[vibin247]

Nikon is really competing with it's entry level DSLRs. I'm saving up for a D200, or if I'm crazy enough, a D2Xs (at least it's not the EOS 1-DS Mark II...), but this new D70s successor might change my mind.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Sweet, I was looking at buying a D50 or D70 or rebel xt, so this could be good for me..

 

[mrarroyo]

I certainly hope it is a replacement for the D70 w/ at least 8 mp.

 

[JahJahBinks]

D60?

 

[euclid]

sigh... Nikons bodies are so tempting, alas Canon glass has won me over.

what really kept me from nikon is the 1.5x standard they are not capable of changing. only Canon has the power muhhahaha.
heres to hoping Canon announces a new body in august. FF sensor with 1.3x and 1.6x crop anyone?

the patient Canon user's day will come!

 

[mrarroyo]

For 20 years I bought Canon cameras/equipment. But I got tired of having to buy new lenses everytime they came out with a new body. That is why I am looking at Nikon.

 

[fureshi]

darn! and i just got my d50 a few months ago. i love it to death but doesn't hurt to consider upgrading.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by euclid sigh... Nikons bodies are so tempting, alas Canon glass has won me over. what really kept me from nikon is the 1.5x standard they are not capable of changing. only Canon has the power muhhahaha. heres to hoping Canon announces a new body in august. FF sensor with 1.3x and 1.6x crop anyone? the patient Canon user's day will come!

I don't think that either Canon or Nikon has clear advantage over one another in terms of lens. Well, at least not within the lenses that I need anyway.

The reason why I like the Nikon is well, all my families have been shooting Nikon, and I can use all the lenses even the old ones with the new DSLR. Ergonomic as well - very important factor to me.

But really, I wouldn't bother so much about who's got better lenses since I've seen many crap pictures taken with high end lenses, and many amazingly outstanding pictures taken with budget lenses. And this is from both Nikon and Canon.

The point is, it's largely depending on the person behind the camera (and computer). If I could have some decent mid-range/short-range zoom, one wide angle, 85mm 1.8, and maybe one prime macro, I'd be very happy already. Canon or Nikon, whatever. But I am more familiar with Nikon, that's why If I were to get a DSLR, it would be from Nikon.

So yeah, I am just saying this to prevent this Canon vs. Nikon wars that we've seen to often in many camera forums. They are both good, and camera is only as good as the operator.

To give example what I mean by that, check out the work by this guy. He is using Nikon D70 and an 18-70mm DX (yes, a kit lens!)

He is currently under one of the "people I am interested at" on photo.net

And no, he doesn't have D2X, 1DSMark2, F/1.2 L lens, or other legendary rig. It's a freakin' old version D70 + kit lens.
But his work is freakishly beautiful I almost can't believe my eyes. (although I agree he defenitely possesses some very high PS skills).

Mehmet Alci's portfolio.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I don't think that either Canon or Nikon has clear advantage over one another in terms of lens. Well, at least not within the lenses that I need anyway. The reason why I like the Nikon is well, all my families have been shooting Nikon, and I can use all the lenses even the old ones with the new DSLR. Ergonomic as well - very important factor to me. But really, I wouldn't bother so much about who's got better lenses since I've seen many crap pictures taken with high end lenses, and many amazingly outstanding pictures taken with budget lenses. And this is from both Nikon and Canon. The point is, it's largely depending on the person behind the camera (and computer). If I could have some decent mid-range/short-range zoom, one wide angle, 85mm 1.8, and maybe one prime macro, I'd be very happy already. Canon or Nikon, whatever. But I am more familiar with Nikon, that's why If I were to get a DSLR, it would be from Nikon. So yeah, I am just saying this to prevent this Canon vs. Nikon wars that we've seen to often in many camera forums. They are both good, and camera is only as good as the operator. To give example what I mean by that, check out the work by this guy. He is using Nikon D70 and an 18-70mm DX (yes, a kit lens!) He is currently under one of the "people I am interested at" on photo.net And no, he doesn't have D2X, 1DSMark2, F/1.2 L lens, or other legendary rig. It's a freakin' old version D70 + kit lens. But his work is freakishly beautiful I almost can't believe my eyes. (although I agree he defenitely possesses some very high PS skills). Mehmet Alci's portfolio.

taking great pictures has more to do with one's eye than with one's equipment. most people are limited by their skill and creativity far sooner than they reach any mechanical limitation.

btw, the 18-70mm is a very good lens. yes, it's a kit lens, but so is the 18-200mm VR. i think camera companies are starting to understand that they don't have to offer utter crap in their kit lenses anymore...

 

[euclid]

to me the advantage in Canon lenses over Nikon is not in potential image quality but in completeness and availability with a larger user base. esp on the used market, L lenses(esp primes) hold value well and are in high demand. Canon is one lens short and that would be a very good wide-angle prime in the 17-21mm range.

dont neccessarily be fooled by a kit lens and low-end cropped camera being able to take high-quality photos in a studio or controlled settings at f12+. most lenses are sharp when stopped down on a cropped body. its not untill you actually try to shoot with f4-5.6 kit lenses that you realize they are utterly useless in 90% of situations, esp wide open(which is mostly where they stay)on a higher resolution and larger sensor. and while they may do well at one end of the zoom spectrum chances are they are unacceptable at another focal length, and most definatley at the corners.
yes a good photographer will be able to take good photos with low-end gear but that doesnt suggest that the potential isnt there for alot of improvement.
higher quality lenses are better corrected, tighter sealed, internal focusing, faster aperature and sharper at those faster speeds, more acurate/faster/silent autofocus with ring USM, full time manual focus, bigger and more precise focus and zoom rings, distance meter, image stabalization, ect. it all adds to versatilty and usabilty for real world. also try to capture even the slightest action with an entry SLR at 3fps, slow AF, and a drive motor focus lens, dont be surprised if 10% are keepers.

the limitation in Nikon bodies is that they dont have manufacturing capability to diverge from their own 1.5x format, and to invest in a Nikon system involves accepting that limitation. Canon has solid full frame digital sensors. there is no "war" between the d200 and 5d they are complete opposite cameras and Nikon has zero potential to offer anything even remotely similar, while Canon is fully capable of offering a 1.6x semi-pro body that would rain on the d200 parade. many Canon users including myself openly envy the d200 at the moment, but have faith Canon will counter it with something better in the near future, which prevents me from jumping ship.

edit: this line about a photographer reaching the end of talent before equipment is completely misused, if you give anyone in the general public an entry level SLR and 3 decent lenses within 6 months he will have found the limitations and need to move up to at least the $1200 prosumer range(that doesnt suggest good artistic vision, but from a technical side there are massive limitations). past there a body is a speical tool completely dependant on application but if the shooter learns to use the full functionality of the prosumers then a pro body (in Canon terms 5d, 1d, 1ds) to maximize his dirrection will definately be welcome addition, maybe not worth the price of admision though.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by euclid edit: this line about a photographer reaching the end of talent before equipment is completely misused, if you give anyone in the general public an entry level SLR and 3 decent lenses within 6 months he will have found the limitations and need to move up to at least the $1200 prosumer range(that doesnt suggest good artistic vision, but from a technical side there are massive limitations). past there a body is a speical tool completely dependant on application but if the shooter learns to use the full functionality of the prosumers then a pro body (in Canon terms 5d, 1d, 1ds) to maximize his dirrection will definately be welcome addition, maybe not worth the price of admision though.

sure, anyone can learn to use whatever equipment is given him/her...that still doesn't make them a talented photographer. my comment about talent was not about learning the skills necessary to properly use a photographic system...yes, almost anyone can do that. creativity and a "good eye" are not so easily learned, and that is where i think many people fall short (myself included) before they reach any limitation with equipment. artistic "talent," at least in my eye, is not about understanding f-stops and proper use of flashes, etc.

 

[vibin247]

It's more important to delve yourself into the subjects you want to photograph, whether it be still lifes, landscapes, portraits (one of my favorite), or just moments of happenstance in daily life. A camera is just a tool, nothing more. I don't mind seeing people with expensive rigs, because why not? If you've got the money and the will, go for it. And it doesn't necessarily mean they're experts or better than the rest. Expertise is relative. Of course, if you're resourceful enough, you can do with a lot less, but it's just different for everyone. At least there's variety, and you can go about photographing your subjects in many ways (I've worked with disposables, up to 4x5 view cameras, and enjoyed them pretty much the same). In the end, it's all about the image, and if you're willing to pay up for it in the most frivolous way, then so be it. Just make sure you know how to use the camera, first. They didn't print manuals for use as badges of ownership

Edit: The 5D is definitely in a category of it's own, so I retract my comment on the war between the 5D and D200. However, I have to say that the D200 is a better bang for the buck, despite the limitations with the focal length multiplier, smaller-than-35mm frame sized sensor, and what not. Both Nikon and Canon camera systems are great (Pentax is another), I've used both, and they have their own respective qualities.

 

[dj_mocok]

Agreed. 5D is a special camera because it offers a full-frame like what 1DSMark2 offers but still within "affordable" price.

Although neat, but then I don't see the reason why I must need that full frame (considering my casual shooting style), and the price is a bit expensive too.

I think for most people, instead of spending the money for the 5D, they would rather get 30D + lens(es), no?

Unfortunately many people are too drawn in specs, looking for much better and better specs/features without even realising whether they actually need them or not.

But then again, as vibin said, if you can afford a high end cameras and don't think that they are expensive to you at all, why not? Everyone want to have better rig, but unfortunately not everyone has the pocket deep enough for that.

I don't know about Canon one, but the basic setup of D70s + kit lens is really not as bad as you think. They are versatile and able to produce decent images too (even in natural, non-studio environment). I used to know one site that has many nice pictures taken with a D70 + kit lens, but I lost it.

One thing I am glad is, nobody said that my Canon has less noise than your Nikon yet.

To conclude, you can give me either:

Canon 30D with those fancy 1.2 L lens, or 200D with 85mm 1.4D, I'd still be one very happy shooter regardless it's Canon or Nikon.


EDIT: I found a new sample. This is the sample of the even "worse-than-18-70", 18-55mm DX lens (kit lens for D50).

 

[stevesurf]

So...the concensus seems to be a new model meant to be placed between D50 and D200, but to "pull" series consumers "up" to a $1000-$1200 price level for some "significant" features. Like someone said, the eyelet strap seems to give it away, as well as the timing simultaneous with the intro of the Sony Alpha 100

Here is the Nikonians thread...

 

[vibin247]

Just another 5 days until it's unveiled...