# dSLR ... NIKON or CANON



## shane3547 (May 25, 2005)

I am looking to sell my dSLR Canon Rebel XT.

My extended family all have Nikon, and from the last wedding I did with my cousin. I used the Nikon and found it to be nicer than my Canon. Granted it couldn't take as many shots at a time like my canon, but honestly who cares.

I'm only using it for Wedding Photo's and family pictures (have a 22 month old). The camera I have in mind is the D40 or the D40x.

Now, I don't really care if I downgrade as long as I won't see too much of a difference, which in a dSLR I don't think I will.

Please give input. I will be posting my Canon here when I make a final decision.

PS. Canon Rebel XT w/18-55mm & 4GB CF ..... $850


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I have had a great experience with the first-generation Canon Digital Rebel and the second-gen Rebel XT.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Try to get the Canon Rebel XTi if you can, in that I think the improvements in that camera over the XT might be helpful to you and your task. Just a suggestion.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Nikon. Nikon, Nikon, Nikon.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Nikon. And if you can swing it, move up to at least the D50. Menu only controls are very limiting. With the D50 and up you have access to camera settings via easy to use buttons on the back.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

I didn't vote because I think Pentax *ist line is the best choice, for the simple reason that it's compatible with all K mount lenses, even ones that are 25 years old.


----------



## ramopara (Apr 6, 2004)

shane3547, 

I bought the Nikon D40 3 months ago and I love it, so do my family and friends as the pictures are excellent and the speed blows away P&S which allows for moments to be captured that would otherwise be missed. I paid 599+taxes at bestbuy and also bought a 2GB high speed SD card for 40+taxes. I recommend you read the D40 vs D40x post on kenrockwell.com before you make your decision. 


Good Luck


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Haven't used a Nikon, but I love my Rebel.


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

I'm not going to vote cause I think this debate is moot. Both are entry level DSLRs and both produce similar results, and quite honestly, it's a waste of money to upgrade to a new model and still stay in the entry level range, specifically the Canon being a one updated model. 

Invest your money on what matters in DSLR, the lenses, put it this way, you can have the top of the line body but if you just stick a $200 entry level zoom lens on it, you're going to have entry level results, in terms of sharpness and colour saturation. 

This is what I did. I sport a 4 year old Nikon D70 and it's still fine for the weddings I'm shooting, I'm looking at getting a D300 next year, but I'm still keeping the D70 for backup as well as having the second body, in case your wondering. I l already had one expensive lens that I transferred over from my film days which was a 80-200 2.8, I then bought a midrange zoom which was a 35-70 2.8 cause it's fast, sharp and cheap,and for some reason I never had a 50mm, so I got one of those since they're pretty cheap and exceptional for the price, a Prime lens will always blow any zoom out in performance. At this point I bought my first ever 3rd party lens which was a Tokina 12-24 F4, only because I didn't think I would get into wide angle as much as I'm into now, and it was half the price of a Nikkor.

My suggestion, buy a decent Canon Lens, I'm not a big fan of third party lenses, even though I'm pretty happy with mine. But you buy into a system because of their lenses and not third party lenses. They also retain their resale value a lot better then the third party.

And why I think the debate is moot is because, people in the Canon camp will always say their cameras are better than Nikon's and vice versa, nothing resolved, just a dick measuring contest. Just people reassuring themselves they made the right purchase.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Camera Quality is in the lens of the beholder. Only you can decide what's right for you.. you're using it.

That said, my choice was the Digital Rebel XT.


----------



## wtl (Mar 15, 2006)

Both cameras are quite good. I've owned a Digital Rebel since it came out, and love it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Tried out the Canon Rebel XTi the other night. It is a fine camera.


----------



## shane3547 (May 25, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Tried out the Canon Rebel XTi the other night. It is a fine camera.


Nice camera. I haven't tried that one yet, if I decide to go with that then I don't have to change the lens and I can keep my flash card.

Does t have a dampener for the shot? When I use my Canon you can hear the click from when it takes the shot. But the Nikon's have a dampener so it isn't as noisy. I honestly like that, don't want something that is noisy.

