Canon 350D or Nikon D70?
Discussion
simpo two said:
Indeed. But I thought we got you to admit in another thread that the 6/8Mp question was pretty trivial. How much of the Baileys image difference is in sharpening, processing and lenses?
Maybe it is trivial but that depends on the context. How big will the pictures be reproduced/cropped into etc. But, to deny a difference is incorrect. As for sharpening processing etc, I honestly don't know. Had a quick look on the site and all I could see was that the Nikon used a 50mm 1.4. I Have always found the reviews on DPreview to be very even handed though.
N.B The above example of the 20D may not be representative of the 350D. The later uses a different and slightly smaller (8.0 compared to 8.2). Then again, the 20D is an older model.
I think the key thing here is if the main point is to have an interest in photography, or an interest in cameras.
There is a difference.
If your interest is in, above all, the taking of pictures then it is a really small issue as to whether the camera has 4, 5, 6 or 8 mp.
Looking at the work from Steve Carter ( who is a lot better than me ! ) and it is clear to me that the difference between 6 and 8 mp really, really does'nt matter !
But for some having an interest in the latest kit and comparing the differences IS a part of the appeal. Thats fair enough, but its not really photography.
Oh - and there is nowt wrong with the Nikon D1x, or the Canon D30 as far as I am concerned. Both can take perfectly decent pictures, and you'd need to be a pretty decent photographer to justify changing them for the latest 8mp monsters IMO.
>> Edited by toppstuff on Thursday 17th March 19:31
There is a difference.
If your interest is in, above all, the taking of pictures then it is a really small issue as to whether the camera has 4, 5, 6 or 8 mp.
Looking at the work from Steve Carter ( who is a lot better than me ! ) and it is clear to me that the difference between 6 and 8 mp really, really does'nt matter !
But for some having an interest in the latest kit and comparing the differences IS a part of the appeal. Thats fair enough, but its not really photography.
Oh - and there is nowt wrong with the Nikon D1x, or the Canon D30 as far as I am concerned. Both can take perfectly decent pictures, and you'd need to be a pretty decent photographer to justify changing them for the latest 8mp monsters IMO.
>> Edited by toppstuff on Thursday 17th March 19:31
toppstuff said:
As far as I can see, when we start comparing blow ups of bottle lables we have forgotten the whole point of taking pictures in the first place.
The still life Phil Askey has been shooting for years in his tests is a controlled, repeatable shot, nothing more. No one is suggesting it's 'art', merely a point of reference.
toppstuff said:
And why at 800ASA? Why not 400, or 200 ASA? What does it prove? Nothing, as far as I can see.
Well, unless your myopic, it proves that as well as having more resolution it also shows less noise at 800asa. Might be of interest to the original poster if he doesn't like noise and maybe wants to freeze action e.g. motorsport.
toppstuff said:
One of the best photographers on PH is GetCarter. He has some lovely work on his site:
www.stevecarter.com
I couldn't agree with you more.
toppstuff said:
( and apologies to Steve for singling him out, but his stuff is very good and he's a reminder to me that the newest, latest, most megapixel laden stuff does not actually improve the photograph.....only I can do that by going out and taking more pictures, whatever camera I 've got. Buying the latest 8mp jobbie is irrelevent when clearly 4 or 5 mp will do )
I'll let you tell him he's wasting his money.
GetCarter in another thread said:
Scooby - GIT... you got the D2X! - When did you order it? I think I ordered mine in 1952 and still no word.
I have no doubt that when he gets his D2X he will love the extra resolution over the D1X. (not wishing to put words in anyones mouth and no doubt he will correct me if he doesn't want the extra res).
A good big one's better than a good little one
Bacardi said:
GetCarter in another thread said:
Scooby - GIT... you got the D2X! - When did you order it? I think I ordered mine in 1952 and still no word.
Touche !
But while I would'nt want to put words in Steve's mouth, he would be the first to admit that he has taken plenty of decent images on his humble D1x. None of the scrummy images on his site will be D2X yet, which kind of illustrates my point.
Of course extra MP are nice, I am not suggesting that they are not.
But I am of the opinion that all the endless analysis of resolution is often an excuse for not actually going out and taking pictures.
The DP review website is a good example of this IMO. While I admire Phi Askey and his research, that site is populated by too many teccie weirdo's who think it really matters that a minute difference in resolution might be seen between 6mp and 8mp, or between 600 or 800 asa. What is weird about it that most of the noisiest, most regular posters on that site who knock Canons/ Nikons or vice versa, don't seem to ever take photos!
I think it is called measurebating...
The bottom line, and the key message to the originator of this thread, is that I really don't think it matters whether he gets 6mp or 8mp.
What does matter is that the camera is comfortable and easy to use for that particular person. And if he has a budget in mind, I would suggest that a 6mp camera and an extra lense, or maybe loads of extra memory or money set aside for print costs, is probably a wiser purchase than spending the whole budget on the latest 8mp camera.
toppstuff said:...but I don't think you can get around the fact that at the end of the day more megapixels equals better quality when you print big. And that is surely a good thing which anyone who can afford should go for...
A lot of good diplomatic sense...
Your points on ultimate ability are noted, but if the photographer didn't have his 10 million fps body then there's a high chance he would have missed that perfect freeze-frame action shot. If his camera didn't go down to ISO 50 then maybe because he lacked the correct ND filter he couldn't slow the shutter down fast enough in the way he did to catch that fantastic moody picture. Maybe he took a career shot but because it was only taken on a 3.2MP compact the picture does not have enough outright resolution to print with a decent level of quality onto a poster-size print.
Catch my drift? Ultimately we all share the passion of taking and viewing wonderful photographs, and ultimately without any ability no camera will take a good picture for you.
But belive you me, equipment is VERY relevant and critical towards the capturing of that perfect (in focus and correctly metered at f/2.8) moment and in how we distribute and share that moment.
That is why we discuss tech. As for Nikon vs Canon, why those Canon idjuts are just ignorant and stupid that's all.
D
Deadlock your posting makes perfect sense, and brings us back nicely to what someone else said - all other things being equal, then more megapixels is better.
Problem is all things never will be equal. The 300D was the daddy of the "budget" DSLRs until the D70 game along. Now it seems quite likely that the 350D might take the crown - until the next iteration of the D70 comes along. And so on ad infinitum (or perhaps I should say ad nauseum).
I think the original question of "which one should I buy" probably needs to be answered the same way most of us did. Go into a shop and pick them both up. Go back and repeat if necessary. It wont take long till you will know which one you want, and you don't need us on pistonheads to tell you which one to get.
I was psoitve I wanted a 300D. It was cheaper, and allowed me to get much more kit for my budget. Then I bought a D70...
Problem is all things never will be equal. The 300D was the daddy of the "budget" DSLRs until the D70 game along. Now it seems quite likely that the 350D might take the crown - until the next iteration of the D70 comes along. And so on ad infinitum (or perhaps I should say ad nauseum).
I think the original question of "which one should I buy" probably needs to be answered the same way most of us did. Go into a shop and pick them both up. Go back and repeat if necessary. It wont take long till you will know which one you want, and you don't need us on pistonheads to tell you which one to get.
I was psoitve I wanted a 300D. It was cheaper, and allowed me to get much more kit for my budget. Then I bought a D70...
Thats true. Of course more MP is preferable to less most of the time, but a picture on a 6mp will not be a better picture taken on a 8mp camera.
News stories all over the world, real historical moments, are still being captured on 4mp cameras right now ! The difference is not that great compared to , say, 2mp to 6mp.
Another point to consider is that the perfect shot, that once-in-a lifetime shot, could also be lost because the handling of the camera got in the way !
I ditched my Canons and switched to Nikon because I got really cheesed off with some of the functions on the Canons and how the buttons sometimes defied logic. Nikons, to me, are more intuitive and easier to use, and I find it possible to use all of the features without having to pause and consider what button to push and in which sequence...
I could have an 8mp Canon and it would probably drive me crazy ( at least the Eos10 I had did ! ) while the D70 and D2h Nikons I have are heaven
But I am in no hurry to get more pixels. Once I am as good as Steve Carter with his D1x (5mp) I'll consider it.....
News stories all over the world, real historical moments, are still being captured on 4mp cameras right now ! The difference is not that great compared to , say, 2mp to 6mp.
Another point to consider is that the perfect shot, that once-in-a lifetime shot, could also be lost because the handling of the camera got in the way !
I ditched my Canons and switched to Nikon because I got really cheesed off with some of the functions on the Canons and how the buttons sometimes defied logic. Nikons, to me, are more intuitive and easier to use, and I find it possible to use all of the features without having to pause and consider what button to push and in which sequence...
