D70 versus 300D / 350D
Discussion
All,
About time my 6900Z was retired, so its time for a change. I bought it when it came out, and still have the original box with a £629 sticker on it
I shall probably e-bay it come the time.
But...its time to move on. I'd like a decent quality camera, and have no reall affiliation to either Nikon or Canon - my ex wife had an EOS300 which was quite a nice camera, but the camera and lenses went with her.
I'd like advice on whether there IS a definitive answer to this, or whether it really is down to personal preference.
All I have gleaned thus far is that theres really very little between them.
Experience and advice welcome! I'm not a regular photographer, and won't be prostituting interesting pictures of fruit on t'internet or 'owt.
Many thanks,
Greg
About time my 6900Z was retired, so its time for a change. I bought it when it came out, and still have the original box with a £629 sticker on it
I shall probably e-bay it come the time.
But...its time to move on. I'd like a decent quality camera, and have no reall affiliation to either Nikon or Canon - my ex wife had an EOS300 which was quite a nice camera, but the camera and lenses went with her.
I'd like advice on whether there IS a definitive answer to this, or whether it really is down to personal preference.
All I have gleaned thus far is that theres really very little between them.
Experience and advice welcome! I'm not a regular photographer, and won't be prostituting interesting pictures of fruit on t'internet or 'owt.
Many thanks,
Greg
Greg
Just been through this exercise, I bought a 350D as I've got an old Canon SLR with compatible lenses. The 350D is effectively an end of line product and some deals are available. I found this site very useful (Canon and Nikon SLRs) and it gives promotional codes for discounts at Currys and Jessops.
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html
My 350D turned up today and so far I've taken 1 picture!
davidy
Just been through this exercise, I bought a 350D as I've got an old Canon SLR with compatible lenses. The 350D is effectively an end of line product and some deals are available. I found this site very useful (Canon and Nikon SLRs) and it gives promotional codes for discounts at Currys and Jessops.
www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html
My 350D turned up today and so far I've taken 1 picture!
davidy
Greg, yes I went for Canon as I already had a 35-80 and 80-200. That said from what I read that there is very little to chosse between the D70 and 350D. The Canon is a little cheaper at present but I expect that the bundled D70 lens is better quality than the bundled Canon one (which seems to get lukewarm comments) and it has a more useful range. I also found the personal reviewers comments on Amazon very helpful.
I'm sure whichever camera you get you will have a lot of fun with
davidy
I'm sure whichever camera you get you will have a lot of fun with
davidy
I've got a 300D and the boss has a 350D... some observations;
I find the 350 a bit small and fiddly, but then I've got big paws. I've also got a battery grip on the 300, which makes it chunkier and easier to hold. It is, however, a tad heavy as a result.
We've both got a 70-300mm lens, mine has the Image Stabiliser (IS), and the bosses doesn't. The extra weight of the 300 helps to balance the heavier IS lens.
There seems to be very little difference in the quality of the print you get between the 6MP of the 300 and the 8MP of the 350.
The 300 takes 4 pics sequentially, the 350 takes 16. When taking action pics, or many in succession, even with a Sandisk Extreme III CF card, I get frustrated with the 300D... by the time the 350 has taken the last pic, the first is written to card, so can literally just keep on shooting...
The 300 gets heavy after a day of lugging it about...
The plastic on the 350 feels a bit tackier than that of the 300...
If I had the option now, I'd look at a 350D with a battery grip, to make it a bit less fiddly. Let us know when you're free mate, and we'll pop over at the weekend and you can try both.
I find the 350 a bit small and fiddly, but then I've got big paws. I've also got a battery grip on the 300, which makes it chunkier and easier to hold. It is, however, a tad heavy as a result.
We've both got a 70-300mm lens, mine has the Image Stabiliser (IS), and the bosses doesn't. The extra weight of the 300 helps to balance the heavier IS lens.
There seems to be very little difference in the quality of the print you get between the 6MP of the 300 and the 8MP of the 350.
The 300 takes 4 pics sequentially, the 350 takes 16. When taking action pics, or many in succession, even with a Sandisk Extreme III CF card, I get frustrated with the 300D... by the time the 350 has taken the last pic, the first is written to card, so can literally just keep on shooting...
The 300 gets heavy after a day of lugging it about...
The plastic on the 350 feels a bit tackier than that of the 300...
If I had the option now, I'd look at a 350D with a battery grip, to make it a bit less fiddly. Let us know when you're free mate, and we'll pop over at the weekend and you can try both.
Check out the reviews of the EOS 400D and Nikon D80.
Seems like both manufactureres have stepped up the game. www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/
I made my choice about a year ago. After I got my paws on a 350D I decided it wasn't quite for me and held out for a good used 20D. I love it, it was the right decision for me, but the size and weight might put others off.
Seems like both manufactureres have stepped up the game. www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/
I made my choice about a year ago. After I got my paws on a 350D I decided it wasn't quite for me and held out for a good used 20D. I love it, it was the right decision for me, but the size and weight might put others off.
If you are experienced with SLR's, especially Canons, then the 300/350/400D models (basically the entry-level DSLR's) might have controls that you find a bit limiting. Canon DSLR's of the 10D/20D/30D level and above have controls that basically mimic the film SLR's and give you more control, the entry-level ones use controls more like the ones on compact cameras.
This might not be an issue to you, but it was to me as I had an EOS50E already and had made the investment in time to work out what the main controls did. An example that might radically affect how a shot turns out is how each setting uses flash - The standard "P" setting uses it as the main light source, the Aperture or Shutter Speed priority modes use it as fill-flash. When I picked up a friends 350D I was not sure what the settings were about, and felt less able to influence the shot than with my 20D.
This might not be an issue as you say you have no affiliation - in which case I'd suggest the 400D looks like great value, dust does affect DSLR's and anti-dust features are worth having, plus it seems to have a more modern CCD than the pricier 20D and 30D.
Personally, I'd suggest the lenses are more important than the body anyway, as long as you can control the body as you want, you should be OK. But a lot of the standard Canon lenses (and I'm sure the Nikons as well) are quite soft, for example the 75-300IS mentioned above. The shots below were taken with that lens at full zoom and the widest aperture in poor light (with film and scanned), someone better at PS than me could doubtless do a better job than this but the shots are far softer on the edges than in the middle, and the contrast is poor. When I use L-series lenses, or just carefully selected normal ones (some are good), the results are far better. I wish I had had the 20D and some L series zooms when I took the trip these shots were taken on, now I'm married and have a child it'll be a long time before I can afford to get back on safari, in money or time!
This might not be an issue to you, but it was to me as I had an EOS50E already and had made the investment in time to work out what the main controls did. An example that might radically affect how a shot turns out is how each setting uses flash - The standard "P" setting uses it as the main light source, the Aperture or Shutter Speed priority modes use it as fill-flash. When I picked up a friends 350D I was not sure what the settings were about, and felt less able to influence the shot than with my 20D.
This might not be an issue as you say you have no affiliation - in which case I'd suggest the 400D looks like great value, dust does affect DSLR's and anti-dust features are worth having, plus it seems to have a more modern CCD than the pricier 20D and 30D.
Personally, I'd suggest the lenses are more important than the body anyway, as long as you can control the body as you want, you should be OK. But a lot of the standard Canon lenses (and I'm sure the Nikons as well) are quite soft, for example the 75-300IS mentioned above. The shots below were taken with that lens at full zoom and the widest aperture in poor light (with film and scanned), someone better at PS than me could doubtless do a better job than this but the shots are far softer on the edges than in the middle, and the contrast is poor. When I use L-series lenses, or just carefully selected normal ones (some are good), the results are far better. I wish I had had the 20D and some L series zooms when I took the trip these shots were taken on, now I'm married and have a child it'll be a long time before I can afford to get back on safari, in money or time!
Edited by jwyatt on Monday 16th October 16:35
I've got the 350D, but don't understand why it's felt only to have an extension of the compact camera's features?
As far as I can tell, the main feature differences are in the higher frame rate on the 20D and a partial metering pattern (9% area) rather than a more precise spot.
The 300D is more limited in functionality, Canon were quite brutal in cutting features fromt he 300D in software to differentiate it more against the 10/20D, although some people have hacked them to get some back.
Nikons do feel better in the hand, and I think have slightly better standard lenses, although the small size of the Canon can be a benefit when travellign about with it.
I'm not sure yet that the 400 is worth the extra money, it's got a higher burst rate, the self cleaning sensor, although my 8MP sesnor is perfectly capable of showing the limitations of the lenses I've got, so I don't think MP count is the limiting factor! I did read the Ap review of the 400D, there was some suggestion that noise starts to show at 800 and 1600 ISO film settings, if I rememebr correctly (and I haven't really noticed it in my pics either) the 350D is pretty good with noise all the way to 1600 (although someone with higher standards than me on here will probably find it noisy!)
As far as I can tell, the main feature differences are in the higher frame rate on the 20D and a partial metering pattern (9% area) rather than a more precise spot.
The 300D is more limited in functionality, Canon were quite brutal in cutting features fromt he 300D in software to differentiate it more against the 10/20D, although some people have hacked them to get some back.
Nikons do feel better in the hand, and I think have slightly better standard lenses, although the small size of the Canon can be a benefit when travellign about with it.
I'm not sure yet that the 400 is worth the extra money, it's got a higher burst rate, the self cleaning sensor, although my 8MP sesnor is perfectly capable of showing the limitations of the lenses I've got, so I don't think MP count is the limiting factor! I did read the Ap review of the 400D, there was some suggestion that noise starts to show at 800 and 1600 ISO film settings, if I rememebr correctly (and I haven't really noticed it in my pics either) the 350D is pretty good with noise all the way to 1600 (although someone with higher standards than me on here will probably find it noisy!)
Just a general observation, but people who have come from film seem impressed by the lack of noise at 1600 ISO... whereas those who have only known digital feel it's too noisy...
There are people that post on this forum, that are clearly excellent photographers and know their kit and have very exacting standards... however, some us (myself included) are beginners. 18 months ago I'd only ever done the point and click thing, knew nothing of aperture, shutter priority, white balance etc etc...
The 300D may have its limitations, the standard kit 18-55 lens may not be poorly built, give inconsistent performance and suffer from barrel distortion, but we all have to start somewhere...
There are people that post on this forum, that are clearly excellent photographers and know their kit and have very exacting standards... however, some us (myself included) are beginners. 18 months ago I'd only ever done the point and click thing, knew nothing of aperture, shutter priority, white balance etc etc...
The 300D may have its limitations, the standard kit 18-55 lens may not be poorly built, give inconsistent performance and suffer from barrel distortion, but we all have to start somewhere...
Podie said:
Just a general observation, but people who have come from film seem impressed by the lack of noise at 1600 ISO... whereas those who have only known digital feel it's too noisy...
Crazy innit . . . I think real film grain adds a lot to images but have yet to find a simple but good way of achieving it digitally . . .
Fd
fergusd said:
Podie said:
Just a general observation, but people who have come from film seem impressed by the lack of noise at 1600 ISO... whereas those who have only known digital feel it's too noisy...
Crazy innit . . . I think real film grain adds a lot to images but have yet to find a simple but good way of achieving it digitally . . .
Fd
I too wicsh there was a 'realistic' way of faking high speed mono film grain - all the various PP filters out there look too 'digital' in their results.
I was a 'film scanner' until a year ago, and found the scanning of grain to be somewhat random - as if the grain frequency (which is analogue - hence random) has to perectly match the scanner pixel frequency (digital - regular).
Only my amateur experiences of course - happy to be corrected
I was a 'film scanner' until a year ago, and found the scanning of grain to be somewhat random - as if the grain frequency (which is analogue - hence random) has to perectly match the scanner pixel frequency (digital - regular).
Only my amateur experiences of course - happy to be corrected
I suspect the scanning issue is caused by the grain size and scanner resolution, which ultimately boils down to signal processing theory, Nyquist et al : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-
This applies equally to images as it does to audio, only in more dimenstions ;-)
I have a suspicion that the same applies to grain generation on images, insufficent resolution to render the grain properly . . .
Fd
This applies equally to images as it does to audio, only in more dimenstions ;-)
I have a suspicion that the same applies to grain generation on images, insufficent resolution to render the grain properly . . .
Fd
Just a silly idea - what about printing black and white image, put a piece of suitable tracing paper over the top, and then scan? Wonder if that would give a grainy-esque finish. It would hopefully be a bit more random, and by experimenting witht he print size the grain size could be 'adjusted'???
[quote=Podie]Just a general observation, but people who have come from film seem impressed by the lack of noise at 1600 ISO... whereas those who have only known digital feel it's too noisy...[quote]
Certainly people like me that have used film scanners feel that way - film scanners accentuate grain and anything over 200 ISO comes out really grainy, when if you just developed the shot traditionally the grain might not appear.
I like a degree of grain, I deliberatley used Neopan 400 for B+W landscapes for a while, I loved the OTT grain. It tends to work in arty landscape shots but detract from telephoto detail shots IMHO.
Certainly people like me that have used film scanners feel that way - film scanners accentuate grain and anything over 200 ISO comes out really grainy, when if you just developed the shot traditionally the grain might not appear.
I like a degree of grain, I deliberatley used Neopan 400 for B+W landscapes for a while, I loved the OTT grain. It tends to work in arty landscape shots but detract from telephoto detail shots IMHO.
GregE240 said:
All,
About time my 6900Z was retired, so its time for a change. I bought it when it came out, and still have the original box with a £629 sticker on it
I shall probably e-bay it come the time.
But...its time to move on. I'd like a decent quality camera, and have no reall affiliation to either Nikon or Canon - my ex wife had an EOS300 which was quite a nice camera, but the camera and lenses went with her.
I'd like advice on whether there IS a definitive answer to this, or whether it really is down to personal preference.
All I have gleaned thus far is that theres really very little between them.
Experience and advice welcome! I'm not a regular photographer, and won't be prostituting interesting pictures of fruit on t'internet or 'owt.
Many thanks,
Greg
About time my 6900Z was retired, so its time for a change. I bought it when it came out, and still have the original box with a £629 sticker on it
I shall probably e-bay it come the time.
But...its time to move on. I'd like a decent quality camera, and have no reall affiliation to either Nikon or Canon - my ex wife had an EOS300 which was quite a nice camera, but the camera and lenses went with her.
I'd like advice on whether there IS a definitive answer to this, or whether it really is down to personal preference.
All I have gleaned thus far is that theres really very little between them.
Experience and advice welcome! I'm not a regular photographer, and won't be prostituting interesting pictures of fruit on t'internet or 'owt.
Many thanks,
Greg
Greg/Susie
Whats your budget mate....knowing you its like 2 quid....
...but seriously what is your budget... You coming to BT&P yet...come on change ya mind....oh me and Ali_Kat got engaged.....
Edited by topboy on Saturday 28th October 19:56
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff