# Camera opinions from photographers



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I may just have convinced my better half to buy a digital SLR. Are there any thoughts and recommendations out there from our photography guru's? It would be the prosumer level (not the $6000 models). I was thinking of either the Canon EOS 20D or the Nikon 200D. Any thoughts about comparisons of these two models? Can I go wrong either way. 

I love to shoot close ups and macros (wildflowers) and Wildlife/scenery shots. 

thanks guys and gals.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

I think between the 20D and the (just about to be released) D200 the D200 will probably win out. It's a little more money but comes with a nicer kit lens, more megapixels (which doesn't necessarily mean better quality) and is partially weather-sealed.

Personally I have sold into the Canon system, but I used to shoot with Nikon film bodies (the F4s, to be specific).


----------



## RyanA (Nov 20, 2005)

A photographer I work with regularly is upgrading from the Nikon 100D to the 200D and he's terribly excited about it. I know he loves the 100, and the shots he's done from me have been first rate, so in terms of quality I can vouch for it.

By reputation, Nikon has better glass, and I've always been happy with my Nikon non-digital. I've heard good things about Canon, too, but I've never compared the two. You'd be hard-pressed to find a pro who had anything bad to say about Nikon, though.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Not to start a Nikon vs Canon war, but it's pretty much unavoidable at this point. I disagree that "Nikon has better glass". Take a look at any major sporting event, see a lot of white lenses? Those are all Canon.

Here's a shot from the Olympics:

<IMG SRC="http://www.kosoof.com/photo/00018-olampic07.jpg">

Here's some sports illustrated guys with the Canon 1200mm

<IMG SRC="http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//4177/14305DUAL_1200_S.jpg">
<br>

Here's a Blue Jays Game (not my shot)

<IMG SRC="http://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]/2005-8-11-IMG_1974_web.jpg">


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Carex said:


> I was thinking of either the Canon EOS 20D or the Nikon 200D. Any thoughts about comparisons of these two models? Can I go wrong either way.


Both are good cameras. You may want to read this first.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200-vs-canon.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/20d.htm



> The D200 trumps the Canon 20D in spades, and every time Nikon announces something Canon one-ups them the next week.


----------



## coreLlama (Aug 5, 2005)

I have a Canon 20D and absolutely love it. I bought the body by it's self and added better lenses.

You can't go wrong with either, they're both good. Whatever feels best to you.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I am enjoying this advice. 

Just to let you know, the SLR that I used to use and still have is a Nikkormat that was purchased by my father in the 60's in Europe. It was the first camera with the light meter inside the lense (line up the needle inside the frame) and is all manual. Heavy as it's all metal too.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Yah, I really don't think you can go wrong either way. I'd go to the store and try them out. See what fits better in your hands and which one has controls that make the most sense. I almost bought Nikon but decided to buy Canon because I knew I could borrow lenses, etc from friends who are pros and use them. 

Also besides two of my co-workers who have Nikon D70's, everybody else is Canon. I have a Canon Digital Rebel and so does Jon in corporate sales. Rhys has a beautiful 1D Mk II and Mike has a D20 and an original Digital Rebel. So the Canon camp is currently in the lead at Carbon, but that could change at any time.


----------



## ramsesm (Jan 29, 2005)

It really depends on what you whant to use the camera for and what philosophy you adhere your self to...

Let me start by saying that I'm a Nikon user... If you have Canon lenses then the choise is simple. If you have Nikon lenses then the choise is simple too. 

If you have no lenses and you are about to start out then its simpler than what you think. Both cameras (and brands) have their con and pros. Both make great glass. Some Nikon lenses are better than some comparable Cannon and vise versa. Both camera are also great. If I had to start from the top, I would go to a shop and handle the cameras first. Each has a different feel to it and where the buttons are and how the camera feels is more important than you think. 

Second, I would take a look at the lenses you are going to get in the future. When you get into a camera system is not the camera what you want, its the lenses. Camera could be aswome but if you get crapy lenses you'll have crapy pictures. Period. Canon's philosophy is to bring new technology into pro-sumers cameras as soon as possible. So, if you like to always be on top of things then Canon is a better choise. 
Nikon adds new technology late into the game (when its proven) and only on the pro models first. One of the big pros for Nikon is that you can still make use (or purchase) really old manual lenses that are top glass quality with your newer camera. Can't do that with Canon. They have made older lenses incompatible with the newer models. 

I always tell my friends to shop for lenses first... what do you want? what do you need and what is the competitor's feature vs the value they offer. Once you have picked your lenses (think of future as well) then you can pick you camera. 

You will notice that 7 out of 10 Canon offers the best fit. Me? I'm a travel photographer and like to have mechanical lenses. Canon does not have those. Mechanical lenses means to me that there are less electronics for me to worry about when I'm off about in Burma for example. But this is not your typical case. You want to walk arround your garden taking pictures of butterflys or at sports events. Canon will always intropduce new technology faster for those who like to upgrade their cameras as fast as they do their computers. Nikon took a LONG time to introduce the D200 which is a camera (I think better than the canon) that compeates with something that canon had in the market for a long time . I suspect it will also take a long time to replace it when canon introduces a 20mp camera in response to the D200. Making the Nikon guys complain again (www.nikonians.org). Its a never ending battle. But rest asure that Canon will have the new technology out the door first when compared to Nikon. This is the reason you see all of those white lenses. Canon introduced IS way faster than Nikon which is critical for sport and street photography. 

So think of the handling of the equipment and how it feels in your hands (very important), the lenses avaliable and the philosophy of the brand. Don't compare camera fact sheets...  at the end of the day its you making the picture. Get good lenses though (or plan to get them in the future)


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Well said, ramsesm.

I sent you a personal message about your flikr account about a week ago. I really enjoyed it.


----------



## TiMaccer (Jul 6, 2003)

My opinion is that if you buy any of the major brands... whether it's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, you're not going to go wrong, let's face it. All the Canon users are going to probably argue for Canon, and all the Nikon afficionados are going to argue in favour of their Nikons... and the discussions will be endless. 

Photography comes down to what you want to do with it, whether it's a hobby or business or whatever. You can have the best, most expensive camera on the market, but if you can't understand the workings, and have no inclination to learn the intricacies, then what's the point? 

Guage your use for same, then buy accordingly. Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Pentax... they're all producing great digital SLRs. I use cameras from three of those four brands and they're all excellent.

Rachel.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

I bought a Canon 20D a week ago (thanks for the advice Pelao) and have shot perhaps 500 pics just fooling around with it... What a joy! In terms of ergonomics it is very close to the old film rebel with the back wheel supporting the front one in a very logical way. 

At present I am using my Rebel's 28-105 zoom although I would go for the Canon 17-85 stabilised lens if I started from scratch. The metering is excellent, although it tends to overexpose slightly in very 'horizontal' winter light and the built-in flash is surprisingly good. Actually for a near shots I found that it was better than my (over-powerful) flash gun.

Why/how did I choose? Well having a Canon lens was something but I would have happily switched to Nikon or even Pentax if the camera had been right for me. I think the Nikon 200 will hurt mainly the Canon 5D as the performance difference doesn't seem to justify the price difference. Be aware that the 20D will be replaced in March (roughly) and that Canon are offering a cash-back + good online discounts. This means that I saved about 25% of the original price on my 20D, which allowed me to justify the stupid difference between a digital SLR and a film SLR of similar quality... In other words I paid the old Rebel XT (350) price for a camera nearing its (very short) life cycle. 

When the 20D replacement comes out it will be back to full price, which is why it wasn't worth waiting for the new model.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Hi Carex
You can't really go wrong with either. Of course the D200 has only just been released, but it's highly unlikely to have major bugs or issues.

Spend some time with each and get a feel for their controls, how they feel in your hand etc. Be wary of a sales pitch - some photography store experiences are swayed heavily by the commission levels currently on offer. I cannot see how you would regret either camera.

Remember to budget all the bits and pieces:
- You will need a couple of large memory cards (anything under 1GB is going to frustrate you).
- a good camera bag that protects, allows for carriage of extra bits and has fast access to the weapon
- lenses: as others have noted this is where you should spend your money. I would advise not buying a kit lens. Think through your photography needs as they are now and get a lens or two accordingly.
- you may want a tripod: they make a huge difference to the quality of your shots and if you love macro then a tripod is a must, must, must

Taking the entire budget into account is important and may influence your decision. The D200 is going to be a great camera, but is at the top of it's game so the price is at a peak. The 20D will be replaced in Feb/Mar and is the current standard in it's level. the prices are fantastic and of course the camera is generally considered outstanding. So with these prices you can get more of the other stuff you need for a given budget.

On the other hand, if you have a cash pile or like using your credt card, then the field is open.

Do not, please, compromise on your lenses or other gear - you will regret it.

If you have time, hang out at fredmiranda.com forums. A lot of pros hang there and reading their posts can be invaluable. Also check out Luminouslandscapes.com - poorly designed site but lots of useful info. In my view, take the stuff on ken rockwell's site with a reasonable pinch of salt.

You are going to have fun!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pelao said:


> - you may want a tripod: they make a huge difference to the quality of your shots and if you love macro then a tripod is a must, must, must


You may want to look for one that has a horizontal lateral arm. 
The Manfrotto 055Pro is a favourite of mine in the price range...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> You may want to look for one that has a horizontal lateral arm.
> The Manfrotto 055Pro is a favourite of mine in the price range...


Totally agree. This may bump the price, but the arm will really help the macro stuff. Worth it.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*One more thing...*

Just to throw an onion in the ointment, I'll bring up after-sales service.

Because I shoot a lot of video, I use Canon equipment all the time. When I've had to access after-sales service, Canon has come through for me. I've exchanged a Canon still-camera under warranty, and I once had a really weird problem with a small piece missing from an expensive, new, Canon lens. The part could have gone missing at any of a number of stages in the purchase routine, including when I opened the box in the store after delivery, but Canon sent me an entire new component, including the little piece that was missing, no questions asked.
On the other hand; A few years ago, friends bought a Nikon digital still camera - the one with the ridiculous hinge in the middle of the chassis. The hingey thing got stuck and because the camera was under warranty, they returned it to the store. After about 3 weeks, instead of replacing the camera, Nikon said "Nope. Your fault. No exchange or repair."

I'm sure everyone has a story that could push them toward a certain company, or away from another, but I will always purchase Canon with confidence. Because of my friends' experience, I will never again consider Nikon products.

Also, I find DP Review a wonderful resource for camera comparisons and reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/


----------



## pent675 (Feb 5, 2005)

Or Canon for that matter. The issue with Nikon is the propiratary RAW formatt they use. This may be solved by now but watch out.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The issue with Nikon is the propiratary RAW formatt they use.


This is not just Nikon. They all use proprietry RAW formats. This can be a pain in that it takes a while for editing apps to generate patches for each new camera, but it's the same issue with all camera brands.

It would be wonderful if they would adopt a common format such as DNG.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Well one of the things that turned me off the D70 was that it didn't include the RAW software, you had to pay about $100 extra for it. All the Canon DSLR's have Canon's RAW software in the box.

This probably isn't an issue if you're using the latest version of Photoshop, but I use Photoshop Elements 2.0, so I needed the RAW software. If I was making money from photography I would spend the money on the full Photoshop, but not as a hobby.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Well one of the things that turned me off the D70 was that it didn't include the RAW software, you had to pay about $100 extra for it.


You're kidding!? I did not know that. That's just dumb.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The D70 does have some features that I prefer over the Rebel XT.
In the kit version, the Nikon lens is better, the Nikon grip is a little bigger, the battery life is longer, better white balance and grid outlines (a boon is you shoot buildings).

Some will prefer the Canon for the smaller size, the punchiness of images, and the bundled software...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Geez, you Canon guys..:lmao: 

The Nikon software (Nikon View) which came with my older D70 (not D70s) not only had the PS plugin, but can read the RAW (NEF) format by itself. The Nikon Capture software, which is excellent BTW, is available for $100, but is not needed.

BTW: there was a recall on Nikon Li batteries for the D70 and some other models. Check Nikon.ca for details. I stopped by Nikon Canada HQ on Aerowood dr in Mississauga for a replacement.


----------



## lostchild (Jul 25, 2005)

If you're lucky like me, you can find an used Canon EOS 1D for the same price or not too far off.

EOS 1D = 8 fps = Godly.

Except battery life absolutely stinks and packs cost arm and leg and first born child.

No n00b functions or modes included or nice features like TV output, auto rotate, and no built in flash.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

kps said:


> Geez, you Canon guys..:lmao:
> 
> The Nikon software (Nikon View) which came with my older D70 (not D70s) not only had the PS plugin, but can read the RAW (NEF) format by itself. The Nikon Capture software, which is excellent BTW, is available for $100, but is not needed.


Well like I said, I don't have Photoshop so I needed the RAW conversion software, not just a viewer.

Also the D70 does not allow you to add a vertical grip, which is one of the first things I bought for my Rebel XT. There is a 3rd party grip for the D70 series, but as I understand it there is a modification you need to do which may void your Nikon warranty.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Read my post again...I said that the plug-in, which BTW works in Elements was *included*.

I know what you mean about the battery grip, but then the standard battery lasts for such a loooong time why should I have to deal with the added weight and bulkyness when shooting. The OEM option vs. aftermarket would be nice, but all I need is a spare battery in my pocket if need be. I have a self powered external Speedlight, so that is not an issue with battery life.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The Nikon software (Nikon View) which came with my older D70 (not D70s) not only had the PS plugin, but can read the RAW (NEF) format by itself. The Nikon Capture software, which is excellent BTW, is available for $100, but is not needed.


Thanks for clearing that up. It would, as I said, be really dumb to have a camera like the D70 able to shoot RAW and no be able to view and edit the images easily without spending extra.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

kps said:


> Read my post again...I said that the plug-in, which BTW works in Elements was *included*.
> 
> I know what you mean about the battery grip, but then the standard battery lasts for such a loooong time why should I have to deal with the added weight and bulkyness when shooting. The OEM option vs. aftermarket would be nice, but all I need is a spare battery in my pocket if need be. I have a self powered external Speedlight, so that is not an issue with battery life.


Cool, I wasn't aware the plug-in worked in Elements. That's good to know.

Yah, the grip makes more sense on the Rebel XT because it's such a smaller camera. I use it for the vertical controls more than the battery life. I shoot a lot in portrait-style and I find it easier on my wrists to use the vertical grip.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Since Konica/Minolta pulled out of Canada you could probably find a really great
deal on the Dimage A200, But the reviews of that camera might make you try to
find the older model the Dimage A2. (It's the one I have and love to use)

Yes...I know...It's not a DSLR, But it's pretty damned amazing though for whatever it is.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I placed an order for the D200 shortly after they were announced last month. I hope it gets here before xmas, as it is a present for my wife.

Since we have an investment in Nikon glass/strobes/etc, there was no Nikon/Canon decision to consider. If I were starting over from scratch, I'd consider Canon carefully, but my impression from using Canon kit owned by my colleagues is that it's not as well-made as the Nikon stuff I'm used to, and some of the new technologies Canon brings to the market take quite some time to perfect, and by that time, Nikon has them too, so it's kind of a wash.

The reviews that I've seen (and I've scoured the web for information on the D200) are overwhelmingly positive. The only negative comments I've seen about the D200 are that the rubber port-covers aren't tethered, and are therefore apt to be lost, and that one person finds the location of the delete button sub-optimal for their large hands. Otherwise, the D200 seems to be exceeding the very high expectations the photographic community had built for this long-awaited camera.

I'm really looking forward to using it, and will be happy to review it for any who are interested once I get my hands on it (which may take a while, as my wife will likely sleep with it for a few weeks after she gets it  )

Cheers


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I placed an order for the D200 shortly after they were announced last month. I hope it gets here before xmas, as it is a present for my wife.


Can I be your wife too?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I already have a couple of tripods, so no issues there. One very tiny one for shooting things that are a couple of inches off the ground. 

Again, these points are all well taken and are appreciated. Just by way of example here are 3 of the typical shots I take and where I will likely continue to focus (no pun intended).


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

Regardless of what camera you get, you'll need a lot of accessories, budget for them. Remember that you can get a lower end body to start with as long as you continue to buy good lenses. I'd rather get a lower end body like my Rebel and have money left over for a few accessories. My brand preference is of course Canon.

Here are some of the things I've purchased in addition to my Canon Rebel XT

- Lenses $1600
- Extra Battery [I already had this form my old Canon S30] $90
- Manfrotto Tripod/Monopod/Head/Bag $350
- Flash $349
- Filters $150
- Flash Cards $300
- Battery Grip $200

The battery grip was one of the most important purchases. The Rebel XT is a little small for my hands and the grip make a big difference [while also giving you the ability to shoot vertically, there is a shutter release on the Canon grip, Nikon has no such release on their lower end grips].

Check out the forums at dpreview.com, they're full of info and opinions. Make sure that when buying lenses, you know what pictures you like to take, this will determine what lenses you buy.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

So it appears, that either way (Canon or Nikon) the answer may be to buy a body only (don't get the "kit" lense) and focus on lenses. Is that a good interpretation.

So the question is then, are the lenses comparable between the 2 companies (in other words is that negligible)? If so, price may be a determining factor.

I shouldn't be too concerned with the MP count should I?


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

I'm a Nikon user and I can honestly say that either would be a good choice. I really like Nikon b/c their lenses are razor sharp and their cameras are very tough [trust me on that ... I completely submerged one in seawater and dropped one 20 ft in a lead fall while climbing ... it survived both without incident]. As someone said above, if you have Nikon lenses or Canon lenses that might make the decision easier. 

Carbon Ken is partly wrong about the "white" lenses at sporting events ... Nikon makes a lot of white lenses too [better performance in heat].

My guess ... the pros are probably 50/50 Nikon/Canon.


----------



## Ryan1524 (Sep 27, 2003)

if you're getting the Canon Rebel XT, you can skip the kit lens, but the Nikon D70s kit lens is excellent, and is more expensive if you buy later. so get the D70s with the kit lens. not sure about D50, but i heard it's just as good, although not as tele as the D70s'.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

The 20D kit lens (17-85 IS) is pricey but excellent. As a general rule each lens is different so it's important to read reviews on each of them. If I had to create a very rough rule: Canon std = 7/10; Nikon = 9/10; Canon L = 10/10 but again it's a generalisation. Based on your pictures above and given the fact that you have a tripod, I would simply consider a flashgun if you take pics of these little girls from a distance. You don't need the power handle for the 20D (although you definitely would for the 350)


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

kent said:


> Carbon Ken is partly wrong about the "white" lenses at sporting events ... Nikon makes a lot of white lenses too [better performance in heat].
> 
> My guess ... the pros are probably 50/50 Nikon/Canon.


I know my Canon lenses when I see them, look again at the pictures I posted, they are almost all Canon in the olympics picture and for sure all Canon in the blue jays pic, except one lens that looks like it's under a black rain cover, it could be either Canon or Nikon.

Take a look at the Nikon lens line-up, <A HREF="http://www.nikon.ca/lensesandspeedlights/">no white lenses</A>. I'm told that they're special order from Nikon, they don't usually sell in white but but you can get them so they look like Canon lenses. Better performance has nothing to do with it, how would a lens perform better by being white?

The Canon L telephoto lenses are white becuase they use a flourite element which can expand under heat. Canon paints their lenses white to cut down on that heat from direct sunlight from shooting outdoors all day.

Here's the Canon lens lineup, a lot more white than in the Nikon lineup:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/lenses.jpg">


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Carex said:


> I shouldn't be too concerned with the MP count should I?


I should be a concern but not an overwhelming decision. 
There is little difference between a 6 or 8 MP camera in terms of size of image. 
I'm sure you can find a chart that shows you the different sizes.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Carex said:


> I shouldn't be too concerned with the MP count should I?


It's all relative, Canon and Nikon have 4 MP Digital SLR's whose qualty would blow away most 8 MP point and shoots.

I have a 20x30" print on my wall that was taken with a Canon 1D Mk I (4.1 MP) and you'd never know it. Try to blow up a picture that big from a 4 MP point and shoot and you'd notice a big diff.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I'm really glad that I didn't say, "only Canon vs. Nikon", before even trying anything else. i.e. I'm glad I didn't take DPreview/Phil Askey and Ken Rockwell as the Bible.
Both of these brands combined fail to satisfy _everyone's_ needs and preferences, because no one or two companies can.
Fuji has demonstrably better dynamic range. KM 7D has in-body IS. Pentax "just works" and will most likely produce a competitor to Canon 20D/30D in the first half of next year. Or you could spend all your money on a couple high-end Zuiko lenses and get a used E-1 or an E-300/500 and wait for the replacement.
All of these brands differ in so many ways - exposure tendencies, colour response, handling, lens build/handling/size/weight/availability/price/optics/features, adding features in firmware upgrades, dynamic range, etc. etc.
BTW, a point in favour of Nikon - rumour has it that Zeiss will be releasing F mount lenses...


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

Ryan1524 said:


> if you're getting the Canon Rebel XT, you can skip the kit lens, but the Nikon D70s kit lens is excellent, and is more expensive if you buy later. so get the D70s with the kit lens. not sure about D50, but i heard it's just as good, although not as tele as the D70s'.


For less than $100 the RebelXT kit lens is a good deal. The wide angle capabilities of that lens are well worth it. I've browsed tons of galleries and the kit lens is great [not to mention small and light]. Remember that with the lens crop factor, the 17mm lens if more like 27mm in the EF world so that extra 9mm makes a significant difference in the long term.


----------



## boba fett (May 28, 2003)

*preference*

I myself am a Nikon fan. My first camera was a Nikon and I basically stuck with it. I have a D1X, D70, and a D200 on the way. I've already invested in a lot of lenses so it would be silly for me to consider a Canon. Personally I like the build quility (and the style) of Nikon cameras over the others. In the end, it comes down what the photographer can do anyway. I honestly think Nikon has theupper hand in Flash metering. It's always bang-on! I have 2 SB-800 flash units and the wireless system on them is incredible. 

Anyway, more food for thought.


----------



## Noodleboy (Apr 24, 2003)

This has been a very helpful discussion for me, as I am contemplating moving to a DSLR too.
My main question (anyone that can enlighten me) is regarding the FULL frame CMOS sensor in the Canons (5D) versus the regular sized digital CCD in the Nikon (let's say the D200). What is better and why? I guess the idea of the FF sensor sounds great; but how do the optics affect the image? The crop/lens conversion factor on regular sized sensors seems like an issue to me too - especially since I love my 28-105 (with macro) lens.
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Noodleboy.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Noodleboy said:


> This has been a very helpful discussion for me, as I am contemplating moving to a DSLR too.
> My main question (anyone that can enlighten me) is regarding the FULL frame CMOS sensor in the Canons (5D) versus the regular sized digital CCD in the Nikon (let's say the D200). What is better and why? I guess the idea of the FF sensor sounds great; but how do the optics affect the image? The crop/lens conversion factor on regular sized sensors seems like an issue to me too - especially since I love my 28-105 (with macro) lens.
> Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> ...


Yah, your 28-105mm lens would effectively become a 42-158mm on a Nikon body. The full-frame Canon bodies are expensive, though. The 5D is about $4000 CDN +TAX, whereas you could buy a D200 and a whack of lenses for the same money.

For those who don't know about the crop factor, most digital cameras do not have the same sized sensor as 35mm film, so the picture gets cropped. It's sort of like when widescreen movies are showed on TV, the sides get chopped off.

I googled an image, what I believe this is showing is a full-frame camera (like a Canon 5D or 1Ds), and inside is a representation of what the same picture taken with the same lens would look like on a 1.3x crop camera (like a Canon 1D) and the smallest box represents a 1.6x crop (like a Rebel XT or 20D).

<IMG SRC="http://www.motorsportunderground.com/Stories/Photo%20guide/Segrini-Brut%20crop%20factor.jpg">

Nikon does not currently offer any DSLR camera bodies with anything other than a 1.5x crop.


----------



## barthrh (May 11, 2005)

Unless you're stuck on the features of the 20D, consider the Rebel XT. The image quality is virtually identical to the 20D. There are fewer features on the camera (1/4000 shutter max, less info in the viewfinder), but many consider that the money saved is best directed to lenses.

As for lenses, I'd get the kit lens. When I bought my XT, I took a pass based on some of the review. But when I got home, I did more checking and went back to the store to get the kit. First of all, the lens is cheap as dirt. Second, it's not that bad. Is it as good as an L series, or a $600 Sigma. No. But it is really quite good and is super light. If you just want a wide lens to walk around with, it totally fits the bill. You could also get the 17-85 IS, but you'll find it much heavier.

Lastly, get at least 2GB compact flash cards. Once you have a digital SLR, you'll find yourself doing stuff that you would rarely (or ever) do on a film camera: Using the motor drive, using auto-bracketing, doing more experimental stuff. All of these will go through card memory like crazy.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Yah, I don't know what this says about me as a photographer, but some of my best pictures have been with the Rebel XT kit lens.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Here's another (clearer) crop factor image.

<IMG SRC="http://www.photorepetto.com/Digital/Immagini/Canon%205D_crop_factor.jpg">


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I've been reading about the FF CMOS vs CCD issue, and it seems to be a price/performance decision. The CCD detectors are smaller than a 35 mm film frame, and therefore make the lens effectively longer. 

I'm not clear on why we can't make larger CCDs for DSLRs. Regardless, the larger CMOS detectors are much more expensive. Given that DSLRs are using smaller CCDs, many lens makers have started producing lenses optimized for these detectors, so now you have to watch out that you don't by a lens designed for a smaller CCD detector and put it on your film camera.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

CarbonKen said:


> Nikon does not currently offer any DSLR camera bodies with anything other than a 1.5x crop.


Me thinks that Carbon is trying to hard to justify his decision....
Bottom line is that the camera does not make the photographer.
I will echo what many have said you can't go wrong with either the Nikon or the Canon is that price range.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Me thinks that Carbon is trying to hard to justify his decision....
> Bottom line is that the camera does not make the photographer.
> I will echo what many have said you can't go wrong with either the Nikon or the Canon is that price range.


What am I trying to justify exactly? I was trying to explain crop factors to those who don't know and said which cameras have which crop factor.. 

I own a Digital Rebel XT, which has a worse crop factor than any Nikon so I don't know what you're getting at.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

elmer said:


> I'm really glad that I didn't say, "only Canon vs. Nikon", before even trying anything else....


I must agree with you, elmer. Here I am in this thread comparing Nikon to Canon, when in fact my digital still camera which is 4 or 5 years old and still totally rocks, is a *Fuji*!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> So the question is then, are the lenses comparable between the 2 companies (in other words is that negligible)? If so, price may be a determining factor.
> 
> I shouldn't be too concerned with the MP count should I?


Both companies make great lenses. It is one area in which, generally, the more you pay the better will be the lens. I have produced shots which are wonderful with my original Rebel kit lens, even blown up to 13x19. However, when compared to shots from my "l"l lenses the difference in terms of sharpness and overall clarity is obvious. The better lenses are simply amazing.

There are also 3rd part suppliers such as Tamron which have some highly regarded lenses in their lineup.

Once you get to 6MP, providing the sensor is a good one, and especially if you shoot RAW, you have all the resolution most people ever need.


----------



## candykoala_44 (May 28, 2005)

I've sold cameras for almost 30 years.

My best advise is to buy the lens of your choice (weight, focal length, balance, optics etc.) and then purchase a camera body to go with your new lens.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

candykoala_44 said:


> I've sold cameras for almost 30 years.
> 
> My best advise is to buy the lens of your choice (weight, focal length, balance, optics etc.) and then purchase a camera body to go with your new lens.


Good advice for sure!

I've always been into photography, but I never had money for a camera or lenses - too into music geeking and such. During summer I finally put a bit of money into it and got a Digital Rebel XT w/the kit lens. I picked up a decent zoom lens on my honeymoon in July as well.

Even though the XT is the 20D's little brother, I find it suits my needs just a bit better. Since I'm still just learning and not doing it on a regular basis, I like the portability of the XT... and I get almost the same quality (though not the same for a few reasons of course), and I can use all of the same lenses.

If I stick with it and keep getting some great shots like I have been, I eventually get some really nice glass. The body really is the last thing to worry about as long as it does the trick. Eventually I might upgrade to a better body, but for now I'm happy.

I don't think you can go wrong with a Nikon or Canon camera in the price range you're looking at. They are both incredible brands with lots of history making durable products that are used by professionals and amateurs alike.

My advice would be to buy the one you can get the best deal on at the time.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

candykoala_44 said:


> ... buy the lens of your choice (weight, focal length, balance, optics etc.) and then purchase a camera body to go with your new lens.


That's good, but make it two lenses!

Like, maybe (sorry, examples from my world):
PENTAX SMCP-FA 31MM 1.8 LIMITED
PENTAX SMCP-FA 77MM 1.8 LIMITED

Or:
PENTAX SMC DA 16-45MM F4.0 ED AL
PENTAX DA 50-200MM F4-5.6 ED 

Or:
Pentax-FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5
Pentax 10-17mm f3.5-4.5ED IF DA Fish-Eye Lens


----------



## ramsesm (Jan 29, 2005)

kent said:


> I'm a Nikon user and I can honestly say that either would be a good choice. I really like Nikon b/c their lenses are razor sharp and their cameras are very tough [trust me on that ... I completely submerged one in seawater and dropped one 20 ft in a lead fall while climbing ... it survived both without incident]. As someone said above, if you have Nikon lenses or Canon lenses that might make the decision easier.
> 
> Carbon Ken is partly wrong about the "white" lenses at sporting events ... Nikon makes a lot of white lenses too [better performance in heat].
> 
> My guess ... the pros are probably 50/50 Nikon/Canon.


Actually the brand used is more defined as the type of photography you do. Sport photography is defently owned by Canon. Not many Nikons in there. PJ used to be Nikon but I think that has gone the other way too. War PJ was alno Nikon and they are about 50/50. 

Nikon is attacking hard the PJ sector as that is what the owned before - some hardcore PJs still go for them... There are more Nikon Magnum users than Canon (but more Leicas in total). 

The white Nikon lenses are rare. These are defenetly not the norm. They have to be specially ordered and it takes a while to get them.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Are the kit lenses not generally "zoom" lenses?

Our ultimate goal is to get a good zoom, telephoto, wide angle and a macro lense (for me). Doubt we can get them all at one go.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Carex

As I shoot with a Canon I know more about their lenses, and 3rd party lenses with Canon mounts. Have a look at this site for Canon choices and recommendations for your needs - you will see he has set out several different categories.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Default.aspx

The macro stuff seems pretty important to you, so perhaps start with a nice zoom with a useful range such as 24 - 70, or 100, and grab a macro too. If you want to spread the investment a bit some zooms have a highly regarded macro capability, such as this Tamron

http://tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp

So much comes down to budget....


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

If you want to save money on the macro lens, think about whether you really need autofocus on it or not. Even aperture/shutter priority support on the lens might not be necessary; if this is the case you might only need to spend $50 on a quality screw-mount lens with adapter for instance.

For me, even if I'm taking a picture of a butterfly I'll use manual focus. Either I'm using a fairly wide depth of field, or more likely very shallow in which case my choice of plane of focus is very specific and I'd rather not leave it up to automation. The auto aperture is a must for this situation, not so much for indoor flowers.

If you're thinking about a 100mm macro, keep in mind that your distance from subject will be large, therefore your perspective will be small, more so than on the film cameras for which these lenses were designed.


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

Carex said:


> Are the kit lenses not generally "zoom" lenses?
> 
> Our ultimate goal is to get a good zoom, telephoto, wide angle and a macro lense (for me). Doubt we can get them all at one go.



Lenses are a very specialized breed, you really can't get all the functions in one lens without making significant sacrafices. This is how they get you  What you need first is your prime lens, the lens that you expect to be on you camera most of the time. Go to your local camera vendor and play witht he bodies and lenses, even indoors, its easy to see the zoom capabilities of different lenses. Second you really need to get out there and find which camera feels right in your hands. I found the Rebel XT way to small without my battery grip, with it , it feels great.


Here is what I have

50mm f1.8 = a great indoor lens, works very well in low light, very popular for portraits

28-135 IS = my walk around lens , stays on my camera most of the time

70-300 IS USM = my telephoto [the most recent acqusition]

18-55 Kit lens = I rarely use this lens, haven't had many opportunities for lanscape shots


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

ender78 said:


> What you need first is your prime lens, the lens that you expect to be on you camera most of the time. Go to your local camera vendor and play witht he bodies and lenses, even indoors, its easy to see the zoom capabilities of different lenses.


FYI "Prime Lens" does not mean the lens that is on your body most of the time, a prime lens is a lens with a fixed focal length. So your 50mm f/1.8 is a prime lens, as opposed to a zoom lens like the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I think I followed that ender meant to say "primary".


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Yah, I know what he meant as well but <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens">"prime lens"</A> has a very specific definition in photography and I was trying to share that with people. 

<IMG SRC="http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0515/4490722_200X150.jpg">


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

When I bought my Canon Digital Rebel there wasn't much choice out there anyway for digital SLRs in that price range. I consider myself to be completely brand UNloyal - whoever can meet my needs, gets my cash.

I decided to get a good all around lens with the camera body so I could enjoy the camera for a while until I could afford more specialized lenses. I decided on the ultrasonic 24-85mm. I knew that I wanted a lot more lenses and since I like nature photography, I knew this one could sorta work until I got a good zoom lens.

Later, I got a nice telephoto with image stabilization built in. Canon does this very well. It allows me to take full out 300 mm zoomed images handheld. Very handy at events and for nature photography. You can see the results here where I stopped the motion at full out hand held zoom:










Next, I got a macro lens - this time a Sigma 105mm and finally an ultra wide Canon EFS lens 10-22 mm.

So, lenses can probably meet all your needs for either camera but I'd see what all is offered for both. I love the image stabilization Canon offers but others may be just as good.

As for mega pixels, it's kind of like "aperature madness" with telescopes. Bigger isn't always better - the size of the sensor makes a big difference as well. Try out what they got in the store, check out what lenses are available for each then try to get the best price!


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

CarbonKen said:


> FYI "Prime Lens" does not mean the lens that is on your body most of the time, a prime lens is a lens with a fixed focal length. So your 50mm f/1.8 is a prime lens, as opposed to a zoom lens like the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.


I did mean primary  Thanks for the correction Ken. I have no problem being corrected as long as the other person is correct 

Pick the lens that is most suitable for the type of photography that you do as your primary lens. Everything from there is gravy. Remember that you dont need to purchase all these lenses right away. Some people have spent decades creating their collections.

My only real hesitations have been with regards to purchasing EF-S lenses. Other than the kit lens, I would be worried about limiting my upgrade path by purchasing a non full frame lens.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Our local London Drugs is packaging the Canon EOS 20D with a better lense than the kit for $2499. The lense is an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Is this a good general purpose zoom as a starting lense? It is image stabilized which is a nice added feature. Thoughts.

I have been holding and trying the cameras at stores and have found the Nikon D70s and the Canon 20D to be a good fit for my hand. the Rebel XT is a little small. This may be a sticking point between me and my wife.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Carex

I too found the XT too small, although of more importance to me was the way changes are made to camera settings: I found the XT required more button / menu combinations which made changes slower, a situation exacerbated by the camera's small size.

But - it's a great camera and a friend of mine bought the optional battery grip and this really changes the ergonomics. The controls are still too menu based for me (compared to the 20D), but it's easier to handle with the grip. This might be a compromise for you and your wife.

The 17-85 is a good lens, and the IS can be useful, particularly for street shots etc. It's really something you have to study to see if the price / quality meet your needs. Have a read at this links and see if the comments made clarify whether the lens would suit your style. One thing to bear in mind - if you ever go up to a full frame camera the EF-S lenses will not work. The EF-S range is designed specifically for cropped frame digital cameras such as the XT, 20D. This is probably not an issue for you, but just so you know.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Thanks for the adice again Pelao. I was aware of the ef-s drawback and if purchased, would likely not buy another lense with this restriction. Never know when you are going to upgrade.

Did you get a chance to talk to your other half about Chile? Pm me if so.


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

Carex, do you (still) have a lot of lenses with your Nikkormat? If yes, then the D200 can use manual focus AI lenses. This gives you access to some really great used Nikon macro lenses that don't need stop down metering. Problem with the D200 - the waiting list to get one.

Another issue to consider is the size and brightness of the image in the viewfinder especially if you like working with macro


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

MBD said:


> finally an ultra wide Canon EFS lens 10-22 mm./QUOTE]
> 
> This is the lens I want very badly. =)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I just purchased the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye which gives amasing results and because it's specifically made for digital cameras, much of the edge distortion can be compensated for with Nikon's software.

I posted this on another board in two parts and I hope Carex won't mind if I repost it here...

Begin post:
Anyway, went out today and snapped some pics down on Lakeshore West.

The pics are not cropped, they appear as taken by the D70. The corrected pics are also not cropped by me. The Nikon Capture software did all the correcting and any cropping.

1st series:
*Uncorrected Image*









*Corrected Image*









2nd series:
*Uncorrected Image*









*Corrected Image*









Hardly noticable.

3rd series:
*Uncorrected Image*









*Corrected Image*









4th series:
*Uncorrected Image*









*Corrected Image*









Here's how the software does it:

5th series: Contains the magic.

*Uncorrected Image*









*Corrected Image*









*How the software does it.*


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Of course I don't mind. Loved those shots on the other site. Love them here. Freeforalls are better anyway.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

CarbonKen said:


> I know my Canon lenses when I see them, look again at the pictures I posted, they are almost all Canon in the olympics picture and for sure all Canon in the blue jays pic, except one lens that looks like it's under a black rain cover, it could be either Canon or Nikon.
> 
> Take a look at the Nikon lens line-up, <A HREF="http://www.nikon.ca/lensesandspeedlights/">no white lenses</A>. I'm told that they're special order from Nikon, they don't usually sell in white but but you can get them so they look like Canon lenses. Better performance has nothing to do with it, how would a lens perform better by being white?
> 
> ...


Anyway ... I'm not going to argue this point, all I'm saying is it's probably 50/50 Nikon/Canon and yes Nikon does make a fair number of white lenses. I count 12 in your picture ... I bet Nikon makes at least 10 white lenses. Most high-end pro lenses are special order anyway ... when was the last time you walked into your local photo shop and saw a 300 mm f2.8 [ a $12 000 lens] just hanging around. All of Nikon's pro lenses are available in "white". Also you're wrong about the performance thing: the reason the lenses are white is not to look pretty it's so they don't overheat. The ultrasonic and silent wave motors found in Canon and Nikon lenses respectfully, can overheat on a hot tennis court or where ever the lens is being used [a black lens absorbing the sun's heat]. Nikon's black lenses are obviously not the best colour for keeping them cool. You'll often see photographers with Nikon lenses in hot climes with white towels on their lenses ... all about the heat. Of course Canon did this first [probably for recognition b/c their lenses were manual], but Nikon did it to reduce the risk of overheating. So, white lenses are easy to recognize [and often synonymous with Canon], but the white reflects heat and therefore offers better performance in intense sunlight [i.e. hot sun].


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Carex said:


> Of course I don't mind. Loved those shots on the other site. Love them here. Freeforalls are better anyway.


Cool! 

So, you getting close to a decision?

Friend of mine has the 20D and its a great camera, but it's also a grand more than the Nikon D70s...the D200 is still not widely available...decisions, decisions, decisions... 

For me, it would be between the 20D and the D200, but of course if you're going to get one of those $7000 'white' lenses as your 'prime' the decision is easy. LOL!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I think the D200 has been discounted because of availability and prices. The D20 might be the one. We need enough time to practise before we head to chile.


----------



## boba fett (May 28, 2003)

I just got the Sigma 10-20mm for my Nikon. It's not bad at all.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

okcomputer said:


> MBD said:
> 
> 
> > finally an ultra wide Canon EFS lens 10-22 mm./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## boba fett (May 28, 2003)

Actually the Sigma 10-20 is also only for Digital Cameras. 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021403sigma10-20dc.asp


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

MBD said:


>


Awesome. These are the kinds of shots I love - architectural/landscape. That's why I need this lens!

The fisheye shots above came out great as well, but I think I will stick with the 10-22 and avoid conversion and cropping.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

boba fett said:


> Actually the Sigma 10-20 is also only for Digital Cameras.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021403sigma10-20dc.asp


Don't think they had this guy out when I was looking or I would have checked it out too. The SIGMA 12-24F4.5-5.6 is actually the lens I was looking at.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

boba fett said:


> Actually the Sigma 10-20 is also only for Digital Cameras.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021403sigma10-20dc.asp


Ooh it looks nice as well.. And it's $250-300 cheaper too!


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Could be an option for you okcomputer. You should try them out in store. Honestly, the reason I picked the Canon over the Sigma at the store was solely based on weight at the time. If this Sigma boba fett mentions is just as light, you should take some practice shots and check out the colour, etc. Sigmas usually come with a case & lens hood while Canons just give you the lens as well. I do like my lens though and the accessories were not a deciding factor since I didn't need them but that price difference might influence you!


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

Carex said:


> I have been holding and trying the cameras at stores and have found the Nikon D70s and the Canon 20D to be a good fit for my hand. the Rebel XT is a little small. This may be a sticking point between me and my wife.


Have the retailer attach the battery grip to the Rebel XT. You can shoot with the grip, your wife without. I find the Rebel XT very comfortable with the grip[ battery grip that is]


----------



## Timothy J (Jun 4, 2003)

Buying the digital Canon Rebel XT SLR was a no brainer for me as I already owned 2 Canon lenses and an external flash for my Canon EOS 7 film SLR.
I love the REBEL XT. I don't care who makes it, Nikon, Olympus or Canon. I'm not a brand whore, I just love the quality and colour of the digital photos I take with it. I can take a couple hundred pictures and toss all the bad ones away, no more wasted film processing. It took a while for the digital SLR technology to be close to film and now it's finally afordable.
Buy a Nikon or Canon. You'll be happy either way. Photography is a great hobby and the family portraits I now have are lovely memories.


----------



## najibs (Feb 27, 2005)

I own both Canon and Nikon and both are great systems. Canon uses the better sensors to provide better high ISO performance and a more overall silky smooth image. Nikon has better ergonomics and better flash system. Both brands have amazing lenses, so, since bodies in the digital age come and go, I'd say pick the lenses you want first, and THEN once you know which lens system you want, the body will be easy to pick.

The Nikon D200 is a godly camera, amazing, but so is the 20D I have at more than $700 less. If you can live without the metal body and 3fps, then I'd even say go for a Rebel XT. Canon will soon release a successor to the 20D to counter the D200, so don't think the D200 will be king of the hill, since both companies constantly dethrone each other.

Like I said, pick the lens system first. 

I'd recomment that if you can afford the D200, go Nikon. If not and you want something less expensive, go Canon.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

As a total surprise, my wife bought me a Rebel XT (black body) with two lenses and the battery grip. I was floored. My daughter knows a thing or two about photography and so does her boyfriend so they helped select the camera. Oh, and two batteries, a case, two UV filters and a 2 Gb CF card too! One 'appy chappy...


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> As a total surprise, my wife bought me a Rebel XT (black body) with two lenses and the battery grip. I was floored. My daughter knows a thing or two about photography and so does her boyfriend so they helped select the camera. Oh, and two batteries, a case, two UV filters and a 2 Gb CF card too! One 'appy chappy...


Sweet! Enjoy! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> As a total surprise, my wife bought me a Rebel XT (black body) with two lenses and the battery grip. I was floored. My daughter knows a thing or two about photography and so does her boyfriend so they helped select the camera. Oh, and two batteries, a case, two UV filters and a 2 Gb CF card too! One 'appy chappy...


What an amazing present. Congratulations sir!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Lucky dog. Tell us about it after you've goofed around with it a bit.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Carex said:


> Lucky dog. Tell us about it after you've goofed around with it a bit.


Woof, woof  Am deciding whether to keep the battery grip on full time. I'm a leftie and the grip controls (like the camera) are for righties (ditto for all of the major camera manufacturers). Quality is excellent but my prev. camera was a 3.2 Mb Powershot (S30). The USB2 uploading is a massive improvement too, although I dread to think what uploading full res 8 Mb pics would be like over USB1.1....


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> The USB2 uploading is a massive improvement too, although I dread to think what uploading full res 8 Mb pics would be like over USB1.1....


Awful! I bought a firewire card reader for my little ol' iBook because I couldn't stand it & that was at 6MP! Hope you're enjoying your new toy!


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

I think in today's realm of digital photography it's about the feel. Choose the one that feels good and has the options you want. I just bought a Nikon D70s and I love it. I learned on a Nikon 35mm FE which helped a lot. Personally, I prefer Nikon optics. If you look at the price of a Canon you can get 2 megapixels more for the same price but unless you are planning to blow a picture up significantly it won't matter. Look at the reviews, just because there are more white lenses at a sporting event doesn't mean you should lean that way. If you look at the bodies the ratio is different.


----------



## Zeus (May 1, 2005)

*Olympus?*

In terms of sports photography I'd say that based on personal experience Canon has the greatest market share. We spent 4 months in Greece last summer leading up to and beyond the Athens 2004 Olympics. Having met quite a number of professional sports photographers, I was surprised at what a significant margin Canon enjoyed. Subjective numbers I know but the ratio was certainly higher than 5 or 6 to 1.

Can anyone comment on the Olympus E-500? I was always fond of the old Olympus SLRs. Any experiences or comments with the E-500 and the Zuiko lenses?


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

So Carex - did you get a camera yet?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Tomorrow (crosses fingers). 

It's a good thread though, don't let it die on my account.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Carex said:


> Tomorrow (crosses fingers).
> 
> It's a good thread though, don't let it die on my account.


Be sure to let us know what you decide!


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

So? What did you get. We're all anxiously waiting


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm betting on a Canon, but then again, he may surprise us....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Anyone actually have a D200 yet?*

I placed my order for a D200 on November 30, and still haven't received it. I called again today to ask what was going on, and was told I was in position 30 of 70, and that it would likely be another 6-8 weeks before I get the camera.  

Has anyone actually got one of these yet?

If you were in my position, would you cancel the order and buy one from B&H on-line?

What do you think?


----------



## boba fett (May 28, 2003)

I picked mine up today. I don't know what to tell you. Ultimately, do you want to risk buying a US warranty camera?


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Anyone who wants to get into the world of DSLR for cheap - Henry's has a used Canon 300D body for $584 CDN. (And a used Nikon D100 for $900) ((Oh - and a new Oly E-1 with lens for $1000))

However, *bryanc*, if I were in your position, I'd just be happy I was in position 30, and wait. That will be an awesome camera. Congrats!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

boba fett said:


> I picked mine up today. I don't know what to tell you. Ultimately, do you want to risk buying a US warranty camera?


Have you had a chance to play with it at all? What do you think? When did you place the order and with who? (sorry for all the questions, but I'm dying of curiosity)

I've decided to wait, and hope that the management at McBains will try to compensate for having promised me the camera in the middle of Dec and not delivering until March by throwing in a CF card or something.

There certainly isn't any other camera on the market that I'd be as excited about right now, so I guess there is nothing I can do about the delay but wait (im)patiently.

Cheers


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> ... hope that the management at McBains will try to compensate for having promised me the camera in the middle of Dec and not delivering until March by throwing in a CF card or something.


Three month delay? Better be a SanDisk Extreme III 4GB for that kind of wait...


----------

