Yeah, yeah, it's the debate that never ends. It's emacs vs. vi. It's Coke vs. Pepsi. And I'm trying to make a decision. I'm now officially pondering going the SLR route, and facing the classic dilemma. I don't have any legacy lenses to influence my decision, although I do own a nice Canon flash. Several desires are pushing me to go to an SLR:

- faster frame rate and faster auto-focus (for shooting dancers, among other things)
- wider wide angle (for lots of things)
- better flash metering (metering on my Canon G3 is typically overexposed for close shots and underexposed for long shots)

As usual, I'm stuck pondering the two usual choices, and I seem to be leaning toward Nikon, which surprises me somewhat, since I've always been somewhat partial to Canon. Please double-check my thinking.


- Nikon has a better selection of wide-angle options. I'm particularly impressed with the new DX line, which seems to include:
- a 10.5mm fisheye (with optional software post-processing to "straighten" the image)
- a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom
- a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom
- a 12-24mm f/4 zoom

These lenses seem to be of extremely high quality and get good reviews, but they're physically smaller and lighter than lenses meant to cover a full 35mm film frame. I'd be tempted to own two of them, with the only question being which two (probably the expensive 10.5mm fisheye + the cheaper 18-70mm). Then I'd buy a third lens that could do more in the way of telephoto coverage.

On the Canon side, they've only got one "EF-S" lens (an 18-55mm zoom) that's intended to be cheap, not high-end, plus it only works with the cheapest Digital Rebel camera. You buy Canon glass and you're buying full-frame wide-angle lenses, such as Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 or 17-40mm f/4.0. Advantage Nikon. (Although, there are some interesting Sigma lenses, including a 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 lens that are available for Canon and Nikon.)

In terms of flash technology, I think Nikon has always had better metering and such over Canon. They seem to give you a lot more control over the flash, at any rate. Advantage? Possibly Nikon.

In terms of longer lenses, Canon has had the traditional advantage, but I'm unlikely to ever want to own a 600mm prime lens, and there's certainly no trouble in renting such a lens for either Canon or Nikon if I've got something specific I want to shoot. Both Nikon and Canon offer 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses with vibration reduction / image stabilization, which is what I'd likely want. No real advantage of one vendor or the other (for me, anyway).

In terms of the body, the Canon Digital Rebel, by all accounts, isn't up to snuff. The Nikon D70, for the same price, has gotten far more positive reviews and has better specs, in many ways, than the Nikon D100 (although I'd pay the extra $500 for a more solid metal body relative to a cheaper plastic body). The real questions for me are whether Nikon or Canon have successors to the EOS 10D / Nikon D100 coming out any time soon, and whether Canon plans to get serious about making EF-S lenses. Various accounts seem to say that Canon and Nikon have only put their "top" autofocus systems into the pro cameras (Nikon D1, D2H; Canon 1D, 1Ds). Maybe, with the low-end cameras pushing upward on the 10D/D100 class, the next generation of those cameras will have better autofocus tech.

Thoughts anyone?

Canon cameras, and lenses, cost less than Nikons.

Canon has a much broader selection of lenses.

Canon and Nikon lenses are of similar quality.

Nikon has way better exposure metering, and better flash metering.

Canon bodies are much better at high ISO (eg. 800, 1600, 3200) than are Nikon bodies -- important for night shots and indoor shots from a distance (eg. dancers).

Nikon lenses give you a choice of bodies from Nikon, Fujitsu, and Kodak. Canon lenses give you a choice of bodies from Canon and Kodak only.

The Canon 10D is the best all-around DSLR out there right now (no, I don't have one). The new Nikon D70 looks very good on paper -- but so did the D100 and it turned out to not be so good. .

Cheers

Canon has a much broader selection of lenses.

That's what I originally thought, but it's not true for wide-angle lenses. Particularly with sensors being smaller than a traditional 35mm frame, it's difficult if you want to shoot really wide images. You can spend the extra bucks on an EOS 1Ds or one of the Kodak bodies to get a full-frame sensor, but the Nikon DX lenses seem very attractive, particularly for their weight savings. You get many of the benefits that are normally claimed for the new 4/3 system, but you have backward compatibility to decades of used lenses.

Nikon has way better exposure metering, and better flash metering.

This may turn into a deciding factor for me.

The Canon 10D is the best all-around DSLR out there right now

And this is what's keeping me from going to B&H and just plunking down my credit card.

I've no experience w/ the Nikons, but I've got a 10D with a 20mm f/2.8 and the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.4 Image Stabilized lenses and the 550EX flash. I've been very happy so far. No complaints about the camera except for the awkward image zoom during playback mode. Build quality is superior to anything I've ever owned, and the features I use most are the ones lacking on the digital rebel (custom AF point button most notably).

I really enjoyed using a real flash - no more 'rim shadows' around my subjects. The E-TTL system is a bit quirky and does take some experimentation before getting comfortable with it.

Stepping up from the G3 I'm sure you're going to be very happy regardless of what you choose. I chose Canon for the wider lens selection and overall lower cost - I started with the Canon A2E film back and loved it - a good middle of the road film back with some cool 'gee-whiz' eye controlled focusing. Unfortunately, scanning film and correcting for dust & scratches got old in a hurry.

My first digital was the S35 (3.2MP) which I still enjoy shooting.

-Zeke

vi. coke.

hope this helps.

The lenses one purchases will outlast several digital camera bodies.. and my next camera body in 2 years will have a full-frame sensor.. Wouldn't want to be stuck with an unusable "DX" (cropped frame) lens when that time comes.

Image of the day:


(original is here)

While I have no hands on experience with SLR digitals, I've just joined a photography group and learned a few small things which might make the choice easier (or harder)
The actual size of the chip has an influence on the control you have on the image. For example, a good 35mm camera in good hands can control the depth of field. Apparently the size of the focal area (35mm vs 8mm) affects the final focal length. If you focus on a subject 20 feet away you can control the focal length to within a two feet with a large chip (and good conditions). The smaller chip might give you a minimum focal length of perhaps 6 feet either side.

Although this is only hearsay on my part, it comes from an elderly professional photographer so I'm guessing he knows his subject.

BTW, he got the Canon 300D

Although this is only hearsay on my part, it comes from an elderly professional photographer so I'm guessing he knows his subject

It is perfectly true.

I, too have a Canon D10, and my buying factor was the reviews I read on it, and the fact I have a Canon SLR (non-digital) body.
Why?
Simple. Buy one lense, works on both bodies. Get a shot set-up with digital camera, play with settings, make few test-shots, and some keepers. Then, pop lens over to film body, and take a few keepers.

Had mine a year now, and I can say that it's held up to some tough handling, and taken some very nice shots.
The *ONLY* downside that I have noticed is the picture area. The active size of the module increases your zoom some percentage (small, but noticable.).. This makes wide-angle lenses not-so. Depending on your lenses, it may be noticable..

Me.

That's what I originally thought, but it's not true for wide-angle lenses. Particularly with sensors being smaller than a traditional 35mm frame, it's difficult if you want to shoot really wide images. You can spend the extra bucks on an EOS 1Ds or one of the Kodak bodies to get a full-frame sensor, but the Nikon DX lenses seem very attractive, particularly for their weight savings. You get many of the benefits that are normally claimed for the new 4/3 system, but you have backward compatibility to decades of used lenses.

I haven't verified this, but my wife claims there's a lens you can only buy from Canon if you buy it with a Digital Rebel which is a 180 degree wide angle lens. I don't know the details, when she's next awake I can ask if you like.

The active size of the module increases your zoom some percentage (small, but noticable.).

I wouldn't call 60% extra zoom small. My 75-300mm lens is effectively 120-480mm on my 10D, that is a long lens.

Of course if I had a full frame DSLR with more pixels then cropping down the picture would have a similar effect. In that case my lense probably wouldn't cut it though, with the1.6x crop on the 10D I have the benefit of not using the edges of the len's field of view (which by all accounts are a bit blurry).

I haven't verified this, but my wife claims there's a lens you can only buy from Canon if you buy it with a Digital Rebel which is a 180 degree wide angle lens.

She is partly right, it is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 which only comes with the Digital Rebel/300D. It only fits that camera, because the rear of the lens extends back further than normal EF lenses. The DR/300D has a smaller mirror assembly than the other EOS SLRs, allowing more room for the lens to extend back. The mirror also moves differently to avoid the lens.

She is wrong about the field of view though, it isn't 180°; it is 75°-27° depending on the zoom.

It is reckoned to be a pretty good lens, given that it only costs around $120. Not nearly as good as the EF 17-40 f/4.0L though, but then that costs six times as much.

Oddly in the Japanese market the lens has proper USM focusing, but not in the US or Europe.

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_s18-55_35/ef_s18-55_35.html

Some people have sucessfully trimmed down the rear of the EF-S 18-55mm to make it fit normal EOS SLRs.

Wouldn't want to be stuck with an unusable "DX" (cropped frame) lens when that time comes.

The word on the 12-24mm Nikon DX zoom is that it's usable on 35mm film when zoomed out 16mm or wider. Of course, on your future 20mpixel camera of doom, you could always crop out the center of the image and have your super-wideangle image, just without all the pixels. In return, you save a bunch of weight.

See this review.

I was just about to push the `buy' button on the Nikon D70 and then I read this thread on dpreview. Now I'll have to sit on my hands and wait for Nikon to announce some sort of firmware upgrade or what have you. *sigh*

Automated Op-Art. Why would that bother you?

I personally would wait for the dpreview review before buying any DSLR.

At this point, I'm in no hurry to buy. Hopefully Phil Askey will be able to get to the bottom of the issue.

Phil has finally posted his review. In sum, he seems to really like the D70. He talks at length about moire issues, and seems to conclude that the solution is to use better raw image processing software. Hmmm....

I think if I was starting from scratch choosing between the D70 and 10D I would still pick the 10D. Those moire effects are just too nasty and never knowing when they would appear would drive me mad. I have never seen any moire on the 10D.

Of course, I'm fairly commited to Canon at this point, with my lenses already worth more than the camera...

I hope you haven't been infected with the "L" virus.. or have you?

(owner of 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L, as well as 50/1.4, 28/2.8, and 24-85).

Seems like this year's cameras (in pro-sumer and up) are all turkeys. All 8MP cameras seem like total and complete garbage to me. The Digital Rebel isn't all it's cracked up to be and the D70 had me yawning from the first press release. Spend the extra 1k and you get a much better camera.

Most reviewers are too soft in their reviews. They're definitely not critical enough or have lost their eye. I have seen all kinds of positive reviews for the 8MP prosumer cameras using Sony's sensor. Come on. Give me a break. They're all terrible. Soft focus, insane amount of noise, chromatic abberation abound... You name the problem, nearly all the cameras using that sensor have it.

SLR is the magic word right now. Put together any pile of crap, slap SLR on it, mark it at $999 and you have a sure-fire winner. With the level of image quality coming from current sensors, you have to do major reductions on your images to have them be acceptable when inspected on a computer. Sure, many of them will print fine to various sizes. Analog output devices introduce their own set of issues which can mask the camera's faults. The larger the sensor the less severe the problems of course. That's about the only thing the SLRs have going right now. They're leaning toward sensor sizes that can produce decent results. The micro-sensors in the 8MP stuff can be reduced to produce a half-decent 5MP or 4MP image, but that's about it. Unless you're looking at the doctored shots put up by the manufacturers themselves.

Sorry for the rant. I just think the latest batch of equipment is a scam.

Bruno

I hope you haven't been infected with the "L" virus.. or have you?

(owner of 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L, as well as 50/1.4, 28/2.8, and 24-85).

I won't say I have the virus yet, but I have shown some early symptoms. I've got the 24-85, 75-300 IS and 17-40L.

My next lens probably won't be an "L", as I think I might replace the 75-300 with the 70-300 IS DO at some point.

I can't see me buying another "L" soon. After replacing the 75-300 I might think about the 50/1.8 and a fisheye (the 17-40L just isn't wide enough sometimes on the 10D). Then maybe a macro. None of those would be "L" lenses.

Come to think of it, most of the remaining "L" lenses are big honking, white, tele-photos. I really can't ever see myself using one of them, they are just too heavy and too white. I'm not into the type of photography that calls for that firepower...

I guess the 24-70L is an exception to this, but weighing in at nearly three times the weight of the 24-85 it wouldn't suit me. Still, at least it is not white

I don't think it is my lenses limiting my photographic results at the moment, I don't seem to be taking photos of much that is interesting, except when I point my camera at my friend's/family's kids:

http://www.norman.cx/photos/Links/willandjamie.jpg

I don't think I understand where you are coming from on some of this.

I couldn't agree more on the current crop of small sensor 8MP non-SLR cameras. It is clear to me that they offer nothing useful over the 5/6MP versions of the same cameras. In some cases they are clearly worse than their lower MP count brothers and sisters.

Either non-SLR prosumer sensors need to get bigger, they need to stop cramming in more pixels or they need a quantum leap in the reduction of sensor noise.


The Digital Rebel isn't all it's cracked up to be...

...SLR is the magic word right now. Put together any pile of crap, slap SLR on it, mark it at $999 and you have a sure-fire winner. With the level of image quality coming from current sensors, you have to do major reductions on your images to have them be acceptable when inspected on a computer.

But this I don't get. The Digital Rebel has equal picture quality to the 10D, which I find to produce excellent results. Definitely far better than any 35mm filmcamera/scanner combination that I have used at a similar price (even before counting film processing costs).

When you say "inspected on a computer", don't forget that by taking a 6MP image and zooming in on it on screen you are scrutinising the image far more closely than people ever did with their prosumer 35mm film images. You are never going to view those images at that level (unless you are cropping small sections from them) except to inspect them for image quality

Sorry for the rant. I just think the latest batch of equipment is a scam.

I don't see how you can say this with regard to the DSLRs. The Digital Rebel and the D70 clearly provide image quality and performance that 12 months ago cost twice the price. They are a bargin for the performance they give you.

Most reviewers are too soft in their reviews. They're definitely not critical enough or have lost their eye. I have seen all kinds of positive reviews for the 8MP prosumer cameras using Sony's sensor.

Well Phil over at dpreview hasn't. If you compare his review of the Sony DSC-F828 with the DSC-F717 you will see that he quite clearly points out the problems with the new sensor and is lukewarm about the new camera.

The Digital SLRs from Canon and Nikon are among the very best cameras out there, and their picture quality (8x11 prints) far exceeds anything I ever got from my Canon/Minolta film SLR days.

But the current crop of SLR-wannabee's (look and act like SLRs, but with electronic viewfinders and non-interchangeable zooms) are so close and yet so far in many respects.

Of the bunch, I have used a couple, and the Minolta A2 is a real standout. I would absolutely *love* to have that camera in my kit! It works well, has great optics and very sensible ergonomics, and even has features that my 6mp digital SLR could really use (Canon D60, two generations old now, and still better than anything out there except the latest Canon and Nikon SLRs).

I especially like the Minolta's "live" histogram, built-in sensor "anti-shake" thingie, and the auto-switching on the viewfinder/back-LCD. A truly great camera!

Cheers

They're all terrible. Soft focus, insane amount of noise, chromatic abberation abound... You name the problem, nearly all the cameras using that sensor have it.

I think you're overstating the problem, although I do agree that there's no sense in these deeper megapixel wars. My 4 megapixel Canon G3 seems to capture significantly greater image detail than I could ever get back when I shot film, which I blame mostly on the ability to instantly review my images and make adjustments. I've got fantastically sharp pictures with lots of wonderful small details and beautifully low noise. However, you still often want to apply a mild unsharp mask just to tighten things up, and I've often seen the "purple fringe" effects if you blow out the highlights.

I won't disagree with you that something seems silly with the new 8 megapixel tiny sensor, but the SLRs with the 6 megapixel sensors seem quite reasonable. You get roughly the same resolution as a PhotoCD scan of a 35mm negative with what appears to be lower noise, better contrast, and better shadow detail. You have to be careful with highlights, just like with slide film. At $1000 for the Nikon D70 body, you're getting what appears to be a very reasonable product that hasn't been deliberately down-featured like the Canon D-Rebel. (This must imply that Nikon has an improved D100 around the corner, because the current D70 bests the D100 in a number of ways.)

I'm still holding back until the software catches up to the Nikon D70, then I'll probably buy one. Nikon needs to develop firmware to address their moire problem if you're shooting in JPEG mode. Likewise, Bibble and Adobe Camera Raw need to get updated to support the D70, presumably including better moire reduction than Nikon does by default. Once all of that is in place, then I'll pull the trigger and turn myself into a D-SLR snob.

I read everything I could ( many hours on dpreview especially ), and still could not decide.

However once I went and spend a hour in a camera shop, handling the Canon and Nikon's, it was an easy decision, the D100 feels like everything is where it should be, and solid to hold.

Guess it will be different for everyone, but you do have to try them out.

If you do go Nikon, there is some great information on Lenses here:

http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

and here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

The lenses should be a big factor.

Well, in my experience, Nikon tends to have better glass in their lenses on average, and thus their lenses cost a bit more than Canon. But I wasn't too happy with the Nikon D100 I played with, among other things it seemed a little too complex compared to F100 film camera, and even that was more complex than I wanted. However, as with all things, I'm sure the learning curve is something that can be overcome.

On the other hand, if you go with Canon, as I intend to, with the D10, just stick with good glass lenses, like those in the L series. I've also been impressed with the compatible versions of the high end Sigma line, namely the 180mm 1:1 Macro lens. Here you get a great quality lens without having to buy the Canon name.

[edit]
I think I forgot to mention the main reason why lenses are important. I imagine a digital cameral will get retired after a few years in play, as technology improves. You will probably update the camera, but you'll end up keeping the lenses. I started out with a Rebel 2000 a few years ago, bought canon lenses, then I moved up to the EOS3 (love it!!!), upgraded some lenses, kept others, now I'm looking to get a D10 to add to the bag. I use an S50 to hold me over till then (love it!!!)

Greg

Well I've just gone for a Canon 300D, in the end there were 2 very non-technical reasons I went for the Canon...

1 - Prefered the feel of the Canon, personal preferance, I didn't like the finish on the Nikon.

2 - My Uncle has a Canon EOS SLR, so I can borrow his lenses before buying my own.

Both Cameras out perform anything else that I was looking at, I would have been happy with either but the Canon had the edge for me.

I got a really good deal at Jessops! He threw in about £100 worth of extras and price matched an internet ebay "Buy It Now" price for a SanDisk Ultra II 512Mb CF Card, and 9 months interest free (wasn't going to use that, but why not ) I could have got a grey import much cheaper I suppose.

Cheers

Cris.

I think I accidentally shuffled a few lines of text around while writing.

The images coming from the 6MP sensors in the Rebel and D70 are not comparable to the 8MP I was scrutinizing elsewhere in the post. Those two cameras just have a slew of other issues when compared to their film cousins. Poor body construction only one of those things.

I'm also not a fan of producing the big bulk of a traditional SLR while fitting it with a sub-sized sensor (DX in the case of the D70). Now you have a camera that uses the same mount as your older film camera but anything shot with older lenses doesn't use the full lense. Move to a new mount already or put a full-frame sensor in the camera please. Film cameras also had to deal with a number of constriants that aren't present with digital, such as cartridge and film space, so how about making the bodies smaller?

I love the size of the Nikon 5700. I hate the sensor. I'd like something between it and the D70 in size, with a full-frame sensor. Magnesium body, not plastic. Full flash capabilities, high-speed ports (USB2hs or IEEE1394), a bucket-load of built-in and very FAST RAM, a super-fast processor and maybe a 12mp sensor. Ideally a true-color sensor if anyone ever makes a good one. I want fast shot-to-shot times using internal memory with parallel (deferred) writing to flash..

I'd hate to have to go with the D70 right now, but I don't need an SLR bad enough at this time to force me into it. If I needed one as part of employment however, I'd spend additional bucks and get something more durable. The D70 is more of a hobbyist camera.

I had high hopes of the new 8MP prosumer models, but those are all an extreme let down. Their weaknesses in image quality prevent me considering any of them as a replacement for my 5MP 5700.

Bruno

You're asking for some things that may not be technically feasible. In particular, to have a larger sensor, you need to either have a larger lens, or you need to have a less that doesn't open as wide. Part of why the fixed-lens digicams are so nice, is that, by using a physically small sensor, they can engineer custom optics that provide lots of light without taking up much space.

Another issue is the absolute size of the pixels. When you get physically small enough, diffraction issues start becoming a real problem. It's difficult to focus visible light smaller than a certain size. So, to have higher resolution, you're forced to have a physically large sensor, and that requires larger lenses. But, you still have to worry about fabrication defects, so the yield will always be lower (and the cost higher) on larger sensors.

Likewise, some of the other features you're asking for (particularly larger memory buffers) are expensive and won't be a feature that a non-technical customer will ever care about. Only the sports photographers really want those features, and they're buying top-of-the-line D-SLRs. Those giant lenses weigh so much that the camera's weight is irrelevant.

I actually think Nikon's DX standard is a good idea. By having a smaller image circle, they can engineer smaller and lighter lenses, selling you amazing toys like a 10.5mm fisheye lens for $600 or so. Nobody else comes close to that. It's a whole lot easier for Nikon to do it when the lens doesn't need to produce a larger image circle.

I agree that it would be nice to have smaller and lighter SLR cameras. Of course, you're welcome to get fixed-lens cameras, many of which are quite good, but they're not aimed at the high-end professional's needs. Olympus D-SLRs are noticably smaller than their film cameras, having the lens all the way on one side. So, at least one vendor has heard your complaint. Still, I imagine that Nikon and Canon are happy to have all that internal room to cram in all the extra electronics that they don't need in a film camera. I doubt there's much open air.