Which Digi SLR - opinions and feedback please.
Discussion
Time has come to buy a new Digi SLR.
The Canon 350D appears excellent and the reviews are very good and the Nikon D50 also seems pretty good and is a bit cheaper. I also like what I read about the Sigma D10 and it has more pixels than either of the two forementioned SLRs.
I currently use an EOS 600 35mm SLR and have lenses that will fit the 350D so that's a consideration too. I know focal length is longer when used with the DSLR but that's OK for what I have and need.
I'd much appreciate opinions and feedback please.
If you have any other possiblities I'd be please to hear them too, budget is max £600.
>> Edited by Kentish on Monday 13th March 13:11
The Canon 350D appears excellent and the reviews are very good and the Nikon D50 also seems pretty good and is a bit cheaper. I also like what I read about the Sigma D10 and it has more pixels than either of the two forementioned SLRs.
I currently use an EOS 600 35mm SLR and have lenses that will fit the 350D so that's a consideration too. I know focal length is longer when used with the DSLR but that's OK for what I have and need.
I'd much appreciate opinions and feedback please.
If you have any other possiblities I'd be please to hear them too, budget is max £600.
>> Edited by Kentish on Monday 13th March 13:11
Wildfire said:
I bought the D50 the other day and am extremely happy with it. The only reason I went for it over the Cannon was the price as it is around £100 cheaper. But if you have and EOS fit lens then you will save on lenses. Plus the Cannon is 8.1 Megapixels rather than 6 of the Nikon.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the feedback on the D50, it's supposed to be a really nice quality camera construction wise and Nikon optics are excellent (used to have an FM and and an F3).
I think the Canon is very good for the price although the Sigma SD10 is supposed to have an excellent resolution and 10mega pixels. I think it uses the 35mm standard AF system Pentax lenses too IIRC.
I currently have a Fuji (only 3.2 mega pixel) but have loads of XD cards, would be nice to get a DSLR that can use them too as they were a reasonable sum of money to buy.
My advice would be to ignore the specs (there isn't really much difference between cameras of a similar budget in real world usage), and try them out for size and see what you prefer using. The 350D is quite small, which some people like, and others don't.
It would make more sense for you to stick with Canon as you've already got some Canon lenses, but you'd probably get a decent amount for them on ebay if you did want to switch to another make of system, so it shouldn't rule out a change to Nikon for example if you did prefer the D50.
It would make more sense for you to stick with Canon as you've already got some Canon lenses, but you'd probably get a decent amount for them on ebay if you did want to switch to another make of system, so it shouldn't rule out a change to Nikon for example if you did prefer the D50.
I lusted after a 350D right from the day it was launched. It took me forever to actually get to play with one and I was a little disappointed when I did. It was a considerable step up from my digital compact, the excellent Powershot S40, but not as big a leap as I was expecting. I'd certainly have got bigger image files and interchangeable lenses, but the handling wasn't a huge improvement (S40 is surprisingly good) and even though the 350D is small and light for an SLR it's still quite chunky if you are used to taking a compact with you everywhere.
My performance and handling benchmark is my old EOS 5 film camera. I had an EOS 500 before I got the 5; the 500 is small and light but once I got the 5 I never used the 500 again, even for mountaineering! It's hard to quantify why the 5 is so much better than the 500 as both do full manual, etc; but the 5 really did it for me and I loved using it.
After a good long think, I finally got myself a 20D body-only bargain. The 20D is about the same size, weight and philosophy as the 5. I'm exceedingly happy and believe I made the right choice for me.
My performance and handling benchmark is my old EOS 5 film camera. I had an EOS 500 before I got the 5; the 500 is small and light but once I got the 5 I never used the 500 again, even for mountaineering! It's hard to quantify why the 5 is so much better than the 500 as both do full manual, etc; but the 5 really did it for me and I loved using it.
After a good long think, I finally got myself a 20D body-only bargain. The 20D is about the same size, weight and philosophy as the 5. I'm exceedingly happy and believe I made the right choice for me.
I love the idea of a 350D ..... but you need to try one with one of your existing lenses on it - they are very small indeed !
The 20D is bigger but IMO doesn't offer than much more considering it's extra cost .... both are very good cameras though and I am sure you would not be disappointed.
As has already been said, if you have existing Canon lenses it would be mad to change from Canon - unless you only have one or two and they are battered, etc.
None of the current crop of DSLR's are bad from Canon or Nikon - My wife and I have stuck with Canon but that is more now because we have invested heavily in EF lenses rather than because there are no alternatives. A couple of years ago Canon were streets ahead of Nikon .... but not any more, it is fairly even!
The 20D is bigger but IMO doesn't offer than much more considering it's extra cost .... both are very good cameras though and I am sure you would not be disappointed.
As has already been said, if you have existing Canon lenses it would be mad to change from Canon - unless you only have one or two and they are battered, etc.
None of the current crop of DSLR's are bad from Canon or Nikon - My wife and I have stuck with Canon but that is more now because we have invested heavily in EF lenses rather than because there are no alternatives. A couple of years ago Canon were streets ahead of Nikon .... but not any more, it is fairly even!
GetCarter said:
My Defender weighs 2000 kg - it doesn't mean I can race it.
My Rangie weighs 2500kg - wanna race?
Only against my (forthcoming) M15 or AMV8 RS - the Defender does 0-60 in Tuesday and a bit of Wednesday morning.
Deal!
... but it's an off-road race
Podie said:
My Defender weighs 2000 kg - it doesn't mean I can race it.
My Rangie weighs 2500kg - wanna race?
Only against my (forthcoming) M15 or AMV8 RS - the Defender does 0-60 in Tuesday and a bit of Wednesday morning.
Deal!
... but it's an off-road race
bugger
So, a quick update.
About 2 weeks ago I went in search of the new digi SLR and I went with an open mind (perhaps favouring the Nikon slightly).
I spent 2 hours looking at both side by side.
The Nikon felt really nice in the hands and well balanced, it was significantly larger than the Canon. The quality feel of the camera was very good.
The Nikon rear screen was excellent, nice large display and menu text. It also takes the older 35mm AF system lenses (like the Canon).
The Canon was much smaller, this I decided was a good thing since the camera bag will be much easier to transport with another lens and the smaller body and standard lens (all adds to weight, the bigger the camera the more the weight). The menus looked more complex but when it came down to using them I discovered they were actually easier to navigate and tailor than the Nikon. There are also 2 million more pixels with the Canon than available with the Nikon.
For what is described as an excellent beginners camera, I think it has an excellent range of features and a few more than is found on the Nikon which is only to be expected since it is £150 cheaper than the Canon.
My EOS 28-200mm lens will also fit the Canon and is the equivalent of 40-320mm.
So I went in favouring the Nikon and came away with the Canon!
I still think the Nikon is excellent especially for such a good price.
SO there you have it, hopefully an unbiased opinion!
I have taken a lot of photographs this weekend and find the Canon very quick in use, the menus are very easy to use, the rear screen is not a bad size and is not obstructed by data (this is in an LCD above the screen), viewfinder info is excellent (especially where the leds show the points of focus - this can also be customised) and the results are superb.
About 2 weeks ago I went in search of the new digi SLR and I went with an open mind (perhaps favouring the Nikon slightly).
I spent 2 hours looking at both side by side.
The Nikon felt really nice in the hands and well balanced, it was significantly larger than the Canon. The quality feel of the camera was very good.
The Nikon rear screen was excellent, nice large display and menu text. It also takes the older 35mm AF system lenses (like the Canon).
The Canon was much smaller, this I decided was a good thing since the camera bag will be much easier to transport with another lens and the smaller body and standard lens (all adds to weight, the bigger the camera the more the weight). The menus looked more complex but when it came down to using them I discovered they were actually easier to navigate and tailor than the Nikon. There are also 2 million more pixels with the Canon than available with the Nikon.
For what is described as an excellent beginners camera, I think it has an excellent range of features and a few more than is found on the Nikon which is only to be expected since it is £150 cheaper than the Canon.
My EOS 28-200mm lens will also fit the Canon and is the equivalent of 40-320mm.
So I went in favouring the Nikon and came away with the Canon!
I still think the Nikon is excellent especially for such a good price.
SO there you have it, hopefully an unbiased opinion!
I have taken a lot of photographs this weekend and find the Canon very quick in use, the menus are very easy to use, the rear screen is not a bad size and is not obstructed by data (this is in an LCD above the screen), viewfinder info is excellent (especially where the leds show the points of focus - this can also be customised) and the results are superb.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff