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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 27, 2006, 4:29 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
ZAKD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 962
Default

Must be my english again since I was not so clear.

When I told you about the prices I was talking only about the lens price...no body included...so in my opinion maybe little expensive:

lens 18-70 which are usedon Nikon d70s for kit packing=410 eur

lens 50mm f1.4=350 eur

All questions about Canon eos 350d were because if Nikon d50 will not be my first choice I would go for canon 350d. This morning I found that it could be bought for 740 eur.....too good to be true. If I found canon 350d for this 740 eur I will buy it in other hand if the price remain to 860 eur then I will choose Nikon d50 for 795 eur.

Nikon D70s is a little expensive for me now.

Hope this is good thinking... don't you think

Thanks and Regards

Zak
ZAKD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 8:11 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Why don't you get the camera (D50) from bhp and spend only 560$ (not euro)kit-with 28-80 lenses? I also want to buy a 350d but the price differece is too big (560$ vs 829$ - on the same site). Why is that ? Even with 18-55 lenses nikon is 650$. What are the "things" that make 350d's 200$+ valuable ??
ernest2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 9:02 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 78
Default

Hello ernest,

i could be wrong but from my research into these two cameras, i believe that in the 350D, you're paying for more megapixels (6MP to 8MP), a mirror lock up, a bit more focus points (5 from nikon and 7 from canon), a few more features,a lit up LCD and a CMOS sensor compared to nikon's CCD sensor. Thats probably why its more expensive. In addition, with canon, your paying for a premium with their name on it.

however, if you do take the 350D, you will compromise onsoft images, a smaller LCD (1.8" compared to 2"of nikon, i prefer larger LCD so i can tell if some pictures are blurry, makes it more easy), no spot metering, a slower flash sync,more noise, not as good night time performance (flash on canon must be on for the AF lamp while nikon has a dedicated one),lens system differencesand not as good ergonomics with having to push around more buttons.
wisely_foolish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 10:06 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
ZAKD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 962
Default

For sure I would buy as you suggested even canon which is more expensive as you said 829$=696eur or D50 for 470eur or 546eur (that is your prices of $ in eur) but the problem is that it is too far away from USA and do not know how much the transport to europe will costs and add a little custom duty (could be % or & or more %) so you see....here are differant values....

and the prices above mentioned at the begginning of the thread are real one

I'm so sorry I do not live in USA....


ZAKD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 10:55 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 314
Default

Zak,

are Amazon in Germany or the UK an option? It seems that the D50 can be had from Amazon.de for 469 Euros or from Amazon.co.uk for 323 quid. The Canon 350Dcan be had for 649 Euros from Amazon.de and 458 quid from Amazon.co.uk. The prices are for the body only, but the kit lenses don't add too much to the price.




thebac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 11:32 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Zak,

Each of these cameras has "positives and negatives" (e.g. pixels, noise, functions, ergonomics) compared to each other. Many people exaggerate the differences, especially "pixel peepers" (people who look at every little detail of each photo... and often these people rather compare 5% of noise difference or 10% more megapixels than truly appreciate the photo for what it is!).

The price of course is important to most of us who aren't millionnaires!

I decided to go with Canon because:

a) I like their choice and range of lenses better

b) I had quite a few CF (compact flash) cards and I wanted to use compact flash cards with other equipment I use (e.g. my PDA, so I can show / copy photos that way)- and I don't have anything that uses SD (secure digital)

c) as I sometimes do crops for photos (e.g. take an individual portrait out of a group photo) the 8 megapixels of the Canon DOES offer slightly more to "play with".

However that said, I know the Nikon D50 is a very good camera and it is somewhat cheaper. A good friend of mine has the Nikon and he makes great photos from it. We both appreciate each other's cameras, he also likes my Canon 350D and the photos I can make from it.

I've seen prices changing a lot in the last few days (maybe due to the PMA show / announcements). E.g. now I see the Nikon 50D with 18-55 kit lens for £428 and "my camera" the Canon 350D with 18-55 kit lens for £499 (this is from the store I bought my camera at in UK, but it was £599 then - Nov 05, and even up to last week the same kit was £559, so now suddenly the kit is below £500!).

Hope you'll get a good deal somewhere and make nice photos and share some with us!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 3:51 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Also in this debate whether to go down Nikon road or Canon. Nikon D50 or Canon 350D. It seems from all of my research that there is certainly more camera in the Canon for the extra money. That said, there seems to be a general consensus on the wow factor for the price/performance ratio in the Nikon.

You guys mention "soft" images in the Canon. Can you explain? For someone who will certainly see better results in ANY DSLR than my current Point and Shoot, will I notice this right off? If fully committed to the hobby, and looking to go Photoshop in the future, will this "softer" image matter?

Finally, again from all reviews, I thought LOW NOISE was a Canon bragging point on both 20d and 350d. Seems tons of reviews state this all the way up through 800, 1600 and even 3200 for 20d. Tons of "Best Buy," "Gold Awards," etc stating this. Here, I see noise is MORE of an issue with Canon????



leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 8:30 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Soft images really cannot be fixed in photoshop. There are focus fixer plugins available, and even sharpening, but overuse introduces artifacts and other problems. You can't really create sharpness that isn't already there.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 9:28 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
ZAKD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 962
Default

I agree, and Iwas trying several times to make the image sharper the one that is not but in some case it makes the image to rough...not sharp....
ZAKD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2006, 11:42 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Nearly all images are soft in digital cameras by default. It's more noticeable in DSLRs than P&S because P&S usually have more "in camera" processing applied, and with a DSLR you have more megapixels so if you zoom into details more and more you can see easier almost "per pixel softness".

But the user can choose to maximise the sharpness in the camera menus. Some cameras by default do more sharpening than others, e.g. Nikon D50 more than Canon 350D. But if you know how to use photoshop well and you have a GOOD original image, you can get very good sharpness. Of course a lot depends too on the lens and other factors, but most of the all USER! / photographer! So to say the Nikon D50 is sharper is true just that it does more "in camera". But if you took the images through photoshop, you'll see little difference, in fact scientific tests show the Canon camera does resolve slightly higher per pixel and also it has slightly more pixels (2MP more). But this really isn't a big difference.

About noise, BOTH are good. The Nikon D50 apparently has a LITTLE bit less noise than the Canon 350D, but we're talking very little difference. Of more importance for me for example is that I often need / use ISO 100 (with a bright prime in day-light, for special effects). The Canon 20D, Canon 350D are very good at keeping noise low, and at the same time keeping photoDETAIL.

Some cameras (e.g. KM 7D) ALSO has low noise, BUT it looses a lot of detail, which isn't really handy, is it?! The Nikon D50 has low noise, and like the Canon 350D also keeps good detail! I have a friend who has a Nikon D50, and the difference between his photos and mine used in identical situations is not very noticeable. People who say things like: "oh there's a huge difference" are biased or probably don't know how to use or test cameras very well.

So leeraff, you need to realise that DSLR photos can and most likely will look quite good straight out of the camera. If they look a bit "soft" or "dull" that's because you're used to the "automatically enhanced" look of point and shoot cameras. But using a program like Photoshop will allow you to manipulate (post process) the photos to a much finer degree, and if you e..g increase the saturation a bit, add a bit of contrast to "improve / boost the colours") and use unsharp mask (to sharpen up the images)you will find DSLR photos have a LOT of potential, obviously a LOT more than any point and shoot (if you know how to use a DSLR and Photoshop well!)

Otherwise if you're not prepared for this, but still want "punchy photos" your best option is to set the sharpening and contrast / saturation details to maximum in the camera and that will probably be ok for you. Some images (e.g. portraits) you actually do NOT want maximum "sharpness" (i.e. it doesn't makes the skin as smooth / attractive). For example some surveys show that 90% of females shot by a professional photographer prefer a SOFTER imagine to a maximum SHARP image (when they looked at the two options afterwards).

When we talk about "soft" we don't mean out of focus! That is "soft" too, but in another way. Unsharp mask was designed (in the good old days of film cameras) in a very technical way to increase sharpness without getting "artifacts" (e.g. nasty "too spikey" parts in a photo). This process has been "digitized" and now is standard practise for most DSLR photographers (part of their "work flow").

You should try to do a camera course or even browse on the internet for more help / information about this. You'll even find a lot of information in these forums if you do a search!

rjseeney, in one senseyou're right of course that one can't create sharpness that isn't there. But digital imaging software and processes CAN get a lot more sharpness out of a standard image that comes straight out of a DSLR, because a DSLR on purpose doesn't try to get very sharp photos to minimise getting any artifacts. But computer software is more complex and able to gain sharpness without getting artifacts so quickly.

Well, I've written enough! Hope this was helpful.

Paul
pj1974 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 7:46 PM.