I could have an 8mp Canon and it would probably drive me crazy ( at least the Eos10 I had did ! ) while the D70 and D2h Nikons I have are heaven
But I am in no hurry to get more pixels. Once I am as good as Steve Carter with his D1x (5mp) I'll consider it.....
www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-thouhts.shtml
This item about image quality may be of interest.
There's a Canon 350D review on the site as well - user oriented rather than technical lists.
This item about image quality may be of interest.
There's a Canon 350D review on the site as well - user oriented rather than technical lists.
-DeaDLocK- said:
Maybe he took a career shot but because it was only taken on a 3.2MP compact the picture does not have enough outright resolution to print with a decent level of quality onto a poster-size print.
Last month I made my first unprompted sale via Photobox.
The photograph was taken with a 3.2Mp compact.
Naturally it can't compare in resolution with a 6 or 8Mp picture, but who presses their nose to a picture on the wall anyway? The acid test for me is that somebody was actually prepared to part with their hard earned readies to pay for a copy, which I think is the best praise you can have
toppstuff said:It's very unlikely that a 6MP camera will be exactly the same as the 8MP one in all regards except resolution, so it's pointless to base your decision on pixel count alone.
Thats true. Of course more MP is preferable to less most of the time, but a picture on a 6mp will not be a better picture taken on a 8mp camera.
News stories all over the world, real historical moments, are still being captured on 4mp cameras right now ! The difference is not that great compared to , say, 2mp to 6mp.
Another point to consider is that the perfect shot, that once-in-a lifetime shot, could also be lost because the handling of the camera got in the way !
That said, I'd always want as many pixels as possible, as I like printing big, and 6, 8 and even 10MP aren't enough. As Bacardi says, a good big un is better than a good small un
If you simply want to save at 800 px wide to stick on a website, then you don't even need 1MP, so basing these discussions on images posted on the web is pretty pointless!
Really, you need to see actual prints or 100% crops, but then again - why not just go out and take some photos instead of all this
stuff! 
Topstuff's point about handling is very good though - I've just fitted a set of Ohlins to my Canon, and it'll take any Nikon round a set of twisties
Seriously though - having the greatest camera in the world is pointless if you don't like the way the controls work or it's too big/small/heavy/light for you. I've only ever used Canon, and don't have any issues with working the controls at all.
Decide what features you need/want for the photos that you want to take, for example high/low ISO setting, availability of good quality stabilised zoom lenses, good AF performance, high fps rate, more pixels if you want to print large etc... then pop into your local camera store and try out the cameras that fit the bill, to see which one suits you the best. Ignore any photos that people post on a web forum as most of these will be shrunk down so much that it'll be impossible to tell the differences in quality between them.
Also, forget any Nikon's better than Canon or Canon's better than Nikon stuff - they both make great cameras that will produce fantastic results in the right hands. Both have plenty of users and supporters on here, so if you pick either you won't be short of advice from fellow users.
simpo two said:
Last month I made my first unprompted sale via Photobox.
The photograph was taken with a 3.2Mp compact.
Naturally it can't compare in resolution with a 6 or 8Mp picture, but who presses their nose to a picture on the wall anyway? The acid test for me is that somebody was actually prepared to part with their hard earned readies to pay for a copy, which I think is the best praise you can have
And thus with one fell swoop all my techno-babble falls to the ground.
Congrats Simpo! I have yet to be able to boast such an accolade (but the fact that my pics actually aren't for sale anywhere doesn't help!).
D
ehasler said:
It's very unlikely that a 6MP camera will be exactly the same as the 8MP one in all regards except resolution, so it's pointless to base your decision on pixel count alone.
If you simply want to save at 800 px wide to stick on a website, then you don't even need 1MP, so basing these discussions on images posted on the web is pretty pointless!
Topstuff's point about handling is very good though - I've just fitted a set of Ohlins to my Canon, and it'll take any Nikon round a set of twisties
I have the Renault F1 team working on my D70...
ehasler said:
Seriously though - having the greatest camera in the world is pointless if you don't like the way the controls work or it's too big/small/heavy/light for you. I've only ever used Canon, and don't have any issues with working the controls at all.
Decide what features you need/want for the photos that you want to take ... then pop into your local camera store and try out the cameras that fit the bill, to see which one suits you the best.
Ignore any photos that people post on a web forum as most of these will be shrunk down so much that it'll be impossible to tell the differences in quality between them.
All excellent points Ed, especially the last one. So perhaps Nikon and Canon should make a truce.
And duff up Pentax instead??
We know that......Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff