View Full Version : Canon 350D V Nikon D50 - help chosing please
jdmistry
23-09-2005, 10:46
I am thinking of getting into the world of digital SLR. Now I have shortlisted two potential camera, the Canon 350D and Nikon D50. Having read various reviews in some of the monthly magazines and on Dpreview website I still can’t make up my mind. I am aware that the Canon has higher mega pixel but I am not going to print anything bigger than 16 x 12. Also I prefer the SD card the Nikon has. Having spoken to the people at Jessops and Jacobs the best deals on offer are:
Jessops
1. Canon 350D + 18-55mm lens + kit bag + CF card etc - £700
2. Nikon D50 + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED LENS - £600 (excludes £50 cashback)
3. NIkon D50 + 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX LENS - £750 (excludes £50 cashback)
Jacobs
4. Nikon D50 + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX LENS - £570 (excludes £50 cashback)
5. NIkon D50 + 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX LENS - £750 (excludes £50 cashback)
6. Canon 350D + 18-55mm lens + kit bag + CF card etc - £700
What do I do? Do I go for option 4 and buy a better lens later with the money I have saved or just go for option 3 and get a decent lens straight off. Or do I go with the Canon options? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
johndavis0
23-09-2005, 10:52
May I add 7dayshop (http://www.thedvdforums.com/jump.php?url=http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php^QS^mid=530^QA^gid=6083^QA^id=30372^QA^p=http%3A//www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php%3FcPath%3D777_4_409_40905%26products_id%3D100647) are doing the D50 for £499 in black or silver
puddleduck
23-09-2005, 11:03
I think the Canon 350D is a better camera overall than the D50, but with the 7DayShop price + £50 cashback to come, I'd go for the D50 and put the saving towards some decent glass.
Brozyniak
23-09-2005, 11:32
You need to think about accessories too. You may want to have access to the huge range of Canon EOS lenses (expensive but expansive), battery grips etc.
Nikon vs canon
Both excellent cameras
Both have a much wider range of gear than you could ever want/afford
Both cameras cost roughly the same - you are going to spend much more on lenses than the difference in price
The technical differences are only of interest to measurebators.
Go to a camera shop, handle them - decide which is right.
You will take much better pictures with a camera that feels right.
That might be because it fits your hand, has controls that feels right for you or even just looks nice.
A camera you like you will use - and will take better pictures.
( and then go and buy an Olympus ;) )
I just ordered the Nikon D50 from 7dayshop. I was debating which camera to get and couldn't decide so I let the credit card decide.
I figure with difference I saved I can get a couple of lenses for it sooner.
GreyJackal
23-09-2005, 12:33
Someone holding a Canon - gives off an air of professionalism, competence, intelligence and kindness to animals
Someone holding a Nikon - Pokes kittens with sharp sticks
Hope that helps :thumbs: :D
(Seriously though, mgb_dvd has it - go play in the shops with them)
Someone holding a Canon - gives off an air of professionalism, competence, intelligence and kindness to animals
Someone holding a Nikon - Pokes kittens with sharp sticks
Hope that helps :thumbs: :D
(Seriously though, mgb_dvd has it - go play in the shops with them)
:notworthy There speaks a fellow Canon owner :thumbs:
On a serious note though i was in the same situation a month or so back and comapred a 350D and D70, i plumped for the 350D as it felt better in my hands.
As a D50 owner I can certainly vouch for the camera. However, if I had the choice to buy again I wouldn't have bought the kit that I did. It was the D70, 18-55mm G and 70-300mm G lenses with an extra battery and 1gb SD Card. I'd have dropped the 2 lenses and spent out on some decent glass to start with.
Since buying the camera I've bought 2 additional lenses: Sigma 150mm macro (stunning lens) and a 50mm Nikon D prime lens and you can certainly see the difference in quality.
So, for me it would be a case of the glass is more important than the body in many repsects. BUT, think about your possible upgrade line. If you buy Nikon and invest in a few decent lenses you can soon have several thousands of pounds of Nikon only lenses. If you then decide to go for a better camera you are pretty much locked into Nikon for the long haul - unless you want to lose a lot of cash during the swap over.
Just my 2c worth.
Paul C :)
Radiohead
23-09-2005, 17:54
If you buy Nikon and invest in a few decent lenses you can soon have several thousands of pounds of Nikon only lenses. If you then decide to go for a better camera you are pretty much locked into Nikon for the long haul - unless you want to lose a lot of cash during the swap over.
That's the same for any camera though.
:thinking:
I know, that was my point about buying a new camera and coming to the decision that you want to change as you don't like the way a Nikon or Canon operates, the way it handles colour, etc. 6 months down the line. Before spending a lot of cash on all the extras.
On a brighter note, someone would certainly benefit from a few bargain lenses... ;)
Radiohead
23-09-2005, 18:08
Ah - fair enough.
I've got a 350D and hate the handling. Grip is far too small, even for medium sized hands. When I compare its feel/build quality with my old Nikon F301, I could weep!
Radiohead
24-09-2005, 14:58
Conversely, I love the handling of my D70. Fits perfectly and was 100% the right choice for me.
Having spoken to the people at Jessops and Jacobs the best deals on offer are...
There are better prices out there. I'd look at AJ Purdy as one possible place (http://www.ajpurdy.co.uk/erol.html), or 7DayShop (http://www.thedvdforums.com/jump.php?url=http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php^QS^mid=530^QA^gid=6083^QA^id=30372).
As for which to choose? I went the Nikon route (with a D100) a couple of years ago. Both are excellent cameras - just get one chosen and get out there taking pictures!
busterboy
24-09-2005, 17:38
Conversely, I love the handling of my D70. Fits perfectly and was 100% the right choice for me.
Yeah but its a Nikon mate... Its a Nikon.. :(
;)
Radiohead
24-09-2005, 19:14
Bite me Canon boy
downhillbiker
24-09-2005, 20:34
I had a play with a 350D the other weekend - my mate had just bought one. As has been mentioned, I found it far too small to use easily, compared to my D70... felt more like a high end compact than an SLR.
Don't know what the D50 is like to hold, but I hate the current notion that a smaller body on an SLR camera is a good thing - it just isn't!
Tried the 350D and the D50 last weekend.
The Canon is too small for my hands, the Nikon is better but has a bad viewfinder - in the end I bought an Olympus because it fitted and felt solid.
Of course with my luck they then announce a new Olympus out next month - and I can't afford any of the olympus lenses.
Vulcan101
25-09-2005, 01:06
I have fairly big hands but wanted the Canon 350D.
So I cogitated about it for a while and realised I could buy the battery pack, which not only gives me more flexibility (as I can run the camera off AA batteries if the rechargebles go flat) and a better grip if I want to frame something vertically too. It also adds a bit more weight to the camera which I find rally reassuinrg.
In my experience Nikon owners tend to pull the legs off puppies for a hobby and I like puppies.
Radiohead
25-09-2005, 07:03
Kittens, not puppies.
We burn puppies alive.
busterboy
25-09-2005, 07:56
Kittens, not puppies.
We burn puppies alive.
:lol:
Although the goat-raping tendancies of Canon and Nikon owners is well known the Olympus E system is very nice.
Brozyniak
25-09-2005, 17:13
Although the goat-raping tendancies of Canon and Nikon owners is well known the Olympus E system is very nice.
Everyone knows that that is slander and that Canon is the choice of all goats.
http://www.brozyniak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/goat.jpg
Sprout Crumble
25-09-2005, 17:20
Although the goat-raping tendancies of Canon and Nikon owners is well known the Olympus E system is very nice.
Average at best. What lenses there are available show excellent quality but are very expensive and the bodies lag behind the competition, especially in high ISO performance.
Once you've bought the body, you'd struggle to afford anything else. A very misconcieved system.
Tried the 350D and the D50 last weekend.
The Canon is too small for my hands, the Nikon is better but has a bad viewfinder - in the end I bought an Olympus because it fitted and felt solid.
Of course with my luck they then announce a new Olympus out next month - and I can't afford any of the olympus lenses.
Hardly seems like that's a good buy for you then, does it? At least with the main brands (Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Konica Minolta AF mounts) you can buy third party lenses that offer as good, if not better, resolution and are better value for money.
In my experience Nikon owners tend to pull the legs off puppies for a hobby and I like puppies.
To be fair, I was drunk, I thought it was dead and it was thrown out of court in the end. :razz:
:D
johndavis0
25-09-2005, 18:23
To be fair, I was drunk, I thought it was dead and it was thrown out of court in the end. :razz:
:D
And there's me thinking that it was a rumour.
Average at best. What lenses there are available show excellent quality but are very expensive and the bodies lag behind the competition, especially in high ISO performance.
Once you've bought the body, you'd struggle to afford anything else. A very misconcieved system.
The kit lenses 14-45 and 40-150 are cheap and better than similair cheap lenses from the other makers (cough plastic lens mount cough). The 50-200 pro lens is very nice but is $1000 so I'm probably not getting it any time soon.
Not sure an 8MP body with a full frame CCD, dust filter and telecentric optics lags a 350D/D50 too much.
Depends what you use it for, I do landscapes so not bothered about AF speed and high ISO doesn't matter - and is probably the result of no noise filtering in the camera.
I like the squarer format ( I also liked 645 ) but I'm sure it's mainly for cost reasons and I think the whole 4/3 open standard is marketing BS - I can't see anyone else making a system around it.
I do wish it had a real aperture ring ( do any DSLR have this ? ) and I would have liked a shutter speed ring around the lens like the OM film SLRs.
One major thing I don't like about DSLR is the small CCDs which mean shorter focal length lenses.
Remember that although 25mm (on an Oly) is equivalent in field of view to a 50mm on film it is still the same perspective as a 25mm lens. I always liked longer lenses to isolate details and I don't like the wide angle type perspective. Difficult to describe, but it's the reason you take portraits with a 90mm instead of a standard.
Unfortunately the economics of semiconductors mean we aren't going to get 645 format CCD with an
affordable number of elements. This is even worse with 4/3" format than APS size CCDs.
Sprout Crumble
25-09-2005, 20:28
Its what I can't understand about what Olympus is trying to achieve with this system.
The lens and accessories (£329 for a teleconvertor!!!!!!) in general border on being criminally priced with the average amateur having a seriously restricted choice of optics from the professionally biased range. At the same time, the format has a tiny sensor with all the resulting problems that brings and the bodies are already dated.
Where are Olympus going with it? The bodies/sensor say amateurs, the lenses say pros. They've missed on both accounts.
Where are Olympus going with it? The bodies/sensor say amateurs, the lenses say pros. They've missed on both accounts.
Difficult to say. Olympus have always been engineering driven, build something clever and then try and persuade people to buy it, I'm surprised they didn't use the Sigma 3colour CCD.
I imagine the decision to launch a pro camera + lenses first was to gain creditibility. With the E300 they have launched some cheap kit lenses which are still very good.
There are always accessories like the teleconverter that you don't expect to sell many of and price stupidly - there was a 500 shot bulk magazine for the OM which cost about £1000.
The real reason for the small sensor is that the cost of making semiconductors doesn't double if you make a chip twice the width, it is 8-12 more expensive.
And some of the lens aberations get really bad, double the ccd size and you get 4x as much astigmatism, 8x coma and distortion, and 16x the spherical aberation.
A small sensor isn't necessarily a problem - this a CCD not a CMOS so there is no real limit to how small you can make the pixels. The noise performance depends on the output stage more than the collector area and DSLRs are still orders of magnitude away from the noise floor of science CCD cameras.
(sorry for the geek rant - my PhD was in astronomical CCD cameras and I built some of the first CMOS cameras. When it was $100K for a 256x256 chip)
Radiohead
26-09-2005, 08:42
(sorry for the geek rant - my PhD was in astronomical CCD cameras and I built some of the first CMOS cameras. When it was $100K for a 256x256 chip)
:notworthy
GreyJackal
26-09-2005, 08:42
Here, have a :dork: smiley ;)
jdmistry
28-09-2005, 13:13
Thanks all, I eventually plumped for the Nikon. I managed to get a very competitive deal from Jessops in Birmingham who matched an internet retailer. Very helpful service from them - thanks Julie. The Nikon felt better in my hands and felt better built. I tried out the Canon this week (wife 'borrowed' hers from work) and found it caused pain in my hand due to the small grip.
............found it caused pain in my hand due to the small grip.
:suspect:
jdmistry
28-09-2005, 14:14
Funniest thing I have 'inadvertantly' written today!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.