Canon 350D or Nikon D70?
Discussion
Jenny Taillier said:
the Minolta Dynax 7D!
That's a clever way to avoid arguments - nobody else knows anything about Minoltas!!
You are hereby appointed resident forum Minolta expert
NB I did try a Minolta Dynax film SLR some years ago - great results but I couldn't get on with the control layout.
I have only had it a couple of weeks - so the appointment of forum expert might be premature - but first impressions are very good.
It’s my fourth Minolta but first digital so a steep learning curve. I still have the previous three but I suspect they are not going to get as much use any more!
Jenny
It’s my fourth Minolta but first digital so a steep learning curve. I still have the previous three but I suspect they are not going to get as much use any more!
Jenny
Methanol said:
Furthermore you should check the review I've mentioned numerous times, then come back.
Blimey, I go away for two days and war breaks out.
Coming to this late - I'm making the assumption that the review you mention talks about the 350D yes? IN which case it may indeed be a better camera than the D70. It certainly should be - otherwise what the hell are canon thinking releasing it???!
However the defensive response you are getting is due to your comment that the D70 didn't even stack up to the 300D - which is frankly preposterous.
And I hang out here because I got pissed off with the Canon/Nikon wars and pixel-peeping on dpreview!!! 
People on here don't even argue about cars as much as this, they just respect other people's choices.
Unfortunately we survive in a olygopoly with respect to camera vendors, especially in mid-low market SLRs - that's life.
I liked it here because we had the Nikon 'Clud' and the Canonians who respected each other, but more to the point realised why we bought these things - TO TAKE PHOTOS.
To be honest, all the models mentioned in this thread are more capable than most 'photographers' on here including myself, and I charge for my work sometimes!!! (and BTW, I don't consider myself a pro - I have a day job too)
Let's just get on and take photos, talk about techniques, and avoid pointless, never-ending slanging matches...
To quote someone else "Why is it that when you buy a piano, you become a 'piano owner' but when you buy a camera you become a 'photographer'?"
I just take photos and enjoy doing so with equipment that doesn't restrict me and does what I ask of it.
>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Wednesday 23 March 20:55
People on here don't even argue about cars as much as this, they just respect other people's choices.
Unfortunately we survive in a olygopoly with respect to camera vendors, especially in mid-low market SLRs - that's life.
I liked it here because we had the Nikon 'Clud' and the Canonians who respected each other, but more to the point realised why we bought these things - TO TAKE PHOTOS.
To be honest, all the models mentioned in this thread are more capable than most 'photographers' on here including myself, and I charge for my work sometimes!!! (and BTW, I don't consider myself a pro - I have a day job too)
Let's just get on and take photos, talk about techniques, and avoid pointless, never-ending slanging matches...
To quote someone else "Why is it that when you buy a piano, you become a 'piano owner' but when you buy a camera you become a 'photographer'?"
I just take photos and enjoy doing so with equipment that doesn't restrict me and does what I ask of it.
>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Wednesday 23 March 20:55
Just kidding. I want a big white lens but you can't get them for Nikon. Where's my can of white hammerite, that'll sort me out. _Dobbo_ said:
I want a big white lens but you can't get them for Nikon. Where's my can of white hammerite, that'll sort me out.
Who says you can't
www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=242161&is=GREY
Well grey anyway
Cheers
Ian
>> Edited by Ian_H on Wednesday 23 March 22:24
Methanol said:
_Dobbo_,
Sorry to disappoint dude, but the review was on four cameras, the 300D, the D70, Pentax istd and the Olympus E300.
By the way it was the March issue of Digital Photo, issue 64.
This is NOT a place where there will be much tolerance for DP review style measurebating and points scoring. So lets not carry on like that .
Cameras evolve. If the latest model did not contain some improvements over the previous benchmark, then there is no point in launching it.
And the comments that pros' are ditching Nikon for Canon is frankly cobblers.
Why? Because many of my friends are professional photographers.
Some are Canon and have been for a while. They tend to be sports boys who bought into the big fast white lenses and stayed that way. Others are into general portrait/ fashion stuff and are a mix of Nikon/ Canon and Fuji too.
Trying to suggest that one camera brand has inherent superiority over another is plain wrong. It is impossible to generalise in this way.
The assertion that Canon rules the digital roost is plain nonsense - and next time you are casually looking through a mail order clothing catalogue or the packaging on a domestic product the images from my friends Fuji S2 might well be looking back at you.
He drives a Mercedes SL55AMG and does just fine thank you. Suggest that he junks the Fuji and buys Canon would just result in a sniggering laugh and a bemused smile, because frankly he would not see the point. He tried a 1Ds but saw no financial advantage to moving, and even now is only likely to move to a larger format. But he is in no hurry.
Much of the time, equipment obsession is a substitute for talent IMO. A professional will always want the right tool for the job, but they are pragmatic and conservative, slow to change.
Unless they are sports photographers, there are no compelling reasons to choose Canon over Nikon or Fuji. Nor, indeed, does it go the other way.
Once you have a decent standard of tools at your disposal, concentrating on what you do with them is more important than worrying about the tools themselves.
How you can suggest that a conversation I had with another is "cobblers" is equally got to be cobblers.
I too have many friends who are pro photographers, what of it?
Believe it or not, I also know some who drive fancy cars, what of it?
There are things that are superior to others, believe it or not.
The bottom like is, the 300D produces a better quality image than the D70. Don't blame me; speak to the people who made them.
I too have many friends who are pro photographers, what of it?
Believe it or not, I also know some who drive fancy cars, what of it?
There are things that are superior to others, believe it or not.
The bottom like is, the 300D produces a better quality image than the D70. Don't blame me; speak to the people who made them.
But your point about one camera producing "better pictures" than another ( when they are both so similar ) fails to stand up to any analysis. It is illogical.
If an image is taken with a Nikon or a Canon, the arbiter over which is a "better" image is too variable to come down to the camera when they are plainly so similar in specification.
It may be that variables in the different metering systems produce a different result, meaning that one camera exposes the shadows better at the expense of the highlights, while the other does the opposite. How can you measure which is "best" in these circumstances? The "best" image quality would be that which produces the most pleasing image.
In some cases the lower minimum ISO of the Canon may produce a more "pleasing" image. In other cases the Nikon image may be more pleasing because the spot metering the Nikon has may have resulted in a more appropriate exposure - which can be a vital factor with digital because the dynamic range is so narrow compared to film.
My point is that a simple assertion that one camera produces "better" images than other with such similar specifications is frankly spurious and misleading. When the cameras are so similar, the "quality " of the image becomes affected more by other factors.
I am sure that you love your Canon, and I hope you take many memorable pictures. But equally any guy with a Nikon, or a Fuji, or a Pentax, or a Minolta is also able to take pleasing images.
By splitting hairs over the minutae of details we lose sight of the whole point of photography. Such stuff is best kept on DP review where it belongs.
Bottom line is that any of these similar cameras is pretty much the same as any other.
And you could give the best pro's an ancient D30 or D1 and he would still take more pleasing images than the average Joe with a D70 or a D300. Its not about the technology really.
A crap picture at 16mp with 5fps through a £5000 fast lense is still a crap picture. The same photo with a D300 or a D70 is still a crap picture.
On the other hand, I have a large 6ft x 4ft image on my study wall of a corn field , blurred and moving in a breeeze. It was taken on a 3mp compact and blown up it has noise which has been nicely processed into a grainy, dreamy feel. Its a great picture and I get pleasure from it. I never ever think about what camera was used.
I don't understand why there is so much personal emotional involvement in cameras. Its why I don't bother with DP review anymore. Tecchie obsession has nothing to do with photography IMO.
If a guy has a D300 then great, good luck to him. If someone else has a D70 then I hope they enjoy it.
Who will take the best pictures? I have No idea !
And neither do you.
Which is my whole point, really.
If an image is taken with a Nikon or a Canon, the arbiter over which is a "better" image is too variable to come down to the camera when they are plainly so similar in specification.
It may be that variables in the different metering systems produce a different result, meaning that one camera exposes the shadows better at the expense of the highlights, while the other does the opposite. How can you measure which is "best" in these circumstances? The "best" image quality would be that which produces the most pleasing image.
In some cases the lower minimum ISO of the Canon may produce a more "pleasing" image. In other cases the Nikon image may be more pleasing because the spot metering the Nikon has may have resulted in a more appropriate exposure - which can be a vital factor with digital because the dynamic range is so narrow compared to film.
My point is that a simple assertion that one camera produces "better" images than other with such similar specifications is frankly spurious and misleading. When the cameras are so similar, the "quality " of the image becomes affected more by other factors.
I am sure that you love your Canon, and I hope you take many memorable pictures. But equally any guy with a Nikon, or a Fuji, or a Pentax, or a Minolta is also able to take pleasing images.
By splitting hairs over the minutae of details we lose sight of the whole point of photography. Such stuff is best kept on DP review where it belongs.
Bottom line is that any of these similar cameras is pretty much the same as any other.
And you could give the best pro's an ancient D30 or D1 and he would still take more pleasing images than the average Joe with a D70 or a D300. Its not about the technology really.
A crap picture at 16mp with 5fps through a £5000 fast lense is still a crap picture. The same photo with a D300 or a D70 is still a crap picture.
On the other hand, I have a large 6ft x 4ft image on my study wall of a corn field , blurred and moving in a breeeze. It was taken on a 3mp compact and blown up it has noise which has been nicely processed into a grainy, dreamy feel. Its a great picture and I get pleasure from it. I never ever think about what camera was used.
I don't understand why there is so much personal emotional involvement in cameras. Its why I don't bother with DP review anymore. Tecchie obsession has nothing to do with photography IMO.
If a guy has a D300 then great, good luck to him. If someone else has a D70 then I hope they enjoy it.
Who will take the best pictures? I have No idea !
And neither do you.
Which is my whole point, really.
toppstuff said:
[quote=Methanol]_Dobbo_,
He drives a Mercedes SL55AMG and does just fine thank you. Suggest that he junks the Fuji and buys Canon would just result in a sniggering laugh and a bemused smile, because frankly he would not see the point. He tried a 1Ds but saw no financial advantage to moving, and even now is only likely to move to a larger format. But he is in no hurry.
Much of the time, equipment obsession is a substitute for talent IMO.
So how many times a week does he crash into a lampost?
Comments like that above are plain silly, they are just in the same camp as those that say" you need a flash car because you have a small di*K.
sjn2004 said:
[quote=Methanol]_Dobbo_,
He drives a Mercedes SL55AMG and does just fine thank you. Suggest that he junks the Fuji and buys Canon would just result in a sniggering laugh and a bemused smile, because frankly he would not see the point. He tried a 1Ds but saw no financial advantage to moving, and even now is only likely to move to a larger format. But he is in no hurry.
Much of the time, equipment obsession is a substitute for talent IMO.
So how many times a week does he crash into a lampost?
Comments like that above are plain silly, they are just in the same camp as those that say" you need a flash car because you have a small di*K.
Fair Enough.
I was simply trying to make the point that a successful pro does not get obsessed about comparing equipment, but rather just gets on with taking pictures.
If changing cameras would make him more money then he would change. But he does'nt and sees no reason to. The only thing that would make him change his kit would be a massive step change in technology, not the petty differences between a 2004 and 2005 update on the same camera.
I wanted to make the point that splitting hairs and making assertions that one camera brand is inherently superior to another is misleading and incorrect. That was the intention anyway, however lacking in eloquence I may have been..
My point was never about, if you have the best camera you can take the best picture.
As we are in the photographic digital age now, being tech savvy IMO is part of photography.
I'm sure most people on here did check out some review, took advice from the guy in the camera store etc... before they bought their camera.
Anyways, I hope you all have many happy times shooting.
As we are in the photographic digital age now, being tech savvy IMO is part of photography.
I'm sure most people on here did check out some review, took advice from the guy in the camera store etc... before they bought their camera.
Anyways, I hope you all have many happy times shooting.
Methanol said:
_Dobbo_,
Sorry to disappoint dude, but the review was on four cameras, the 300D, the D70, Pentax istd and the Olympus E300.
By the way it was the March issue of Digital Photo, issue 64.
Not disappointed at all - So you have seen one review that put the 300D ahead - congrats. I'm quite sure between a couple of us we could line up 50 other reviews with ease which would counter that - so it's hardly an unassailable truth is it now?
Your original comment was inflammatory, and your responses haven't exactly helped to calm things down. Up until now this forum has existed on healthy banter and a toungue in cheek canon vs nikon thing, and the introduction of your input in this thread seems to have shifted that in a direction I for one don't like...
Just face it the Nikon D70 is king
It must be cos I've got one. Where's the fingers in the ears I'm not listening smiley!
DONT FEED THE TROLLtoppstuff said:
And the comments that pros' are ditching Nikon for Canon is frankly cobblers.
Err, wouldn't be too sure about that comment. This comes up regularly on Galbraith Canon forums from Nikon users switching.
www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=321684&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1
www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=313802&page=8&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1
www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=298233&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1
The comments from switchers are fair, both good and bad comments from the experience. The traffic though, is all one way. Another pro mate of mine switched last year and has just sold his Nikkors on ebay.
toppstuff said:
A professional will always want the right tool for the job.
Yep, that's why they switch. FWIW a few years ago when I was looking to get 35mm based digi Canon only had the 1D, not enough res for me, so when Kodak anounced the 14n I was already to switch to Nikon glass, in pursuit of the best quality. It sounded like the best thing since sliced bread...... on paper. Glad I waited
.Yeah if were a Pro I'd almost certainly be using Canon kit. The support and, more importantly, the fantastic range of Pro lenses will contribute to this. Nikon have only recently started releasing pro lenses with both AF-S and VR.
But for entry-level to mid-range, I see no compelling reason whatsoever to go Canon. In fact, I'm happy to stick with Nikon, simply because like for like the glass is typically cheaper.
But for entry-level to mid-range, I see no compelling reason whatsoever to go Canon. In fact, I'm happy to stick with Nikon, simply because like for like the glass is typically cheaper.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff