Increasing the iso in camera will slightly increase noise but will decrease blur as its akin to using a faster film.

If you can spend $1000 or more on lenses then you can get "is" image stabilisation (canon lenses) which makes quite a difference but as you mentioned earlier, you wont be willing to spend such amounts.

a couple of options are to take a bean bag support with you if you have fence or something to rest the lense on or otherwise a monopod, which are considerably quicker to use than tripods and are very light and portable.

You mentioned a 28-300mm lense. Remember that on the 20d you have the multiplication factor so that will extend the length of that zoom compared to 35mm film slr's.

Instead of buying one lense to cover such a long range, you might want to consider having a standard 24-70 ish zoom and something like a 70-20 or 100-300 mm lense as well. Basically the lense is likely to be faster/brighter with a lense covering not such a long range and may focus faster too, both vital for wildlife shots.

sorry to waffle on so much.... good luck.
gdebasly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2004, 4:43 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6
Default

With regard to the lense, i'm not familiar with that particular lense but the important thing to look for is the speed or how bright the lense is. I don't know how much you already know so sorry if i patronise you but look at the numbers on the lense that will say something like f3.4/5.6-22 etc etc. The lower the numbers the faster the lense... therefore a faster shutter speed can be used meaning less blur. Increasing the iso in camera will slightly increase noise but will decrease blur as its akin to using a faster film.

If you can spend $1000 or more on lenses then you can get "is" image stabilisation (canon lenses) which makes quite a difference but as you mentioned earlier, you wont be willing to spend such amounts.

a couple of options are to take a bean bag support with you if you have fence or something to rest the lense on or otherwise a monopod, which are considerably quicker to use than tripods and are very light and portable.

You mentioned a 28-300mm lense. Remember that on the 20d you have the multiplication factor so that will extend the length of that zoom compared to 35mm film slr's.

Instead of buying one lense to cover such a long range, you might want to consider having a standard 24-70 ish zoom and something like a 70-20 or 100-300 mm lense as well. Basically the lense is likely to be faster/brighter with a lense covering not such a long range and may focus faster too, both vital for wildlife shots.

sorry to waffle on so much.... good luck.
gdebasly 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:42 PM.