Reasons to choose D70 over 350D?

[espn]

Next time you guys replied after me and find that I don't reply, means I'm asleep, so carry on next morning ok...



--

I take is as a tongue in cheek comment ;p It's definitely a waste of the fast focussing speed on a Nikon body that can't utilise it.

Hey, you never read my fine print :bsmilie: Of course it was meant TICc.

All cameras have in-camera processing. No camera maker dumps pure sensor data into the RAW file. Every camera has more than the NR algorithm working. There is color information data(Bayer pattern), in-camera sharpening, contrast correction, etc.

When a camera switches to a higher ISO, the amount of light hitting the sensor is less. That means the sensor collects less data. The sensor at higher ISO doesn't "react" faster like fast films used to. Instead, the signal at the sensor is boosted as needed for the higher ISO settings. This means there is not only sensor data, but also information needed for gain control and increase for the higher ISO.

In-camera processing is correct, processing of the light intensity, filtering the light to colours, forming the pixels and data and saving it. That's in-camera processing.

Nikon probably manages the amount of memory needed well as shown by the consistent buffer space available. Canon probably has to allocate more space for the added ISO boost data, and does not handle it well, thus the buffer drops.

Ah... so we can see which system performs better now...

But to say that only Canon does in-camera junk while Nikon doesn't, is spun misinformation. If you used a D2X, ask yourself why sometimes ISO200 or ISO400 is superior to ISO100. The answer is in the D2X's aggressive noise reduction.

I didn't say in-camera junk, you did. All I'm implying is that Canon post-processes the images within the camera itself before saving the files. That's all. I didn't use the word junk, you did.

I have used a D2X, I have seen real life samples from images around me by friends, test samples from Nikon etc. How ISO is superior varies from settings and exposure and personal preference. It doesn't mean ISO 100 should be the best among the rest. Note, NR is present in the D2X, long exposure NR, high ISO NR. They can be turned ON/OFF, Low, Med, High. Btw, noise is removed. not details.

Check it out.

 

[jamestan]

Next time you guys replied after me and find that I don't reply, means I'm asleep, so carry on next morning ok...

We can see by the little green dot...

 

[flambe]

Second that! These things are so subjective that at the end of the day, the operator counts much more than the equipment...

sorry, i think this is the most sensible post in the entire thread. really no need to lost sleep over it and ignore the chatter, we like a good fight sometimes.

goodnight everyone.

 

[Watcher]

As discussed before, it's a different marketing strategy. I'm sure there are good non-constant max f stop lens from Nikon too that many (even pros) won't mind using.

Each lens has to be evaluated on its own. A lens won't be popular and widely used if the performance is poor (whether it's constant max f-stop, L, ED, etc doesn't matter). A non-ED or non-L lens could be popular and widely used (of course not all could afford it) if the performance is good.

If I may say so, the current crop of L lenses and top end Nikon lenses have been keeping up with the reputation built over the years.

BTW, Nikon does it exactly like what you said in para 2 above. They have never given a moniker or label to its pro or non pro lenses (with the exception of the 'E's ) nowadays. No such thing as L or non-L.

 

[mpenza]

It's just a name for me and doesn't really bother me. I'll be as happy to get a non-L as a L if it suits my purpose and requirement. Nikon uses other "characters" to name their lenses "G, IF, D, ED" etc and "IF-ED" ones need not mean better quality than non "IF-ED" ones.

btw, espn compared the AF-S 200-400 F4 (Nikon's current longest lens with VR right?) to the Canon 100-400L IS (around 4 times cheaper!). The more appropriate comparison should be with the AF VR ZOOM 80-400mm instead (in the same price range). Canon does have several longer lenses with IS but Nikon would probably release similar VR ones if it saw a need.

 

[Watcher]

It's just a name for me and doesn't really bother me. I'll be as happy to get a non-L as a L if it suits my purpose and requirement. Nikon uses other "characters" to name their lenses "G, IF, D, ED" etc and "IF-ED" ones need not mean better quality than non "IF-ED" ones.

They name it to indicate what is inside the lens, just like you indicate what are the components inside a computer eg AMD64 -3500, 2GB Crucial RAM, etc.

 

[Watcher]

1. That was meant as an example, fyi. I need the speed of focusing. If you can use manual 100-400 and produce WOW pictures ON SEA, then good for you. I cannot. My level of skill not there. OK??

2. It does when you need to crop.

I understand your point one, but I was replying to mpenza in post #125 who had said

so if any user has special needs, do check out what both systems could offer and decide accordingly. But for general users, either system is good enough.

His post was in response to me bring up the fact that Canon does not have a digital fisheye at all. You may need the speed, I would need the fisheye.

As for point 2, if you crop the image to the required angle of view, the total pixel count does not matter, the pixel density does. That is why in a hypothetical situation of between a D2X vs 1DsMkII (OT, I know , the D2X will give you a better outcome for cropping.

 

[TechMage]

If you buy D70...you can join us in NUG...if you buy 350D...you still can come to NUG...but you will be sitting one corner on your own :lovegrin:

No need to sit one corner you can always come over to CanonGraphers.
;p :sticktong :sweat:

 

[sofunny]

get canon 350D lah for the cheaper lens but expensive flash.

 

[Smurfie]

Ah... so we can see which system performs better now...

*sigh*
Borrowed from www.dpreview.com
D70
RAW: 2.9fps for first 4 frames, 1 fps sustained after buffer full.
Large JPEG/Fine: 2.9fps for first 12 frames, 2.4fps for subsequent 8, 2.2fps after buffer full.

350D
RAW: 2.9fps for first 6 frames, 1 fps sustained after buffer full.
Large JPEG/Fine: 2.9fps for first 27 frames, 1.8fps sustained after buffer full.

I didn't say in-camera junk, you did. All I'm implying is that Canon post-processes the images within the camera itself before saving the files. That's all. I didn't use the word junk, you did.

Yes, I used the word junk because I have no idea what goes on in the camera to the CF card. I don't know what shenanigans Canon does to its images, neither do I know what stunts Nikon pulls for its own. But high ISO means more data processed because not only is there light data, but also gain data. There is additional information that needs processing. Canon probably treats that information without discarding it, or Nikon discards that data. Nobody knows who is right or wrong. Unless you have documentation detailing their processes, all you are doing is speculating.

I have used a D2X, I have seen real life samples from images around me by friends, test samples from Nikon etc. How ISO is superior varies from settings and exposure and personal preference. It doesn't mean ISO 100 should be the best among the rest. Note, NR is present in the D2X, long exposure NR, high ISO NR. They can be turned ON/OFF, Low, Med, High. Btw, noise is removed. not details.

Check it out.

In the world of light, every photon is the equivalent of a bit of data in the PC. The more photons you collect, the more data you obtain. Having a higher ISO setting simply means you are collecting less photons.

As to the D2X, it's a fantastic camera, which I'm glad Nikon released. The noise reduction in the D2X works, and again, I'm glad. However, where or when the D2X performs this noise reduction, is a mystery. Do we know exactly when the D2X does it? But Nikon perhaps manages their buffer better, or does memory management differently, I don't know. However, they manage the buffer space well and again, I'm glad they do it well. But to use this to say that Canon performs "NR algorithmn behind working thus the buffer has to drop because the processing power is split" is spun misinformation. You have a point if you state that Canon does not utilize their buffer properly.

In fact, my fellow colleague sitting behind me and laughing in stitches over this, just commented that perhaps it's Nikon who clamps on the frame count and has empty buffer space which it won't let photographers shoot more frames into the buffer. This is of course absolutely UNTRUE. But this is how speculation leads to such misinformation being spreaded around. Perhaps you need to defend Nikon or something, I don't know. But stick to the facts at least?


Major disclaimer: I do not know for sure if the number of frames that the 350D can buffer really drops if you select a higher ISO setting. I am simply assuming that epsn is right. I don't have a 350D, nor does anyone nearby have one, so I can't test if epsn is correct.

 

[mpenza]

They name it to indicate what is inside the lens, just like you indicate what are the components inside a computer eg AMD64 -3500, 2GB Crucial RAM, etc.

Yup, that's why I said it's a different marketing strategy. Nikon does have some differentiation of their lenses publicly just that they don't give a name to the "pro" series of lenses.

e.g. check out the press releases:

For some pro lenses:
-a new high speed super-telephoto professional lens
-Nikon’s Nano-Crystal anti-reflective coating, all to deliver professional quality sports and action photography.
-features optimum performance
-The lens is targeted at professional and advanced amateur photographers to whom the advantages of high optical performance and high speed are top priorities.
-designed for sport and nature photographers
-The lenses give away nothing in performance and quality

For some non-pro lenses:
-an ultracompact, lightweight standard zoom lens ......... ideal for everyday photography
-remarkable cost-to-performance ratio
-a compact standard zoom lens with a highly practical wide-angle to medium telephoto focal range, good cost performance
-inherits features familiar from Professional Nikkor lenses such as
high performance, practical zoom lens suitable for many subjects and lighting conditions.

The phrases used were quite different.

 

[Watcher]

BTW, this just dropped into DPReview today: "The Great DSLR Shoot-Out". Alas without 350D

Summary of the second part which has the overall results: 1) 20D 2)D70 3) 7D. Nowhere is the Digital Rebel (300D). As for coming in #2, pretty good for a camera that is 1/2 the price (body-only) of the #1. They actually made a mistaking in saying that eTTL II is on par with iTTL. It should be like on par with DTTL instead...

 

[mpenza]

They haven't had their hands on the 350D. D70s isn't there too along with the still-in-production D100 (would it be placed above D70 or be out of the top 3 despite being more expensive?).

Extracted from the same article (please refer to it for the details):

Sub-categories (rankings in order):

Image Quality - Canon 20D, Fujifilm S3 Pro, Nikon D70
Ease of Use - KM 7D, Canon 20D, Pentax *ist DS
Control - Canon 20D, Nikon D70, KM 7D
System Flexibility - Canon 20D, Nikon D70, KM 7D

 

[Watcher]

They haven't had their hands on the 350D. D70s isn't there too along with the still-in-production D100 (would it be placed above D70 or be out of the top 3 despite being more expensive?).

Extracted from the same article (please refer to it for the details):

Sub-categories (rankings in order):

Image Quality - Canon 20D, Fujifilm S3 Pro, Nikon D70
Ease of Use - KM 7D, Canon 20D, Pentax *ist DS
Control - Canon 20D, Nikon D70, KM 7D
System Flexibility - Canon 20D, Nikon D70, KM 7D

D100 is not in the list of DSLRs in comparison. Since 350D is a replacement for 300D... Although I have to say that I think that the review was done in Jan or early Feb before 350D or D70s came out. If D70, which is 50% of the price of 20D (#1) can be #2, and that 350D < 20D (in price if nothing else )...

 

[mpenza]

I don't necessary agree with all the ratings (e.g. system flexibility would probably be more fairly assessed to be a tie). But based on their methodology, Canon 20D is quite a bit ahead of all the other cameras reviewed (3 1st's and 1 2nd in the subcategories, the most important category considered by PopPhoto being Image Quality where it's at least 2 places above the overall 2nd and 3rd placed cams). 350D if assessed would likely be second or third.

btw, performance aside (always debatable), E-TTL is ahead of D-TTL in terms of features (wireless trigger and TTL highspeed sync) supported but I feel that I-TTL is more advanced than E-TTL2.

 

[Simresd]

To the thread creator,

you did not tell us your level of photography ability, understanding of equipment and what you are looking for in your new camera. From the way you post, it seems that this is your first DSLR camera.

Assuming you are a newcomer trying out DSLR,

It always wise to first reconsider why you should get DSLR when high-end prosumer are also very capable, versatile and cheaper. Also it depends on if you can detect or even need the difference in quality and the skills involved to get the quality.

Again assuming that you have decided DSLR is the way to go, try out both cameras in the shop for its built and output photos with the kit lens. Bring your CF along and gaze at the photos you bring home for as long as you like. If not enough, supplement with photos from DPreview. Reason because this is what you will get currently, enough to convince yourself that you have got a good buy.


Read up on the technical part to decide which one will fulfill your needs. This thread so far has serve quite some reading :bsmilie:

Items i would advise to ignore for the moment:
1/marketing hype
2/lense range!

I may be flamed for suggesting you to ignore the lense range for the start since lenses will form the biggest part of your photography expenditure. However, how i view is you should get the kit lense and move on to explore what you need, then finding the system that suit your needs. Talking about all the lenses you need even before doing any shooting is like learning to swim on land. :sweat: There are so many things to learn regarding DSLR photography. Are you going to learn them all before you make your decision?

Both are pretty capable cameras. Learn to accept its cons and exploit its pros. When you have a better understanding of the DSLR photography, you will naturally know what you need. Better still, you probably understand by then, the camera is just an equipment. The photographer counts more when the cameras in concern are not the limiting factor.

Learning is a process. Theres no single right answer so dont even expect for a model solution. :angel:

Hope you have decided by now. Remember to enjoy your camera, regardless your choice.

 

[Smurfie]

That is not true and has been used as an excuse by many even by a shop assistant in a well-known camera shop. Read this thread. Search for the title "clumpy fur" and see that is the difference and of course the amusing fact that more Nikon users got it right vs more Canon users got it wrong

A simple logic on why noise reduction software needs to have samples and have profiles like in Neat Image to optimize noise reduction indicate logically that each camera will have different characteristics that can discriminate between cameras and brands.

2 different images of 2 different situations. That is a fair test?

But you can hardly get lenses of the same specs and quality at the same time for both brands. Even then, the technical characteristics like CA, distortion, light fall off, resolution can be used to determine which is superior. If you need to shoot wide, and you get the result seen in the middle of this page, which system would you interpret as a better one?

Super wide angles have been a vignetting bugbear with film cameras since super wide angles were introduced. I don't get the point which you are making here. Are you saying that all film cameras suck just because of this?

The whole issue of whether Nikon's DX format or Canon's 1.6x crop format makes sense or not vs the full frame cameras, is something best left to personal preferences. Some prefer full frame, and always works with full frame, some prefer the APS-C sized format. One crops the view and gives you the impression of a longer focal length, the other gives you the full flexibilities and similarities to the old school film shooters.

Is one superior to the other, it depends on your shooting style. Many are embracing the APS-C sized formats because they enjoy the longer reach, thus saving on money. However, one sacrifice which many people make is that they lose their ability to achieve very shallow DOF(depth of field). In return, APS-C sized formats capitalize on the superior light collection capability of most lenses, which is a natural property of lenses anyway. It is not strictly good or bad per se. I will give you an example of why.

Having shot many gymnastics events, I noticed a very common trend. The D2X, 1Dmk2 and 20D are very popular cameras when used in outdoor sports. Thus I expected these same cameras to be extremely popular in indoor sports. But no, it is not the case. The 1Dmk2 can be seen used by photographers in indoor sports, but prevalently, I see film or even an occasional 1Dsmk2. Why is that? In indoor sports, you have a lot of background noise(spectators, sponsor billboards, judges tables, etc), which you want blurred out. Many professionals whom I discussed this with, do not like the wide DOF the 20D or D2X gives. When we shoot indoors, we are talking about 85-200mm lenses being used due to the short distances between the photographers and the athletes. The shorter the lens, the wider the DOF we get. Now, supposingly, we shoot the parallel bars. Using a 1Dmk2, the optimal focal length is usually 85-100mm. If I used a D2X, what focal length would I need to use? A 50mm probably. Can you imagine the kind of depth of field I would get?

That is not to say that APS-C sized sensor cameras are bad. While film users or 1Dsmk2 users might need >$10000 super telephotos or telephoto converters, APS-C sized sensor cameras get it for free. We are technically using APS-C sized sensor cameras with lenses "technically" not designed for them. But since we can use them, or rather abuse them, for better advantage, why not? But if we continually think that these smaller sized sensor cameras are always superior to full frame cameras, let me ask you, are those 1/1.8" sensor cameras like the Nikon Coolpix superior to our Nikon DX cameras? Why? Similarly, if someone builds a lens adapter to fit MF or LF lenses on the 1Dsmk2, he technically has an analogous equivalent of our FF vs APS-C cameras. Does that make MF or LF cameras obsolete?

 

[ortega]

buy the camera that most of your kaki's have, that way you can share stuff and also talk about cameras without much debate on which is better, enjoy photography with your photo kakis

 

[Steven Yee]

get canon 350D lah for the cheaper lens but expensive flash.

I thought the higher end Canon lenses are more expensive than Nikon? Even for a Nikon 70-300mm G lens is cheaper than the Canon's equivalent.

When I made a major switch from Minolta to Nikon in 1995, the cost and range of lenses was the main reason why I chose Nikon as my main investment.

Anyway, I have a few systems (Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, Minolta, Leica, Sony, Pentax...some sell away liao), but I use Nikon most of the time. Personal preference lah.

 

[KNIGHT ONG]

I thought the higher end Canon lenses are more expensive than Nikon? Even for a Nikon 70-300mm G lens is cheaper than the Canon's equivalent.

When I made a major switch from Minolta to Nikon in 1995, the cost and range of lenses was the main reason why I chose Nikon as my main investment.

Anyway, I have a few systems (Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, Minolta, Leica, Sony, Pentax...some sell away liao), but I use Nikon most of the time. Personal preference lah.

Rich man with so many system ... :bigeyes: :bigeyes: