canon eos 350D or nikon D50

[drew_viii]

can somebody tell which camera is better? and why is that? been reading lots of reviews and forums these days, and saw lots of good side and bad side of each cameras, but its too technical for me... i need someone to explain to me as a beginner's photographer... anyways... im interested taking nice shots and scenery, moving shots, somehow want to be a professional photographer someday...

been wondering to get the canon eos 350d. but budget wont allow it so if ever im gonna buy it, have to wait for a few weeks, but cant wait to have one, so now im considering a nikon D50, well what a dillemma when your having some gadget lush!!! so need you guys opinions about this... which camera would you recommend for me? consider the situations ive mentioned above like "wanna be photographer" and "budge wise" and also the "gadget lush" haha... confusing right?! :confused:

[JTL]

Didn't I see the exact same thread like two threads below? Or is it...deja vu?:rolleyes:

[MikeKS]

yeah i asked the same thing a couple of days ago. here is the thread http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16425

Drew i had the same dilema, i couldn't decide on what dslr system to buy the 350d or d50. In the end i decided to go with the Canon over the Nikon. One cuase the Canon is a more "complete" dslr than the Nikon ( and it shows in price). Two I liked the available lens for the Canon vs. Nikon with my budget.

Unfortunately i can't buy either right now, i got no money..... so i'm shit out of luck for a little bit. good luck on deciding your dslr system^^

[timmciglobal]

ROFL.

Yea mirror lockup and a DOF preview when its damn near impossible to SEE the DOF with your eye is "complete."

Pick canon but don't claim its because nikons system isn't complete.

Tim

[MikeKS]

i said "complete" in quotes, as someone else described the Canon vs. Nikon.. it was my quick way of saying that it has a couple cool features that i like over the d50. I'll list why 350d is more "complete" though,Mirror lock up, 8mp vs 6mp, backlight on status LCD vs. none, DoF check, ISO 100 vs. ISO 200, Better RAW conversion software included.

I'm not dissing Nikon d50 it's a good system, and by no means is it an incomplete system, but IMO Canon's 350d is a more"complete" system.

[timmciglobal]

Cannon "system" lacks spot meter, auto ISO fuction, 3rd color space support, lack of matrix metering and consistecy of nikon flash exposure, dedicated AF assist light, write failures if CF door opens...

I could go on. It's a complete falsehood that nikons system is less complete. It's more of a fact that the systems differ and you choose which features you'd prefer right now.

Tim

[jeisner]

To the OP, pick which camera suits you best, asking which is better helps little as it is very subjective, better for me isn't better for you :cool:

[capedeci]

i dreamt of nikon d50 + 18-200VR, so I sold my 350D (cannot realize IS with flexible range), then KM comes into consideration, with KM5D + 18-200 standard lens, which is much cheaper

[coldrain]

i dreamt of nikon d50 + 18-200VR, so I sold my 350D (cannot realize IS with flexible range), then KM comes into consideration, with KM5D + 18-200 standard lens, which is much cheaper
For decades people manage to make great photos without IS.... and IS is mostly useful in longer tele ranges. So, why did you not consider the 70-300 IS USM with that 350D? It would have been a bit more useful than IS at 18mm.

[capedeci]

but new technology helps unskilled people also take great photos. The good thing about IS is u dont have to be good to take sharp photos.

mainly, its easier, both IS and no IS possible to take a good photo, IS just made it easier.

if its offered for free, why not take it?;)

[coldrain]

So, why not take 70-300 IS USM?

[capedeci]

me? cannot afford it :cool: !!

well, can only afford one lens, either short, tele, or all in one

so I go for all-in-one with IS


dont care bout the compromises, im taking snapshots not making pieces of art

[George Riehm]

For decades people manage to make great photos without IS.... and IS is mostly useful in longer tele ranges. So, why did you not consider the 70-300 IS USM with that 350D? It would have been a bit more useful than IS at 18mm.

On the other hand: For decades many people took terrible photos or gave up photography entirely, due to camera shake.

As some of us age, we find that our hands start to shake uncontrollably for no particularly good reason. While not life threatening as are Parkinsons or Alzheimers, hand-tremors syndrome is somewhat disabling, and as a serious amature photographer it's irritating as hell. And yes even at 18mm in low light this can be a problem.

Recently I am starting to have problems taking hand-held shots below 1/60 sec. where just a year ago 1/15th was do-able. For as much as I like the D70, and have been eyeing the 200D, I'm starting to look more seriously at image stabilized lenses or maybe even a 7D (or Sony equivalent) for future use.

The problem is that good quality lenses, with image stabilization, are at least 2X more expensive than their non-stabilized equivalents. The 70-300 IS USM you mentioned is ~$570, where the, optically equivalent, Sigma 70-300 APO M DG is under $200.

In some cases there are no IS/VR/OS equivalents, such as the Sigma 50-500 where having this feature would be more than welcomed. Even being able to shoot longer, fixed focus, fast lenses would be very nice.

So food for thought, especially for those with shakey hands: A KM 5D with 18-70 kit lens and Sigma 70-300 APO will cost a little less, on average, than a 350D with 18-55 kit lens. The difference in image quality is more than compensated by image stabilization, and good ergonomics. A D50 might cost about the same, but with an equally inferior kit lens, and no image stabilization.

It will be interesting to see where Sony takes this, and how long it will take the other guys to implement (if ever).

[erichlund]

but new technology helps unskilled people also take great photos. The good thing about IS is u dont have to be good to take sharp photos.

mainly, its easier, both IS and no IS possible to take a good photo, IS just made it easier.

if its offered for free, why not take it?;)
IS is not a replacement for learning good technique. IS is particularly useful if you have pretty decent technique, but the exposure is just too slow. If your technique is poor, you will still get "unsharp" photos with IS on. Unfortunately, I can prove this, though I keep saying to myself, "I was in a hurry on that one". Yes, that's it.

[capedeci]

ok, but still, say, A and B

both have poor technique, equally poor
A has IS, B dont have IS

same low light situation
A will have better photo than B

so IS is a bonus.

[erichlund]

If you read my first sentence carefully, you'll see that what I am saying is, don't use IS as an excuse to not learn good technique. You're failure rate with poor technique and IS will be greater than good technique alone.

[timmciglobal]

I think thats relative to what your shooting.

300 mm in 1/40th of a second won't be sharp technique or not unless you a) have it stabilized on a tripod locked down or b) have IS.

I think IS is a great tool, one of the best tools for improving sharpness of images effected by camera shake.

Tim

[Ali_baba]

Recently I am starting to have problems taking hand-held shots below 1/60 sec. where just a year ago 1/15th was do-able.

Time to join the senior citizens club :D

[George Riehm]

Time to join the senior citizens club :D

Still way too young for that... and that is the pisser. There was a time when I would laugh it off, but it's slowly starting to affect everyday life. I can still get consistant images at 1/60 HH and some days even 1/30. So I adjust and use monopods, tripods, faster lenses, and image stabilization when I can.;)

[capedeci]

If you read my first sentence carefully, you'll see that what I am saying is, don't use IS as an excuse to not learn good technique. You're failure rate with poor technique and IS will be greater than good technique alone.

you too, read my example carefully, and try to imagine replacing "poor "technique with "Good technique" ;)

A and B are world class superhuman experts :p

A have IS
B dont have IS

they do handheld shot in low light
A will WIN! With more success rate :)

So my point is, given same skill, IS made u better at low light (when u dont carry a tripod, or scene not permitting a tripod)



e.g. u want to take a pic of ur sleeping dog uinder the table, if u set up a tripod, it will wake him up and lose the moment, if u take the camera quietly and do handheld shot with IS, "Clunk!" ur dog woke up, but u got the picture!:cool:

[cdifoto]

This thread went down faster than a kamikaze pilot.

[erichlund]

This thread went down faster than a kamikaze pilot.
You got that right.

However, I'd like to give an example where the vaunted 4x VR II let me down and I still got the shot.

I had been humping my camera and bag all over the San Diego Zoo for about 6 hours, and frankly I was a bit tired. My hands were getting shaky, but we had reached the Panda exhibit. Momma Panda was in this perfect pose, but the VR couldn't even overcome the unsteadiness of my hands. Fortunately, a pole came to the rescue. I simply braced my left hand on the pole, and used it as my tripod. Brain overcomes technology failure.

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/51652814-M.jpg
Date Taken: 2006-01-07 11:58:41
Date Digitized: 2006-01-07 11:58:41
Date Modified: 2006-01-08 19:25:13
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D200
Size: 2127x3197
Bytes: 5207122
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 100
Coming from a D70, I'm still a little hesitant to raise the ISO. I did get a number of good shots at higher ISOs (up to 800), but this one, for some reason, I left on 100. In retrospect, ISO 800 would have given me about 1/250, which would have been a much easier shot. So much for brain. :o

Focal Length: 200mm (300mm 35mm)
Exposure Time: 0.0333s (1/30)
Exposure Program: Normal program
Exposure Bias: 0
DigitalZoomRatio: 1/1
SensingMethod: One-chip color sensor
ColorSpace: sRGB


I don't think I've said anywhere that VR or IS or whatever you want to call it is not a good thing. My point is, people have been getting perfectly good shots without IS for decades. Getting good training and engaging one's noggin will get you more good shots than IS ever will, and if it does make some shots even better, and save a few that you wouldn't have otherwise gotten, so much the better. VR was still on for the above shot, and I'm sure it helped, but based on other shots that didn't work, it wasn't enough.

And, that's my last word on the subject.

[capedeci]

sorry about my misunderstanding.

I tought you said that IS isnt useful.

[drew_viii]

woah, didnt expect this thread would be that long lol...

im wondering, its about canon 350D vs d50, now its IS issue hehe... anyways, bout lens? which lens would be better and cheaper? canon or nikon? particularly towards professional photographer... cuz i might want to keep the lenses if ever im gonna buy new body in the future :)

[coldrain]

There are good, bad and in the middle lenses for Canon, and there are good, bad, and in the middle lenses for Nikon. You will have to ask less vague and/or broad questions for any meaningful replies.

[drew_viii]

There are good, bad and in the middle lenses for Canon, and there are good, bad, and in the middle lenses for Nikon. You will have to ask less vague and/or broad questions for any meaningful replies.

:eek: sorry hehe.... ok no broad questions anymore from me... im so lame, just confuse on which camera to go after all, im just a novice who wants to know something bout DSLR.... tnx anyways