300D vs D70

[loupgarou]

watcher, don't get personal. that's not a way to conduct a debate.
who says nikon users don't go over. who says that I have to be tied only to canon? don't be silly.

really, if you're so confident, the empirical facts of any system can convince anyone, you don't have to come up with sarcastic remarks like you do.

---------------------------------
Special effects? (like "drop of milk splashing on red surface")?

has been done with the 300D, 1/200 flash sync will already do. perhaps you want to show me your bullet piercing apple trick instead? can that be done at 1/500 flash sync or still not enough?

basically, its just not a significant advantage.

 

[checker]

One strange observation: Canon users come over here to debate, while Nikon users don't go over. I wonder why...

haha...totally agree. why so?

 

[loupgarou]

You can't even even get your terminology right . Let be give you a free clue (save your money for the expensive L lenses ): 70-200 VR is a full frame AF-S lens...
As for those non-full frame cameras vs FF, try again. It has been debated to death. These lenses can be used on the lower end. The main reason is because of the FLM. With FF, the FLM is 1.0 so can use back the same existing range of lenses... , while the 1.5 FLM cameras will remain on the low end. That is why some new lenses are still FF.

ok: sorry for that ignorance, apparently its just these lenses.
AF DX Fisheye 10.5mm f/2.8G ED*
AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED
AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED**
AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED*

the DX ones. so you're telling me after you fork out for a 12-24 mm, you can use it on a full frame sensor body and get the full 12-24 mm at the full megapixel capability of the new sensor?

as compared to buying a sigma 12-24

 

[mpenza]

haha...totally agree. why so?

check out the title ;p it's the only thread in the forum started by checker.

anyway, I don't affliate myself with any company, so it isn't appropriate with me to reply ;p as a camera user, I study the pros and cons of different systems.

 

[OpenLens]

anyway, I don't affliate myself with any company, so it isn't appropriate with me to reply ;p as a camera user, I study the pros and cons of different systems.

Honestly, there are really only pros and cons if your needs are very specific (i.e. like speed & reach in photographing sports events or durability in nature or wildlife photography). Beyond that it is just a matter of using what you have as best as you can to get the pictures you want and that's 100% on you and 0% on your camera.

 

[loupgarou]

What if the other brand does not offer better? Then what? You are basing your arguement on you breaking the camera? Shouldn't that be handled by insurance and not the camera manufacturer?

a) is your current camera insured? for how much? there's a maximum liability and its based on depreciation as well. is the depreciation determined by nikon, or the market.

b) again, the EOL thing only mattters based on those arguements,
if you never ever change bodies, is the EOL thing significant to you?
if you never plan to upgrade to a new camera, is it signifcant to you?
if your camera breaks, is it significant to you that the only replacement is the same model?

the fact that before you buy you can plan based on all the information available, take your pick as to which you want.

But this is based on the assumption that 300D mk3 is significantly better than D70 mk 2. But what if it is not? I mean, D60 mk 2 (10D btw) is not significant better than D100. In fact, it is just about the same. So now what? More than once, you have based your assumption that newer => better. With Canon's product life cycle, there is very little time for them to react to what the competitors produce...

again, how we define better?
remember, even price comes into play.
Here you can say that the 300D mk3 is not necessarily superior to D70 mk 2, but again, you never know.
For example, the 10D mk2 is expected out anytime soon, its it going to have as
a total package (price/feature) richer than the D100? we just have to wait and see.

However, common sense indicates that the later version will also better (either at price/features/speed/etc) than an earlier version, otherwise there's no room to market.

What i can predict is that it will.
its rather similar to the computer industry, where moore's law predicts a quadrupling of processing power every decade.
The cost of manufacturing electronics will go lower as times goes by, we can see that due to globalisation/outsourcing trends.

The cost of manufacturing is not up to N or C.

indeed, but global trends indicate cheaper electronics every year.

 

[Winston]

Well, although the 300D's X-sync is only 1/200, compared to D70's 1/500, the 300D is capable of ISO 100 while the D70 is ISO 200.

So there is a 1 stop difference in min. ISO rating.
So it D70's ISO 200, 1/500 is the equivlant of a ISO 100, 1/250, in terms of exposure. right? (please correct me if I made a mistake)

If true, then the "ISO 100, 1/250" equivlant of the D70 is pretty near to the 300D at ISO 100, 1/200

But I like the D70 being able to adjust the ISO in 1/3 EV steps instead of 1 EV Step.

 

[loupgarou]

Yeah... like the 17-35L, 16-35L, 17-40L vs Nikkor's 17-35/2.8. Also the Nikkor 1200-1700

where are the specs for the nikkor 1200-1700?
I cannot find it at
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/autofocus.htm
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/manual.htm

nonetheless, if it does exist, you can't afford it 8)

 

[loupgarou]

incidentally, I suggest everyone keep this civil,
a) you're not convincing anyone already posting in this thread to change systems, you're trying to provide people reading this thread with all the information they need to decide on any system.

b) you're not them, so you shouldn't need to get emotional on who buys what, its not like they are giving you money or you're "camera brand" share holder.

 

[Winston]

where are the specs for the nikkor 1200-1700?
I cannot find it at
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/autofocus.htm
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/manual.htm

nonetheless, if it does exist, you can't afford it 8)

It's a Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8.0 Manual Focus.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm

Meanwhile there is also a Nikkor 2000mm f/11 Reflex
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/2000mm.htm

 

[OpenLens]

where are the specs for the nikkor 1200-1700?
I cannot find it at
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/autofocus.htm
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/manual.htm

nonetheless, if it does exist, you can't afford it 8)

The Nikkor 1200-1700/f5.6-8 Ai-P EDIF lens was displayed at Photokina in 1990 as a proof of concept. Nikon just wanted to prove that such a lens could be manufactured. As of 1993 it has been a special order only item and can be yours for a mere US$75,000 :bigeyes:

 

[mpenza]

But I like the D70 being able to adjust the ISO in 1/3 EV steps instead of 1 EV Step.

erm. you meant "1/2 EV instead of just 1/3 EV step" right? Many cameras, 300D included, allow adjustment in 1/3 EV steps.

 

[loupgarou]

I'm impressed with its size. it makes the sigma 300-800 look small.

need to go find a picture of Canon 5200mm f14.5 now...hahah


*ps: cannot find canon 5200mm f/14.5 except on nikon related pages...

 

[loupgarou]

realistically speaking, most stuff above 500mm is beyond any of us/outweighs cost/benefit analysis. so we should be look at that <500mm anyway. and with AF.

 

[Winston]

The Nikkor 1200-1700/f5.6-8 Ai-P EDIF lens was displayed at Photokina in 1990 as a proof of concept. Nikon just wanted to prove that such a lens could be manufactured. As of 1993 it has been a special order only item and can be yours for a mere US$75,000 :bigeyes:

Hm... US$75,000 is still cheaper than the S$200,000 listed for Canon's 1200mm f/5.6L, though it's only MF.

 

[OpenLens]

realistically speaking, most stuff above 500mm is beyond any of us/outweighs cost/benefit analysis. so we should be look at that <500mm anyway. and with AF.

:bsmilie: Yeah

The Nikkor is 3 feet in length and weighs in at 36 pounds. :bigeyes: It's not worth the bad back :sweatsm:

 

[loupgarou]

Hm... US$75,000 is still cheaper than the S$200,000 listed for Canon's 1200mm f/5.6L, though it's only MF.

cos canon charge for the L ....
in anycase USD75000 is today worth SGD128,341.13 so is 72K savings worth the loss of MF?

^^stupid question, you wouldn't buy either..

 

[Winston]

erm. you meant "1/2 EV instead of just 1/3 EV step" right? Many cameras, 300D included, allow adjustment in 1/3 EV steps.

I meant to say the 300D only allows ISO settings of 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600. standard 1 stop stepping.

Whereas in the D70, the ISO settings allowed are more varied, ISO 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600

 

[Winston]

cos canon charge for the L ....
in anycase USD75000 is today worth SGD128,341.13 so is 72K savings worth the loss of MF?

^^stupid question, you wouldn't buy either..

I think you meant to say "is 72K savings worth the loss of [U}AF[/U]?"

Yes, you're right, I can't afford either one in my lifetime.

Still I think for 1200-1700mm, you would mostly likely be leaving the focusing ring at infinity because the subject will be very far away? so the loss of AF shouldn't be a big issue?

 

[Watcher]

ok: sorry for that ignorance, apparently its just these lenses.
AF DX Fisheye 10.5mm f/2.8G ED*
AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED
AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED**
AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED*

the DX ones. so you're telling me after you fork out for a 12-24 mm, you can use it on a full frame sensor body and get the full 12-24 mm at the full megapixel capability of the new sensor?

as compared to buying a sigma 12-24

You did say "the AF-S is a 1.5x crop lens. ie: smaller image circle. as such cannot be used on full frame slr bodies" in post #11. To be honest, these fundamental mistakes takes away most credibility that you have.

Now, what I meant is this: The FF equivalent already existed in lieu of DX. As many had said, DX is most useful for wider than for longer.

10.5 -> 14mm fisheye
12-24 -> 17-35
17-55 -> 28-70
18-70 -> 28-105

The price range even matches or that the DX is cheaper (eg 12-24).

When (not if) in future FF comes in, it will still be more expensive than a camera with 1.5x FLM; more silicon cost more $$$. So most likely, it will come in for the pros. Even then the entry level and prosumer level (D70 and D100/D200 respectively) DSLRs can still use these DX lenses. What is wrong with selling them in say 4 years? The 12-24 cost about the price of a 300D. Guess which one will become obsolete first?

BTW, I can still use the 12-24 from 18-24 on FF cameras film and DSLR that can take G lenses.