Thanks.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

These are digital, not analogue, cameras we are talking about here. Hence, any clicks or shutter noises your camera makes are digital in source. You can change the sounds you want to hear via the menu or turn all or some sounds off.

Personally, I used to feel more comfortable with a traditional "click" sound when using my first digital cameras, but now have "matured" to the point where I prefer that no sound at all emanates from my digital cameras.

To each their own...



> Does t have a dampener for the shot? When I use my Canon you can hear the click from when it takes the shot. But the Nikon's have a dampener so it isn't as noisy. I honestly like that, don't want something that is noisy.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2007)

It's all about the glass you use. Both those cameras have great sensors, going from a Rebel to an Nikon doesn't make a big difference. If you want better quality get a better lens. Anything in the Canon L series are fantastic. I have a 17-40mm F/4 L lens that I wouldn't trade for anything  Typically "kit" lenses don't come close to this quality, so either way around set aside some budget for a decent lens and learn to use more than Auto mode on the cameras and you'll be happy with the results.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Both are fine cameras. I'm partial to Nikons for their DSLRs and lenses (I own a D70s, which has some extras that the D40 doesn't have). And I'm partial to Canons for their point and shoots (I own an S3 Powershot).


----------



## shane3547 (May 25, 2005)

MacBookPro said:


> These are digital, not analogue, cameras we are talking about here. Hence, any clicks or shutter noises your camera makes are digital in source. You can change the sounds you want to hear via the menu or turn all or some sounds off.
> 
> Personally, I used to feel more comfortable with a traditional "click" sound when using my first digital cameras, but now have "matured" to the point where I prefer that no sound at all emanates from my digital cameras.
> 
> To each their own...


Sorry to say my friend, you are incorrect. There is a click for the shutter, there is still some old style technology in a dSLR. Nikon seams to have a dampener on theres.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*I'd go Nikon ( have shares in neither!)*

My post was 'cut off' (at the top)

The D50 has 'gone.
I'd opt for 40DX.

I switched from Canon to Nikon when Canon 'obseleted ( made redundant ) my seven FD lenses ranging from a 24mm to a 500mm Mirror in late 1980's.

{ anybody want to buy pristine Canon FD lenses? Two are of the beautiful breech mounts style (55mm 1,4/ 100mm 2.8), the rest are newer bayonet style!}

I switched to Nikon N90 in 1992 ( pure joy as a film camera) for same reason as I like Mac. Old stuff works on a Mac, old stuff works on a Nikon.
Plus the Nikon ergonomics ... just that 'feel' ...as in the difference from a IMac vs a Dell 

On the D70 cameras and up ( D70 D80 D200 up to the high end D2 pro's) the oldest Nikon lens will at least take a pic. Try that on a Canon.
And the D series AF Nikkor lenses work great ( despite the 'advice I received from camera salespeople to the contrary ) on my old D70 body.. the 70-210zoom becoming 105-310mm!

I have a few samples here.... just beginning to get my pics organized!
They are bigger than the pics in the photo section here ..better quality and a plug I guess for .mac
.Mac Web Gallery

In the meantime, I'm like a four year old awaiting Santa to deliver my new Nikon D300 along with a Nikkor 18-200 VR lens ( I want one lens as it is is hard to swap from regular lens to the telephoto for 'those' shots when sailing at 8 knots in 20 knots of wind)
And if its too wet, can always use my little Olympus Stylus .....( clamshell style)

There we are.... stir, stir, stir


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

The only cameras with artificial shutter sounds are the cheapos or the telephones. I was surprised how much more noisy my Canon 20D was compared with my old Elan 50E. That's a generation thing. My son recently treated himself to a 400D (Rebel Xti) and it's much quieter.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Between the two personally I prefer the Rebel XT.

Some of the limitations on the D40 I find a bit frustrating - but when it comes down to it the decision should really be made on the two points IMO:

1) What lenses do you have? (The long term investment is going to be in the lenses)
2) Which do you prefer using? What feels better in your hand?


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Either camera will give great results. As noted above, you are investing in a platform. Before making your decision you might want to check out higher-end models and see which you prefer. Some day, down the road, you are going to upgrade and you won't want to switch platforms because of your lenses.

I have gone Nikon. There are things I like about the Canon which make me consider switching but I don't want to loose my investment in lenses. There are things about the Nikon line that make me want to stay. I am looking forward to getting a new D300 in the near future.

You should read up on some photography sites like megapixel.net Webzine: Digital Camera Reviews and Information and Focus Faction. These are user type sites as opposed to commercial review sites (although these types of sites are great too).

Good luck.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

I shoot with Canons. They had the first digital SLR I could afford, and I had used them in the past.

What you will find with a little research is that either brand offers the opportunity for making great photographs. My input would be to first settle your total budget: camera, lenses, bag, memory cards, tripod etc etc. Once you have done that, concentrate on the way the cameras feel to you, and when reading reviews spend the most time on how easy they are to use. Reviews on image quality with these brands are not going to help - both are wonderful.

The most important place to spend your time is technique. Read a lot, then practice, practice practice - and enjoy.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

shane3547 said:


> I am looking to sell my dSLR Canon Rebel XT.
> 
> PS. Canon Rebel XT w/18-55mm & 4GB CF ..... $850


I hate to break it to you, but brand new Rebel XTs with the 18-55mm lens are going for $630 at Vistek. You might consider going with Canon and keeping the XT as backup. The 5D is very popular with wedding shooters for it's full frame sensor.

Nikon D200s have also dropped with the introduction of the D3 and D300. Something to consider if you're determined to switch.

Personally I'm all Nikon, but I'd use whatever suits me best. Very good chance I'll be going for the D300 in the spring.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

They are both good... but I would say Nikon. I have a D80 and it is an outstanding camera. I debated for a long time which way to go, talked to people, and tested the cameras. I ended up with the D80 over the D40 (or Canon)... more options and the ergonomics felt more natural for me.

The kit optics are known to be excellent for all Nikon cameras. The bodies are well constructed. I lug my Nikon around in the mountains on climbs and backcountry ski trips. It is a very rugged camera, but still relatively lightweight. Nikon has been around for a long time... they make superb dSLR's and kit lenses.

I have nothing against Canon, since I have used some of their point n' shot cameras in the past. But if I'm spending top $$$ on an SLR I want to get it from a company that has their primary focus on photography and perfection with design. Professionals, prosumers, and consumers in both camps will argue the Nikon vs. Canon debate... but it all comes down to your gut feeling, personal preference, and of course, budget. Go to the stores... test the cameras and don't rush into buying.

In ending here, the way I look at it -- Nikon makes great cameras! Canon makes great camera too.. plus photocopiers!


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

I compared your two choices for about a month then took a 90 degree turn and bought the Pentax K100D. 

It is splitting hairs to compare them, they are all good. Just decide which has the fewest shortcomings for how YOU shoot, try it out if you can, and buy without regret.

All that said, the Rebel XT you have is probably all you need. Perhaps you need to change some settings to get the Nikon-look? Money spent on a lens or flash may be more rewarding.

Cheers!


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Another very important factor is the feel of the camera. Specs are one thing but make sure the camera feels good in your hands and that the controls are intuitive.

One cool thing about the new Pentax is the "Raw" switch. To shoot in Raw, you just push the switch on the side of the camera instead of trudging through menus. The latest Canons and Nikons might have this. I haven't looked at them in a while. It's a very useful feature. And if you're not shooting Raw for your important photos, you should be.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Getting rid of the XT to buy the D40 makes no sense at all. There is nothing wrong with the XT. If you want to see how good it is go and rent a pro lens and shoot for a few days. People alway change bodies, 'I need a new camera' What you need is a decent lens. Keep the XT and buy some nice glass instead.

Try a f/1.2 85mm and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## wtl (Mar 15, 2006)

For some people, buying new cameras equates them taking better pictures. The greatest camera in the world won't help if you leave the lens cap on. :-/

I know one person who just got a 12 megapixel camera that is much newer and probably better than my Digital Rebel (first version). He gets 12MP blurry shots, though, which results in some cursing and blaming the autofocus. 

It takes all kinds, I keep telling myself.


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

If you do decide to go with a D40x, keep in mind that the D40x doesn't have a focus drive motor built into the body of the camera. This will limit your selection of auto-focus Nikon glass to the newer (and more expensive) lenses: AF-S and AF-I lenses.

Like everyone else has said, buy the best lenses you can afford even if it means saving a little longer.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

The photographer is effectively the number one consideration. Technically speaking though, optics is also the number one factor -- garbage in, garbage out... but pixel count is up there too. I'm not talking about the garbage 12MP point n' shoots with a mickey mouse zoom lens. In the dSLR world, I know of professional photographers that insist it is both lens & megapixel that count. There is no doubt that a 10MP is better than a 6MP picture in the dSLR category -- maybe not with P&S. If you want the best quality, go full frame dSLR.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

Kami said:


> If you do decide to go with a D40x, keep in mind that the D40x doesn't have a focus drive motor built into the body of the camera. This will limit your selection of auto-focus Nikon glass to the newer (and more expensive) lenses: AF-S and AF-I lenses.
> 
> Like everyone else has said, buy the best lenses you can afford even if it means saving a little longer.


Kami: This is a very good point, and was one of the main reasons I saved up for a D80 over the D40x. More options with lenses. I also liked having the 11 point focus system, and some extra manual settings. It has an excellent viewfinder that helps with composition.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This is not really apropriate to the thread, but I just have to tell someone that I just placed an order for a new Nikon D300 today. Probably won't get my hands on it until January, but I'll let you know how it goes.

Cheers


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> There is no doubt that a 10MP is better than a 6MP picture in the dSLR category -- maybe not with P&S. If you want the best quality, go full frame dSLR.


I would have to disagree with you.

Having 10MP does not make the picture better than 6MP. It can allow you more cropping options, and the ability to make a larger print without loss of detail. Those are advantages of more MP - but they do not make the picture better. It's also important to note that there is little real difference between, say an 8MP camera and a 10MP.

Again, full frame is not always appropriate. Full frame cameras are more demanding of lenses - anything less than the best and the weaknesses will be exposed in certain characteristics of your shots. There are advantages of course, but many pros do not shoot full frame. Indeed, many pros don't use DSLRs at all except for back up. 

Having a FF camera will not, in and of itself, create better images. Nikon are only now really getting into the FF digital game, and yet for years many millions of wonderful shots have been made with Nikons.

The ones shot with Canons are better of course, but that's another story...kidding!


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Getting rid of the XT to buy the D40 makes no sense at all. There is nothing wrong with the XT. If you want to see how good it is go and rent a pro lens and shoot for a few days. People alway change bodies, 'I need a new camera' What you need is a decent lens. Keep the XT and buy some nice glass instead.
> 
> Try a f/1.2 85mm and you'll see what I mean.


I'll second that motion (again!) -- it's all about the glass and the technique/photographer.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Having 10MP does not make the picture better than 6MP. It can allow you more cropping options, and the ability to make a larger print without loss of detail. Those are advantages of more MP - but they do not make the picture better. It's also important to note that there is little real difference between, say an 8MP camera and a 10MP.


Ya most people just don't get that. It's the marketing hook of the digital camera world. More more more MP...hahahahaha...gawd.

In agreeing with that, I have to completely disagree with the 'FF stresses the lens comment. FF has no affect on the lens in anyway, there are no cons to using a FF DSLR at all, except price that is... This is one of the reasons that Canon has owned Nikon's ass in the pro digital market place for so many year. There are others as well, but for commercial work not having a FF DSLR to offer photographers is just nuts. 

I love Nikon for 35mm film, nothing in the universe touches the F5, but digital....well it's the 'C' word. :lmao:


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> In agreeing with that, I have to completely disagree with the 'FF stresses the lens comment.


I think I should clarify. A FF camera will not stress a lens, but it will reveal more clearly any weaknesses in a lens, such as vignetting. There has been some concern for a while amongst pros who shoot Canon that the FF cameras are running ahead of the lenses. Canon is now running a refresh of their lenses and adding new ones, possibly partly in response to this.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> ..it will reveal more clearly any weaknesses in a lens, such as vignetting. There has been some concern for a while amongst pros who shoot Canon that the FF cameras are running ahead of the lenses


Gidde up  

Most definitely, for sure. I have a very nice 200 - 400 Tamron from a few years ago that is not a cheap lens but not pro either. Put that on the Mark II and it's a straight 300mm, well in my opinion anyway. Then again I mostly use the f/1.2 85mm on it, I just can't seem to make myself change that lens. :lmao:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Canon and Nikon make wonderful cameras, no doubt - but it's also worth checking out the Olympus 510... just got a sterling review at dpreview.com.

Me, I'm thinking of it, but I'd prefer the articulating LCD panel on its younger sibling, the E3. Too bad that's going to be major coin... ah, well.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

The only issue with going with an Olympus is that lens selection may not be as good as Noik or Canon...esp on the used market which is an excellent way to try out new glass.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Andrew Pratt said:


> The only issue with going with an Olympus is that lens selection may not be as good as Noik or Canon...esp on the used market which is an excellent way to try out new glass.


The 4/3 system is still a relatively new mount, but there seems to be a reasonable selection of lenses, albeit pricey, especially if you know you're not going to amass a large collection. I'd be most concerned with viewfinder size (due to smaller sensor), Olympus clinging to XD Picture Card (in this case in addition to CF, though), and, to a lesser extent, long-term viability of the platform (Panasonic and Leica are not pulling their weight, lacking affordable entry-level bodies or lenses).

Personally I'm leaning toward a Pentax K10. Prices are getting seriously tempting, and Pentax has just the kind of lenses that interest me most -- small form-factor primes.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

If you're not seriously invested already in lenses the K10 is a very nice camera, the sealing alone makes the thing sooooo tempting as some kind of back up system for under a grand.

I know someone that bought one and they are very happy with it.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

I contemplated the same a little over a month ago and asked fellow ehMacer's as well. 

Instead of the Nikon, went with Canon due to lens compatibility. Instead of the XTi, went for the 30D because they dropped in price by $300. Couldn't be more happy with it.


----------



## Irie Guy (Dec 2, 2003)

Thought I would ask the camera experts about this package I have been offered through a friend. I know the camera is a couple years old now but I think it might be a good way to introduce myself to the DSLR world.

1 - D50 body
1 - 18-55mm lens
1 - 55-200mm lens
1 - sb-400 speedlight
1 - wireless remote


$600 cash


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I'd say go for it, but give the camera a test & view the test pics before purchasing. Just to make sure it works well, and that there's no dirt on the sensor (which can be cleaned if need be, but if you're a dSLR newbie it's not a do-it-yourself job).


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Not a bad package for that price. The D50 is a nice camera with easy controls (not alot of menu digging). The 18-55 is the kit lens that comes with camera and it's okay for day to day shots. The other lens should be nice (is acutally 88 - 320 equivalent on this camera) and the speedlight will really help. The remote is handy (but I haven't been able to get mine to work with my D50).

All-in-all a nice package.

You should get yourself acquainted with some photography sites where the folks are happy to help a new dSLR user to get the most from their camera. Focus Faction and megapixel.net Webzine: Digital Camera Reviews and Information are two of my faves.

Nice to have that package for the upcoming holidays.


----------



## snowskater (Sep 27, 2007)

If your doing alot of sports and fast photography(football) go with Canon. If your doing still shots, nature shots, night shots, long exposures etc get yourself a Nikon. 

I use a Nikon D80 
jbrozek.com


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I'm not sure I would agree with the sports statement. I shoot fast sports (snowboarding and skiing) with a Nikon. No problems. The sport where the Canon specifically shines (from direct experience by me and friends, although not nearly conclusive) would be Figure Skating. Dark arena, no flash allowed but still need to shoot fast. The Canon seems to have a bit of an advantage in the higher ISO required to grab the available light (less noise from the Canon). Brightly lit sporting events don't really cause a problem for the Nikon or the Canon.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

snowskater said:


> If your doing alot of sports and fast photography(football) go with Canon. If your doing still shots, nature shots, night shots, long exposures etc get yourself a Nikon.
> 
> I use a Nikon D80
> jbrozek.com


I guess you missed the specs on the D3, eh? 

Nikon D3 Tech specs

I've seen some ISO 6400 images posted online and although there is a noticable WB shift, the quality is surprisingly acceptable.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The Nikon D40 is on sale at BB for $699.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> The Nikon D40 is on sale at BB for $699.


I hope thats the D40x, 'cause Nikon Canada's ESP says:

D40 Kit with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6G ED II $589.95
Also available, D40 Kit with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6G ED $789.95


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

It is the D40x. The plain old D40 is on sale for $569.99.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The Doug said:


> It is the D40x. The plain old D40 is on sale for $569.99.


Yes it is the D40x, that is quite the jump in mega pixels between the two.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> I've seen some ISO 6400 images posted online and although there is a noticable WB shift, the quality is surprisingly acceptable.


Ran across some of those, too. Very impressive. WB is pretty easy to fix in PP, though. The fact that there is a usable (albeit noisy) image at ISO 12800 & 25600 is amazing. I've always said, (for our event photography) I can sell a noisy image but not a blurry one.

Does the D3 have a second drive?

As far as Nikon vs. Canon, I'd echo much of what has been said above. The camera's sensor is just the recording medium-at a prosumer level they are all of a similar quality. The glass is what will get you your image. Find a body that fits your hands & buy good lenses (usually not kit lenses).


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> As far as Nikon vs. Canon, I'd echo much of what has been said above. The camera's sensor is just the recording medium-at a prosumer level they are all of a similar quality. The glass is what will get you your image. Find a body that fits your hands & buy good lenses (usually not kit lenses).


Agreed. I would add though that no matter how good camera and glass, it's really down to technique and practice, practice, practice.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Pelao said:


> Agreed. I would add though that no matter how good camera and glass, it's really down to technique and practice, practice, practice.



Agreed on this point too. I've seen some amazing photos from "holgas" which are piece of crap $30 plastic cameras with plastic lenses. The best pictures are in the composition with a any of these giving good results. Get to know the camera.

If you can go for the D50 vs. D40/40x. I would. The D50 might have lower resolution (MegaPixels) but is a better camera and you won't feel the MP difference.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

Macified said:


> Agreed on this point too. I've seen some amazing photos from "holgas" which are piece of crap $30 plastic cameras with plastic lenses. The best pictures are in the composition with a any of these giving good results. Get to know the camera.
> 
> If you can go for the D50 vs. D40/40x. I would. The D50 might have lower resolution (MegaPixels) but is a better camera and you won't feel the MP difference.


I believe the D50 has gone to the great Nikon land in the sky to lie with the late , great D70. Maybe my old Mamiya Sekor 35mm is with them too? 

That said, am awaiting impatiently for my D300.
In meantime, my new Nikon 18-200 VR zoom turned up. And the thing I love about Nikon is that I take a 2007 lens, designed for a digital sensor of course, put it on the 'old' 1992 Nikon F90 and it works! Sure there is vignetting ... ( easily cropped) but it focuses instantly! 

Now if only my SEVEN pieces of Canon FD glass ( ranging from 24mm to a 500mm lens) would work on todays cameras. Nope, they won't! Therein a lesson... Nikon does NOT obsolete its equipment! Mac like eh?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Ran across some of those, too. Very impressive. WB is pretty easy to fix in PP, though. The fact that there is a usable (albeit noisy) image at ISO 12800 & 25600 is amazing. I've always said, (for our event photography) I can sell a noisy image but not a blurry one.
> 
> Does the D3 have a second drive?
> .


If by _second drive_ you mean more than one card slot, then yes.


----------

