[fureshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach It's only 4MP because the camera came out in early 2005 and went for quality over quantity - its 4.1MP sensor produces better pictures than most 8MP or 10MP sensors. It's also specifically designed for the Newspaper environment. Look, Photography is 90% Photographer, 10% Equipment. Ansel Adams could get better shots with a Point-and-Shoot than most of us could ever get with the most expensive DSLR out there. If there are flaws in your photos, the first place to look is at who's controlling the Camera. Cameras are like computers - in the end, they can only do what we tell them to.

a higher mega pixel count doesn't mean that the picture will come out better either. lower pixel count with a larger sensor size means that the sensors will get react to light more quickly and more precisely than a 8MP smaller sensor.

i wish i had ansel adams photography skills but it's just a hobby for me and having fun is most important.

 

[imho]

So, between a Nikon D-50 and a Canon Digital Rebel EOS, which one should I get?

 

[imho]

Double post! How about a point and shoot? I like Sonys (duh).

 

[mneuwiueyagaobcf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach It's only 4MP because the camera came out in early 2005 and went for quality over quantity - its 4.1MP sensor produces better pictures than most 8MP or 10MP sensors.

That's not true. The 4MP will not give you enough resolution if you want to print large. Unlike a 6 to 8MP jump a 4MP to 8MP is material. But for sport shooters who publish to papers and magazines it is more than enough. Early 2005 canon already had the 1D MKII (1.3 crop) at 8fps at 8 megapixels. In the end it doesn't really matter both canon and nikon are awesome systems and I use both.

 

[seeberg]

If you have to have a point and shoot, I would definitely suggest something with an image stabilizer, and on that note, Panasonic has got buttloads of 'em

My brother got an LZ3 for $200 approx. and it shoots cleaner in lower light with Mega OIS than my D50 with wide open apertures on ISO 1600 most of the time. As far as a DSLR is concerned, go to an electronics store and play around with the models they have and try to get a feel for what's out there before finding a shop that will sell you a camera for a more reasonable price than that of, say Best Buy or Circuit City. If I were you though, I'd wait until the K100D hits stores, that might be your best bet. I can't wait until I can try one.

edit: imho, do you mean the standard Digital Rebel or the XT version? If you mean the former, the D50 should be better in practically every way, from noise performance to speed, screen size, and what have you.

,
Abe

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang Interesting about the custom focusing. THAT's a highly likely suspect. But I do think the exposure has gone south on most of them. Could you direct me to the Sport Illustrated page?

http://www.siphoto.com/?nikonD2H.inc

They also have other top of the line cameras

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeberg Speaking of the new Pentaxes, does anyone have any take on their new K100D? It's supposed to have the least expensive in body anti shake system in a DSLR on the market when it comes out, I'd consider selling off the D50 kit to get that body with an aftermarket 18-200mm lens instead of the 18-55 with the kit, thus eliminating most of my gear needs as well, but I'm unsure of this at the moment. , Abe

I like the Pentax's, but I would definitely NOT get the 18-200. That's too much range for good quality pictures.

The beauty of the Pentax system is that you can use almost every lens ever made, and there have been many classics in the past 50 years. I have a 1964 Spotmatic with a Takumar screw mount lens that would work on today's Pentax dSLRs. Canon and Nikon can't say the same without an adapter, sometime quality reducing in the case of Canon (FD to EOS).

I almost want one of those new Sony's...Anti-shake AND anti-dust. So wonderful... but I will just stick with my Oly system.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by imho So, between a Nikon D-50 and a Canon Digital Rebel EOS, which one should I get?

You have to feel them both to make your decision.

Things I'd consider:

(1) The Canon Rebel XT (EOS 350D) is much smaller than the Nikon. TOO small for me, and I'm not the only one to have said so. The Nikon feels much more natural to me. But you really have to hold both to judge for yourself.

(2) The Canon kit lens sucks, plain and simple. VERY visible distortion across the spectrum. The Nikon Kit lens is surprisingly good. Some minor distortion at the wide end, but less distortion than most sub-$400 lenses. If you're buying body-only, of course, this doesn't matter. It also focuses very fast, even in low light.

(3) The Canon costs more. About $200 more on average. It offers 8MP instead of the Nikon's 6.1MP, but you really don't notice a print quality difference until you double the megapixels, so it's rather irrelevant. The Nikon's sensor is also larger, which helps the quality.

(4) The Nikon tends to be less grainy at high ISOs (like 1600).

(5) If you already own Canon or Nikon lenses, stick in your brand, of course. Quote:

I like the Pentax's, but I would definitely NOT get the 18-200. That's too much range for good quality pictures.

Have you ever seen the shots that come out of the Nikkor 18-200VR? The lens is a gift from the Gods for 99% of day-to-day shooting. Ken Rockwell's Revew of the lens has some sample pictures, but even those aren't the sharpest or cleanest I've seen come out of the lens. The galleries at Nikonians are filled with 18-200VR shots. Check them out sometime.

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whorehay I like the Pentax's, but I would definitely NOT get the 18-200. That's too much range for good quality pictures. The beauty of the Pentax system is that you can use almost every lens ever made, and there have been many classics in the past 50 years. I have a 1964 Spotmatic with a Takumar screw mount lens that would work on today's Pentax dSLRs. Canon and Nikon can't say the same without an adapter, sometime quality reducing in the case of Canon (FD to EOS). I almost want one of those new Sony's...Anti-shake AND anti-dust. So wonderful... but I will just stick with my Oly system.

Hmmm, I imagine if it were Pentax making the 18-200 and not Tamron or Sigma, then the quality might be up to par(read: when you buy a Nikon, Canon, etc, you do it so you can use Nikkor and Canon lenses, not lesser aftermarket ones). But I don't know if they even make such a lens. It'd be nice if they did though, IMHO. Also, since Sony doesn't make a DSLR yet (the Minolta derived Alpha system isn't due for a while), aren't all their cameras pretty much dust free since the sensors are sealed and lenses aren't removeable?

Personally, I'd like the ability to add anti-shake to my existing camera through some sort of adaptor. It's a shame nobody has tried making one that works

I'd pay good money for one if there was such a thing out there, so I wouldn't have to buy more gear, just a stabilizer add-on.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach You have to feel them both to make your decision. Things I'd consider: (1) The Canon Rebel XT (EOS 350D) is much smaller than the Nikon. TOO small for me, and I'm not the only one to have said so. The Nikon feels much more natural to me. But you really have to hold both to judge for yourself. (2) The Canon kit lens sucks, plain and simple. VERY visible distortion across the spectrum. The Nikon Kit lens is surprisingly good. Some minor distortion at the wide end, but less distortion than most sub-$400 lenses. If you're buying body-only, of course, this doesn't matter. It also focuses very fast, even in low light. (3) The Canon costs more. About $200 more on average. It offers 8MP instead of the Nikon's 6.1MP, but you really don't notice a print quality difference until you double the megapixels, so it's rather irrelevant. The Nikon's sensor is also larger, which helps the quality. (4) The Nikon tends to be less grainy at high ISOs (like 1600). (5) If you already own Canon or Nikon lenses, stick in your brand, of course.Have you ever seen the shots that come out of the Nikkor 18-200VR? The lens is a gift from the Gods for 99% of day-to-day shooting. Ken Rockwell's Revew of the lens has some sample pictures, but even those aren't the sharpest or cleanest I've seen come out of the lens. The galleries at Nikonians are filled with 18-200VR shots. Check them out sometime.

I found the same thing about the Rebel XT, it's smaller, but the grip is too small and having that small of a screen on a DSLR doesn't help much, though I'd rather have a 2.5" screen if I could. Also, I would have to agree that the 18-55 Nikkor is quite the little performer. It's been able to do practically everything I've asked it to do, though I had to add on a macro filter to make it more versatile. Sure, it has no aperture adjustment, but thats what the A-mode is for! The command dial on the D50 works great for my needs in Aperture Priority mode and feels very natural to me. I take most of my shots in ISO 1600- I have yet to hear complaints, much less make any, about the graininess of the sensor. Also, I think Whorehay means the aftermarket 18-200's that are out there. The Nikkor 18-200VR isn't just the exception to the rule, it's THE lens I want the most!

,
Abe

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach . Have you ever seen the shots that come out of the Nikkor 18-200VR? The lens is a gift from the Gods for 99% of day-to-day shooting. Ken Rockwell's Revew of the lens has some sample pictures, but even those aren't the sharpest or cleanest I've seen come out of the lens. The galleries at Nikonians are filled with 18-200VR shots. Check them out sometime.

Hmm.. I was thinking more the Tamron/Sigma 18-200s for Pentax but I guess the Nikon is an exception.

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whorehay Hmm.. I was thinking more the Tamron/Sigma 18-200s for Pentax but I guess the Nikon is an exception.

It definitely is. If there were more lenses like it or if it were cheaper, the DSLR world would be a nicer place to live in

,
Abe

 

[Oski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by imho How about a point and shoot? I like Sonys (duh).

You should look into a DSCT-9. 6 megapixels, 3x optical, 2x digital zoom, using a Zeiss lens. It's an excellent point and shoot, compact, sharp, has image stabilization, and a great LCD screen.

 

[dj_mocok]

I'm still waiting for the faulty pictures. Not that I don't trust him, but I genuinely wanna see how much can that D2Hs mess up the picture (assuming it's faulty after prolonged use).

 

[seeberg]

Or if he doesn't want the D2H/s (I use the slashes when I refer to s and n models of cameras cause I think it looks cool

) I'd gladly trade my entire D50 system for a severly broken one of those(If I can pay nikon to fix)! Seriously, I'd take the drop in overall blowup size- I consider this to be the paramount figure as far as impact of higher and higher resolution- and the repair costs gladly. Hmmmm, sounds like a proposition

,
Abe

 

[dj_mocok]

In the place where I used to work, there were many photographers (news) around.
As far as I notice, most of them use Canon 1DSMark2. I'm not sure why - maybe because they wanna make use of previous Canon lens, or maybe D2X wasn't around when they bought it... who knows...