Decided on a Nikon...but which one??
 

Been camera shopping today, crossed the Sony Alpha A350 off the list as it doesn't "feel" right. Which is a bit of a bugger as it was my number one choice. Couldn't put my finger on why it didn't sit right in my hand but at the end of the day if its not comfy, its not comfy. Right?

Would dearly love a D300 but the budget won't stretch to that especially as I'd need to fork out about £1300-£1400 to get the body and a decent lens.

Therefore looking at a D60 or D80 and spending out on a decent lens or two - prefererably one for all round use and one for RC/Dog Shows.

Anybody use either of these and got any recommendations or advice, if so it would be gratefully received.

I've not used the D60 / D80 so I don't really know. Not exactly sure what the D60 is but I guess it's a small D50 replacement, but the D80 is a cross between the D70 (which I have) and the D200 (which I had) so should be a super camera. The D200 is the nicest camera I've owned, and the D300 is based on it but MUCH better apparently - but you're right it's a lot of cash. :o
If you can sway the D80 I'd go for that over the D60 - I'm not a big fan of small cameras - the low end Canons are way too small for my average hands.

Lens wise, I don't have a lot of lenses tbh, I've had the 18-70 that came with my D70 for years and it's a great all round lens. I'd been dropped and the front glass fell out & skidded across the floor and got badly scratched but it still takes great photos with no loss of quality!! :thumbsup:


Speaking of dropping lenses, my 14-24 is BACK from nikon uk!!!!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Any reason Nikon over Canon? Only reason I ask is Canon is doing an amazing cashback deal at the moment. £140 cashback if you get a 40D, and a fair bit cheaper then D300, around same price as the D80 IIRC. I've done my homework on this, and I am getting a 40D. IMO it is the ideal camera for RC use (very fast, low noise at high ISO) and is cheap, and with the cashback I found it hard to turn down.

I agree the Sony camera doesn't feel right, and it's slow as well, so not suited for any kind of action. As for Canon size, the 40D is bigger than the D80 so it's not awkward and small like the bottom of the range models. And of course a battery grip is relatively cheap considering it makes it bigger (easier for action photography), doubles the battery life and gives the extra shutter release button for portrait orientated shots.

I'm not saying the Nikon is bad, or trying to discourage you in any way. From my research there is nothing between Canon and Nikon, it's just picking a flavour you like so to speak. But I just thought I'd make you aware of the cashback, as for me that's what confirmed my decision, £140 is a lot of money back :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dbppTQfuJ8M (this is also quite good, the pc software looks great)

I use a D200, and high iso noise aside (can be a pain sometimes) it's an awesome camera.

Cheers!

Glypo how much can you get the 40D for ? and isit just the body or with a lens as i work for Canon uk :D I don't know anything about cameras but it would be nice to see how our site store compairs to the internet prices:)

Not sure it will be the same now, but Nikon were a MUCH nicer company to deal with than Canon were. Nikon also do free technical days from time to time most big cities where you can pop along and get free advice and a free lcd clean!:thumbsup:

I'm a Nikon fan myself, just like the way the cameras feel and the colours they throw out. :thumbsup:

I think the Canon cameras have just as good colours as Nikons really. When you compare samples with the cameras setup the same, the results they get are the same. Colour is down to how you setup the camera from my limited SLR experience/knowledge, rather then down to the camera. I think it shows when so many professionals use both Canon and Nikon equipment. Off-topic, but does anyone else seem to notice that every F1 photographer has a Canon L series lens? I don't think I've seen anything but L series on tv at F1.

stegger - In the shops, and online, the 40D with 17-85mm IS is £859.99, so with £140 cash back (done via Canon) works out final cost of £719.99. Not sure how that compares with what employees get, probably best not to say or I'll get jealous :lol: I hope my credit card is feeling brave as the cashback offer runs out end of June so I need to purchase before then.

Glypo, the reason you see more sports guys using Canon is because many moons ago Canon released the EOS 1 which had the eye operation system (EOS). At the time Nikon were still running the F4 as their flagship model. The 1n was a far superior camera with focusing times and frame speed that made the F4 look antique! In the world of sports photagraphy, speed is king. Obviously everyone bought a 1n as their camera body and built their kit around that. Nikon brought out the F5 soon after that but by then everyone had already bought the canon and were unwilling to go through the hassle and expense to switch brands for no real reason. You will see alot of paparazzi and press photographers using Nikon due to the fact that they all used the olf F3 then F4, F5 and so on so stuck with Nikon to retain the lense compatibility. Long winded but I hope that explains it for you.:yawn::)

Ultimately you need to try then in your hand in a store. I used to own a Minolta 7D, and that was/still is unmatched by any camera in terms of ergonomics (and colour IMO), and the D200 is similar in respect of having front & rear command dials. The fact canons only have a front command dial for me sucks, but we each find a preference of our own, and I would always recommend trying them in your hand before paying out a lot of cash :)

Cheers!

That makes sense, thanks. Either way I think it's fair to say they are equal systems. If Nikon was any better then Canon, all the sports photographers would ditch their gear and get Nikon, and vice versa with the press if Canon were better. But it makes sense, as you say, if people are just set in their ways, no point in changing.

I think EOS stands for electro-optical system though. I have some old film SLR, Canons with FD and FL style fittings, and various old Minolta, Nikon and Olympus film stuff, and they actually have mechanical linkages between the body and the lens. Whereas I think the EOS was the first just to have metal contacts and have the mechanics inside the lens, hence it was called electro-optical system, and would explain the speed you mentioned. I could well be wrong though, I know very little about SLR history.

The Nikons make a more satisfying shutter noise that the Canons. It's more of a k-thum to Canon's klick-eee.

It's more important that I thought it would be, as I like taking pictures just as much (if not more) than the actual results.

I do like my little canon, but unless you get a 5/1d they do sound a bit tinny. The 20/30/40's are a little better than the 350/400's, but only marginally.

Nice to see you have steered away from the Sony, they make walkmans & game consoles - not cameras.

I believe that is the official explaination mate. I remember there were many suggestions for what it could have been. Eye operated starting was another, referring to the cameras that started automatically when you looked through the eyepiece! Eye operated system came from the little green squares in the viewfinder that tracked where your eye was looking and focused the lens to that point. Electro optical system sounds better anyway!:thumbsup:
On a side note, I do think that canon make the best digital compacts. The feature wheel on the top is really easy to use and is pretty much the same as the old slr mode wheels from the film cameras. The Nikons menu screens always used to be overly complicated and a bit duanting for the newer users.

The xxD series is a LOT better than the xxxD series. Saying they are only marginal is totally unfair. They have much less noise at high ISO, they are much, much faster (in terms of fps and write speed), much quicker focusing magnesium alloy case rather then plastic, much better controls, secondary LCD, 14 bit.......... I could go on.

As for sound, I tend to agree the low end Canons don't have same sound shutter. But the 40D sounds good. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dRMyNrmWvvg

Not exactly a good reason to chose one camera over another though?

The paper differences between xxD and xxxD canons is far less obvious in real life usage. High ISO noise is really good on ANY canon DSLR that has the CMOS sensor, and the real world differences between the systems in that respect is not all that obvious. Build quality and ergonomics are better on the xxD.... less plastic used in the contruction. I've used a Canon 300D on and off, which is quite old, and in the right hands it can still produce results that do not distinguish it from it's upper and more recent sibblings.

Shutter sounds do very a great deal bewteen systems, but the quieter it is, the better.

Cheers!

I would have to disagree, I think there is less of a difference on paper then there is in reality. For example the 400D and 40D have the same sensor on paper, and the 450D soon to be released has even better. But the 40D outperforms both on noise performance at high ISO. It does actually have the same sensor as the 400D but has a better quality micro lens and photosensitivity due to a change in CMOS manufacturing itself.

As you rightfully say the CMOS sensors are so good now, that you get very little noise. And at low ISO there would be no difference, simply because there is basically no noise. However when you look at 40D vs 400D samples at high ISO (in the thousands) the 40D gets much better results. And this is so important in RC photography.

And of course with an old camera you can match new and better ones. I have taken photos with a compact at races that are better then what some people have taken with dSLRs. I am sure therefore people can get good results from low end SLRs, but it's just about value for money. Saying there is little difference between xxD and xxxD I think is unfair, as for most people the differences of the xxD are very big, therefore add value to the camera making it worth the money. Of course peoples needs are different, so to some the extra features might add little value, so would not be worth the extra money. Even then I think it's hard to say the changes are small though....

the problem for the most part is that people have the ability to 'pixel peep' shots so much. Pixel peeping is a camera's worst enemy, because it allows wuch factors as noise to be taken out of context. Unless shots are specifically taken to be printed in publications or for stock, by the time images are viewed at their destination resolution, you'd be hard pushed to tell what camera they came from. The exception to that would be comparing my D200 to a 40D or 450D, in which case the noise would be easily seen to be higher in my D200.

For me, it would be the build/size/ergonomics that would make me by a 40D before a 450D.

Also worth mentioning is the Pentax K20D, one of the most interesting SLR's on the market in terms of Bang for Buck.... and even more so the Samsunf GX20 which is almost the same camera, but with revised and improved menus.

Cheers!

Sorry Jason, I was referring to the sound of the shutter only - not the performance of the camera in general.

Good reason? - depends on if you are a photograpler, or just like cameras.

All this talk of specs - it's like camera porn!:lol:

http://www.oople.com/pixels/jimkon.gif

Fair enough Stu, I must say I have never really given too much attention to the sound of the shutter.

And Jimmy - LOL. :lol: