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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 3, 2005, 3:24 PM   #21
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Jim,
Thanks again. If I stop one day in Savannah I'll take you for beer or two ;-)
I'm looking for a comparision between Tamrons 18-200 and Nikons lenses now. Nikon people at Samys claim that theit 17-70 has no competitor. I wonder how much I loose on Tamrons? But I think this is not a topic for lenses :-)
woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2005, 3:37 PM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

woyteg wrote:
Quote:
Jim,
Thanks again. If I stop one day in Savannah I'll take you for beer or two ;-)
I'm looking for a comparision between Tamrons 18-200 and Nikons lenses now. Nikon people at Samys claim that theit 17-70 has no competitor. I wonder how much I loose on Tamrons? But I think this is not a topic for lenses :-)
The Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is a very good lens for the money, and it's faster than the KM 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 (which stops down to f/5.6 a bit early in the focal range).

But, then again, you've got Antishake to help out, as well as ISO speeds up to ISO 3200.

If you're not shooting in low light, then either one should be OK on their respectivecameras. The Nikkor also has the advantage of their AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) technology. But, the KM lens seems to beprettyfast focusing from user reports I've seen. It seems to be a very good lens for the money. We have a 5D review in progress here. So, you should see some sample photos using the KM 18-70mm heresoon. Since we use some of the same subjects in the camera reviews here, you may find the samples from it useful in your comparisons.

Of course, the Nikkor isalso more expensive (the new KM 18-70mm is only gong to be about $149 basedon prices I've seen so far). You're paying twice that for the Nikkor "kit" lens. :-)

The KM 18-70mm DT ens appears to be pretty decent from user reports I've seen (much better quality than expected from a lens this low in cost). IMO, it's definitely much better than the Canon kit lens (their 18-55mm that ships with their entry level DSLR kits), based on images I've looked at.

Optics are important. I can't tell you the number of posts I've seen from users complaing about a camera model when they're using cheap glass on it (especially when shooting at wide open apertures, where most lenses are a bit softer).

P.S.

As for the Tamron 18-200mm.... I don't know how it will compare.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2005, 7:52 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10
Default

The Nikon D70 kit with AFS 18-70 lens is still around with a rebate and a free 2.0 firmware upgrade. About $800 to $875. Don't speak 20D in the same paragraph because it costs far, far more than a D70. Anti shake is not always advantageous, but Canon and Nikon have it available in lenses for a PRICE. Image quality for the Nikon 18-70 digital lens is far better than cheaper Canon and Minolta lenses, according to experts on the web. The D70, with 200 ISO is slightly more noisy than the Canons at 100 ISO. The cheaper Canons are extremely slow, compared to the D70. So there. You know what I THINK I know about part of your question.
old-not-wise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2005, 10:09 PM   #24
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

old-not-wise wrote:
Quote:
Anti shake is not always advantageous, but Canon and Nikon have it available in lenses for a PRICE.
Some lenses, and yes, for a price. But, every lens has the advantage of antishake with a KM DSLR. That includes your bright primes, short and long telephoto lenses, cheaper lenses, more expensive lenses. All of them. You can't buy stabilized lenses at any price from the other manufacturers in some of these types of lenses.

Try finding a 50mm f/1.4 that's stablized, or thattry a28mm f/2. How about that favorite new Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro that you may want to stop down to smaller apertures for greater depth of field, while taking a quick photo of a nice butterfly you see that landed on a pretty rose. . :-)

Quote:
Image quality for the Nikon 18-70 digital lens is far better than cheaper Canon and Minolta lenses, according to experts on the web.

What experts would those be that have compared it to thekit lens KM has for only $100.00 more with the5D kit (not to mention it would have the advantage of being stablized thanks to in body antishake)?

For that matter, I've looked at some of the photos very closely, and I don't see as much in the way of Chromatic Aberrations from this cheap KM lens, that I've seen from the Nikkor kit lens insome conditions. Color and contrast look to be outstanding from this very inexpensive KM lens, too, with very good resistance to flare.

Is that fair to the Nikkor? Nope, only a general observation I've made looking for problems in photos taken with the KM lens, that I've seen in the past with the Nikkor in some conditions.

The only way to do a fair comparison would be to take photos of the same subjects, in the same conditions, using similar settings. I suspect that the Nikkor is probably better in some areas, and it's also a bit brighter and faster focusinglens.But, that doesn't mean that the KM lens isn't better in other areas.

I was actually pretty surprised at some of the tests I've seen comparing this new kit lens with the more expensive Tamron/KM 28-75mm f/2.8. This new "kit"lens appearas to be pretty nice for the money.

Also, I've seen *several* new 5D owners that have also owned and/or used the D70 give the 5D the nod for image quality,and some were pretty enthusiastic about it, making comments like "it beats it in image quality and of course anti-shake. All of my shots are now blur-free and very vibrant. The skin tones are much better than what I ever got from the D70"

That could just be enthusiasm over a new toy. But, then again, here is a comment from a different new 5D owner:

"I had a 300D for a while, and have used the Nikon D70 and D50. Of all of these, the KM 5D is, at least for me, the hands-down winner. The metering is right on in every shot I have taken. The focus speed is outstanding. And having buttons to push rather than searching a menu is a delight to this old-time film user."

I was surprised when yet another new 5D owner that's owned the D100, D70 and D50 said this about his new5D "As far as what really counts, autofocus speed and reliability, I'd say it's close to a toss up. I expected the Nikon to hold the edge, but I'd say not"

Most users that have used both seem tothe Nikon the nod on focus speed, though. And yet another comment from a Nikon owner:

"I've been taking pictures galore with my new 5D. If you're thinking of coming over from Canon (Rebel, Rebel XT)- I can only say 'run' to the 5D. If from Nikon, 'walk' but do come on over."

Ihave seen some more, too. But, anyone is going to be excited over a new camera. There are pros and cons to either model, and they both use a Sony 6MP CCD.

One complaint I have seen from Nikon owners thatbought the KM 5D is that the KM shutter noise is louder. So, if you like a quiet camera, take that into consideration as well. The D70 with it's kit lens is probably going to focus a bitfaster, too.

Again, anybody is probably going to be enthusiastic about a new camera. So, I take these kinds of comments with a "grain of salt".

Steve's review is in progress now, and should be posted soon. It will include sample images so you can compare image quality with your own eyes, of some of the same subjects from both models.

I'll be drawing my own conclusions soon, too.

Edit/Added:

I must not be getting enough sleep.

I just realized that this was a thread wanting to compare the Nikon D70 with the KM 7D, not the new and less expensive KM 5D I was discussing.When I noticed the comments on the "cheaper Canon and Minolta lenses", the new KM kit lens that ships with the KM 5D came to mind.

But, the same inexpensive kit lens that ships with the 5D will also be available separately for use with a 7D (about $149 from prices I've seen from vendors so far).

Too many threads. My apologies.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2005, 10:24 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

My Canon 20D has a thunderclap for a shutter.

My old Fuji Finepix S602 had a nice quite electronic shutter (and 1/500th flash synchro).

Not much for antishake myself.

Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2005, 10:31 AM   #26
Member
 
woyteg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Thanks a lot everyone. I can't say I made up my mind yet but I relized that whatever I have for Minolta doesn't matter. I could use only one lens, Tamron 28-200. So it looks like it is a plain choice between getting Konica-Minolta 7d (maybe 5D but less likely) or Nikon D70s. Both with lenses and Flash. I'm leaning towards Nikon for some reason. Maybe I got bored of Minoltas ;-) Anyway I can always sell it and some back to KM :-)

Thanks again.
woyteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2005, 11:48 AM   #27
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That Tamron isn't the sharpest or fastest focusing lens around (poor ratings from most user reviews forthings likesharpness, focus speed, flare, etc.).

So, that would even the playing field some since you really don't have an investment in lenses to speak of.

On the plus side, it's relatively light and compact for a lens with this much focal range, and it's usable on both 35mm and DSLR models.

Also,you'd have a backup film body to use if you've already got a Maxxum 35mm camera, too (that you could also use with any other lenses you buy that are not "digital only").

But, given that I see this lens (Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 LD IF AsphericalSuper)selling for approximately$60 on the used market in excellent condition, I wouldn't let this investment influence your choice too much. ;-)

There are pros and cons to any of them (with the biggest pros for the 7D being the much better viewfinder, control layout, and antishake, which means in low light, you may need shutter speeds 4 times as fast with the Nikon to "hand hold" a camera without motion blur from camera shake when shutter speeds get too slow).

The Nikon isa bit faster focusing, and has a better flash in the SB800 from most reports compared to KM's current flash system offerings.

I'd make sure to "test drive" any models you consider in a store, too. You want to make sure you're buying a model that you're comfortable with.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2005, 4:25 PM   #28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12
Default

Hello, Well I'm coming from my Nikon F2 with 24mm,35mm, 105mm,200mm set up and have gone to a Minolta 7d with minolta af 24-85 f3.5-4.5,50mm f1.7, 100 macro f2.8, and 100-200mm f4 lenses. Everything was purchased used or refurbished. Only $700 was paid for the refurbished 7d (Amazon.com) and I have no regrets on that ( esp if i get the $200 rebate). Total outlay= $1,600 with a 1 gig Lexar 80x card in Oct 2005. I just don't see how anyone can get to this level of digital for less........The body is great and very programable, the lenses superb. If you turn off the noise reduction, no image degradation occurs in low light....just shoot RAW and use adobe photoshop and you have every shot covered for about 1.5 stops......I 'm waiting to be told how I went wrong.......

PS: ifranview and QimagePro are good tools to have and I also love my konica 2450 laser printer i got for $570. ( if you can't afford the time or $ to print, then what good is digital?)

Alas, my bessler 4x5 will never be used again.....I don't really miss the fixer stains on the jeans, the acid smell on my fingers, and the brown fingers from the developer, but the wonder of a print developing was like Christmas for my kids....

regards

bfedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2005, 6:00 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

When I look at the picture examples of the 7D on PBASE, they don't seem to stack up with the Canon Rebel XT or 20D.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/minolta/maxxum_7_digital

I think the 5D is more popular than the 7D because the 7D was overpriced when it first came out.

Canon has over 60 percent of the DSLR market and for good reason.

The best image quality, especially at high ISO's.

I like a camera that's ergonomic and easy to use, but at the end of the day it's what I see on my monitor that counts.

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2005, 8:58 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Rambler358's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 181
Default

Another thing to consider is how well the camera feels in your hands. I didn't really care for the 350D's slightly smallish grip, and it just didn't feel right in my hands, YMMV. But having integral anti-shake is definately a plus. Those big-buck IS/VR lenses can quickly deplete your bank account.
Rambler358 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 8:15 AM.