Which Digital SLR?
Discussion
I currently have a Cannon EOS 100 wet film camera and have got to the point where I feel that I have to exchange it for a digital. I am very happy with the Cannon, I like the size and feel, but the majority of the time I get the film processed and put straight onto disk so that I can view and manipulate the images on my PC. I normally use the camera for "point and shoot" type family photography but it does accompany me on "tour", my current camera has been to Cyprus, Bosnia, Iraq, Germany, etc, etc! I am, therefore, looking for something fairly robust that can be used to take a variety of photos in a variety of conditions. I have quite large hands and find that most non SLR digital cameras are to small and light for my tastes. I feel that in order to meet my needs I am looking at a mid-range SLR.
The two obvious candidates are the Cannon EOD 400D and the Nikon D80. Both have 10 mega pixel sensors and large screens. I have also been told that the Sony DSLR A100 is very good.
Does anyone have any insight into the choice or is it simply a "you pays your money" choice?
Many thanks,
Jon
The two obvious candidates are the Cannon EOD 400D and the Nikon D80. Both have 10 mega pixel sensors and large screens. I have also been told that the Sony DSLR A100 is very good.
Does anyone have any insight into the choice or is it simply a "you pays your money" choice?
Many thanks,
Jon
Unless you're a proffesional photographer digital SLR's are pretty fully featured for most amateurs and anything above 5MP will be more than ample unless you are enlarging things enormously. I would certainly go for the Canon for no other reason than your current lenses will probably fit it and reduce the cost of the initial outlay.
I have to be honest, by the way you've said "tour" I'm guessing you're an army bod...
Given that I would hazard a guess that the camera may get some rough treatment.
DSLRs are basically small computers and are quite fragile at the lower end and becoming more robust as you move up the respective ranges.
If my previous assertions are correct then i doubt an entry level DSLR would withstand much (if any) rough treatment, whereas a film SLR should be able to handle knocks far better.
There are as always exceptions, the 1D (note not the MK II) can be had for relatively little and being a Pro body will stand up well to rough treatment. Though it is "only" 4MP the image quality is far better than a 7MP point and shoot. bear in mind though it can limit how large you can print.
If you are going to treat it with kid gloves then for Canon the 30D would be the minimum I would look at (the 350 and 400 both have tiny grips that will get uncomfortable very quickly for someone with large hands). Though I'm not an expert with Nikon, the D50 can be had relatively cheaply and is a fair sized body (making it more comfortable).
I've made these suggestions as you've said basically it'll be used as a point and shoot for most situations.
The Sony Alpha has gotten reasonable reviews and has the advantage that IS is built into the body making every lens fitted image stabilized. I have to say I've never used this so I can't really tell you more than that.
Also Lens > Body a good body will show up cheaper lenses, whereas cheaper bodies can really shine with nice lenses. If you want low light options then a "fast" (wide apature) prime lens may be your best bet (such as the "nifty fifty" 50mm 1.8 fast, sharp and cheap)
And on a final note if you do want to go Canon you may want to hold out a bit as there are rumors of a 40D shortly.
Given that I would hazard a guess that the camera may get some rough treatment.
DSLRs are basically small computers and are quite fragile at the lower end and becoming more robust as you move up the respective ranges.
If my previous assertions are correct then i doubt an entry level DSLR would withstand much (if any) rough treatment, whereas a film SLR should be able to handle knocks far better.
There are as always exceptions, the 1D (note not the MK II) can be had for relatively little and being a Pro body will stand up well to rough treatment. Though it is "only" 4MP the image quality is far better than a 7MP point and shoot. bear in mind though it can limit how large you can print.
If you are going to treat it with kid gloves then for Canon the 30D would be the minimum I would look at (the 350 and 400 both have tiny grips that will get uncomfortable very quickly for someone with large hands). Though I'm not an expert with Nikon, the D50 can be had relatively cheaply and is a fair sized body (making it more comfortable).
I've made these suggestions as you've said basically it'll be used as a point and shoot for most situations.
The Sony Alpha has gotten reasonable reviews and has the advantage that IS is built into the body making every lens fitted image stabilized. I have to say I've never used this so I can't really tell you more than that.
Also Lens > Body a good body will show up cheaper lenses, whereas cheaper bodies can really shine with nice lenses. If you want low light options then a "fast" (wide apature) prime lens may be your best bet (such as the "nifty fifty" 50mm 1.8 fast, sharp and cheap)
And on a final note if you do want to go Canon you may want to hold out a bit as there are rumors of a 40D shortly.
Edited by wyvern971 on Wednesday 7th February 12:50
Agree with a lot of wyvern's comments.
350/400D a little flimsy-feeling, to be honest, as well as small. 20D/30D more solid (akin to D70/D80), but still wouldn't go mistreating the poor thing.
I bought a recon'd 20D nearly a year ago and it's been great so far. Cost not much more than a new 350D, and less than a D70S.
350/400D a little flimsy-feeling, to be honest, as well as small. 20D/30D more solid (akin to D70/D80), but still wouldn't go mistreating the poor thing.
I bought a recon'd 20D nearly a year ago and it's been great so far. Cost not much more than a new 350D, and less than a D70S.
Many thanks for the replies. I have been thinking about your suggestions and decided to look at e-bay fro prices. Looking at second hand the Cannon EOS 10D and the Nikon D70 both look to go for about £250 body only and about £350 for a kit with at least one lens. I do not have many lenses for my current camera so would be willing to change manufactures to get the most robust body; I suspect that lens design has moved forward as well since I bought the cannon! Which would be the best choice or am I missing a flanker?
Jon
Jon
JonLeeper said:
Many thanks for the replies. I have been thinking about your suggestions and decided to look at e-bay fro prices. Looking at second hand the Cannon EOS 10D and the Nikon D70 both look to go for about £250 body only and about £350 for a kit with at least one lens. I do not have many lenses for my current camera so would be willing to change manufactures to get the most robust body; I suspect that lens design has moved forward as well since I bought the cannon! Which would be the best choice or am I missing a flanker?
Jon
Jon
I think when it comes to the lens, what type of photography do you do? And also your budget.
Type of Photography will determine the focal length, I am guessing you want it for a "walkabout" landscapes, portraits and the like. I couldn't recommend Nikon as I don't know too much about them.
The Canon 17-40 F4L seems to be a well recommended walkabout lens, but it doesn't have much reach and is more expensive as it's an L lens
there are other makers such as the Sigma
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EOS1D-EOS
^^That is the original 1D which I mentioned earlier, well worth a look if ruggedness is a primary concern. They are bulletproof (not literally). Oh if you are going to bid on it say so and I won't cos I'm thinking about it....
The lower canon lens ranges are not built as heavily, the "L" lenses, which cost a premium and one of the reasons is build quality, it won't let you down.
JonLeeper said:
Many thanks for the replies. I have been thinking about your suggestions and decided to look at e-bay fro prices. Looking at second hand the Cannon EOS 10D and the Nikon D70 both look to go for about £250 body only and about £350 for a kit with at least one lens. I do not have many lenses for my current camera so would be willing to change manufactures to get the most robust body; I suspect that lens design has moved forward as well since I bought the cannon! Which would be the best choice or am I missing a flanker?
Jon
Jon
I have a 10D in excellent condition I've been meaning to sell (and I'll go lower than £250), send me a PM if you're interested.
I like the look of that EOS-1D but looking at previous sales they reach over £1,000 which is well outof my price range! Is this a reaslistic price or have I missed something, yet again! My normal "walkabout" lens is a Cannon 35-105, cannot remember the F stop, and that suits me for most of my shots. I am not looking to spend a very large ammount of money, ie not over £350 so it seems like the 1D is out of my price range.
There's a 1D here for sale which appears to be in much better condition, and has a fixed price:
http://bbs.scoobynet.com/photography-
John
http://bbs.scoobynet.com/photography-
John
The D40 gets a good write up.
And a decent review here as a starter DSLR. May not be as robust as some others though.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
Seems that its meant to come with a better kit lens than the Canon EOS 350D/400D
Anyone got any views?
Lee
And a decent review here as a starter DSLR. May not be as robust as some others though.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
Seems that its meant to come with a better kit lens than the Canon EOS 350D/400D
Anyone got any views?
Lee
Wow, the more I see the 1D the more I like it! The only problem is it is a bit out of my price range and I would have to buy new "L" lenses to make the most of the camera, and they cost too. I am, therefore, not able to justify this expence and must rule out the 1D as a possiblity for me.
Would the 10D be the next best choice? Are they fairly robust, given that my EOS 100 has survived everythign I have thrown at it, or am I better off changing to a Nikon?
Would the 10D be the next best choice? Are they fairly robust, given that my EOS 100 has survived everythign I have thrown at it, or am I better off changing to a Nikon?
I have a D40 - it does everything I want as a fairly regular and inexperienced amateur, and feels fairly well built, especially in relation to the Canon 350d/400d - I can't comment on others. It is pretty small though, so the OP may find it a little fiddly - fine for me as I have small hands 
Some of my old posts have a couple of example pics.
Some of my old posts have a couple of example pics. If you have recent Canon lenses, stay Canon.
If not, well, you're welcome over here at Nikon
I actually think the best DSLRs on the market at present are Canon. Give it a year it'll be Nikon, and then Canon again.... but they are the two big players at present (IMHO).
If not, well, you're welcome over here at Nikon
I actually think the best DSLRs on the market at present are Canon. Give it a year it'll be Nikon, and then Canon again.... but they are the two big players at present (IMHO).
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 7th February 18:40
I guess that it is really a question of taste in the end. I do not have any new enough lenses to really make any difference to my eventual choice.
I could go for second-hand; the EOS 10D, the 20D (more expensive), the Nikon D70, D80 (more expensive) or buy new and simply chance it and buy the Sony A100 (expensive). NOTE that expensive is a relative term and based on my budget of spending as little as possible!
My guess is that my best bet is an EOS 10D. It will do what I want and is the cheapest option. It will take my existing lenses, even if they are relatively old, and new lenses are plentiful, and is not USM, relatively cheep. If I do manage to break it I have not spent too much and I can update my lenses slowly. If I do go for the D70 I would have to buy a lens as I do not have anything that would fit. This would increase the minimum cost.
Anyone disagree violently?
I could go for second-hand; the EOS 10D, the 20D (more expensive), the Nikon D70, D80 (more expensive) or buy new and simply chance it and buy the Sony A100 (expensive). NOTE that expensive is a relative term and based on my budget of spending as little as possible!
My guess is that my best bet is an EOS 10D. It will do what I want and is the cheapest option. It will take my existing lenses, even if they are relatively old, and new lenses are plentiful, and is not USM, relatively cheep. If I do manage to break it I have not spent too much and I can update my lenses slowly. If I do go for the D70 I would have to buy a lens as I do not have anything that would fit. This would increase the minimum cost.
Anyone disagree violently?
If you find 35-105 an ideal walkabout lens then remember most digital SLR's have a crop factor.
That lens on a nikon (1.5) or canon(1.6) is more like a 56 - 160mm.
Thats true unless you go for a big canon (5D upwards). So your likely to buy a new lens anyhow. looking for something in the 20-60mm range (more like 17-50 or 17-70 or 18-85 or something).
All modern dSLR's aer fairly good, watch out for some gochas tho, D40 cant use a lot of nikon lenses, some cameras are better for sport than others(write/buffer speed) etc.
10D/300D are ok but old & relativly slow, great picture quality though. 20D is much better than the 10d not sure of price.
That lens on a nikon (1.5) or canon(1.6) is more like a 56 - 160mm.
Thats true unless you go for a big canon (5D upwards). So your likely to buy a new lens anyhow. looking for something in the 20-60mm range (more like 17-50 or 17-70 or 18-85 or something).
All modern dSLR's aer fairly good, watch out for some gochas tho, D40 cant use a lot of nikon lenses, some cameras are better for sport than others(write/buffer speed) etc.
10D/300D are ok but old & relativly slow, great picture quality though. 20D is much better than the 10d not sure of price.
Well I have decided to go witht he EOS 10D, srider you have PM! As this camera uses a CF card where is the best place to buy one, and what is the best to get? They appear to vary hugely in price from £57 for a 4Gb scandisc card up to £159 for a 2Gb CF II card. Is there a great difference between the cards and as i don't tend to take many sequential shots is the extra money justified?
Many thanks,
Jon
Many thanks,
Jon
JonLeeper said:
Would the 10D be the next best choice? Are they fairly robust, given that my EOS 100 has survived everythign I have thrown at it, or am I better off changing to a Nikon?
10D is still a great camera and it is well built. Ok, Starting up is just a bit slow in today's standard, but I didn't miss any shots because of it when I was using it.
Edited by Gemm on Thursday 8th February 11:10
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff