D70 or 350D??
 

I might be get myself a DSLR in the near future but I have a few questions before I make the move.

Firstly which one would you recommend, basically I see it being either a Canon or Nikon.....keep in mind this is mainly for car photography, not sure if that has any affect.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? From what I've read on here it seems the standard lens on the D70 is better than on the 350D?

Would I get by with just the standard lens on either camera to start with, or is it a necessity to get out and buy a better lens?

I know quite a few of you have one of these cameras so I'd love to hear what the owners actually have to say about these cameras.

THANKS!!!! :D

Went i bought my D70 it was up against the 300D, This was a along time ago, i haven’t had many chances to exploit the camera due to work and uni. But the main reasons why i picked it was the loading times, switching between modes. It was heaps quicker than the 300D, and its still the case against the 350D. As mine would be used for motorsport photography, i wanted it to load quick, save quick, switch modes quick. That was my deciding factor. And also a killer deal i got :mrgreen:

The quality of the images from both are astounding, you wont be dissapointed with either.

If you shop around, you can find many camera stores providing free lenses, most of them are Tamron and cheaper brands, but there still fairly nice lenses. I got the 18-70mm and its awesome, as you've seen in some of my pics..

cheers
shane

Thanks for the info mate. :D

The one thing I like about the 350D is its 8MP vs 6.1MP for the D70, those extra pixels really help when trying to crop an image.

If I would start out now, I'd get a D50 body and buy a used D70-kitlens (18-70).

Btw, 8MP on the 350D = 3456 x 2304, the D70 has got 3008 x 2000, so the difference sounds bigger than it is. :)

If you really want the best, be prepared to shove out a lot of dinero. :)

^^^^^^
often, my crops are so slight that im still over 3000x2000 ;)

but still, i think the big difference in quality will be felt in the lens, not in corps... images that are clearer, sharper, and have less artifacts will always look better then images that are a bazillion x a little less pixles ;)

my 20D has a start time of .2 seconds, which i LOVE... if my camera is out, i dont miss a beat!

since the 30D is out, 20D's are falling in price... again, dont go with the a lens kit ;)

When I bought my SLR and lenses about 2 months back, I was faced with the same problem. Nikon or Canon? The other makes didn't even enter the fray because the phenomenal range of lenses on offer by the Big 2 as well as third party lenses for the same.

I went to store ready to buy the D50 or D70 or Canon Rebel XT (=350D). I found the Rebel Xt to be a bit too small to comfortably hold in the palm of my hand. My fingers couldnt easily hit the shutter button. On the D50, things were much better in this respect and it felt more natural to me. Also, there was a $200 price difference in favor of the D50 - useful money to put into a good lens. Hence I came away happy with my decision. I tested out the Nikon 12-24 lens with it and it worked like a charm.

But now that I have huge lens (Nikon 70-200 VR) which weighs 3 lbs I found that the smaller body of the D50 gives me calluses at the end of the day of shooting at a race track. I think big lenses warrant big camera bodies to bring greater comfort. I might eventually trade in my D50 for a D70 which is more comfortable to hold with a big lens attached.

So you need to think not about the kit lens that you buy now but any future lens tha you will need. Test out the camera body with a really high end lens to see if comfort is affected.

Why dont you list out all lenses you eventually need - walkaround + wide angle + fast lens for motorsports + etc. Price out the equivalent Canon and Nikon versions and see which is cheaper from an overall package standpoint.

The Nikon D50 and 18-70 lens is an excellent start IMO.

sameerrao,

Interesting points you made their. Lots of people don't like the weight of the lenses and the cameras but this weight is also responsible for stability. The grip on the camera is another important feature. The grip on those amateur bodies is for most people not ideal, too small. You are not aware of it from the beginning but once you can get your hands on a pro body it becomes very obvious. These are much more ergonomic. The combination of the weight and the superb grip is a killer combo 8)

So, when you are into Nikon and you have plans to buy professional lenses in the future then I suggest you go for the D200 (it has a pro-viewfinder as well).
When you prefer Canon, the D20 or D30 is probably the better choice.

When you don't have these expensive plans, I doesn't matter. Just pick the one that offers the best grip or the one you like the most. They both build great shooters.


Happy Drooling :P 8)
http://users.pandora.be/jokke1/Photo..._d2xs_lens.jpg


Cheers

I'd say Canon just because I am a Canon man by now.

As said, the kit lense that comes with the Nikon is better, but IMO even a 70mm lense will soon feel a bit "short" and you'll need a bigger zoom...

Basically the cameras are quite similar in performace, so it's up to you! I am extremely happy with my 350D and even if 20 or 30D are better, for what we need IMO they are not required.. a 350D with a good L lense will still do it ;)

Thanks for the info guys.

I'm a bit undecided on whether I should take the plunge, as I don't want to spend thousands and thousands of $$$ on a camera at the moment - especially since these days I have less and less time to take pics. If the entry level dSLR camera and lense is enough then I can justify spending ~$1K but don't want to then spend the same amount again on another lense..... :?

Also, this might sound like a dumb question but I'm used to talking about zoom as in 5x optical etc.......when you say 70mm or 300mm lense what is that equivalent too?

get a 350D body with a lense .....
ohhh and if you really want to compare the cameras
try http://www.dpreview.com 8)

5X, 7X zoom is a relative term. So 5x of one lense is not strictly comparable to another unless both lenses have the same focal lens range.

E.g. my 12-24mm wide angle lens has a 2X zoom (max focal length/min focal length) and my 70-200mm has a 2.9X zoom.

The 5X vs 4X terminology are more significant when talking about P&S cameras which sort of have similar focal length ranges to begin with.

With SLRs, we talk about the focal length range like 12-24mm, 70-200mm, etc.

The way I see it:
10-24mm constitutes wide angles suitable for landscape photography and interesting close-up with distortion
24-100mm constitutes wide-angle to normal zoom range - this is typically the range that most P&S work at. Good for your car photoshoots for instance.
100-250mm represent middle level zoom - good for race tracks and say jet skis out in the ocean
250-600mm represents high end zoom which gives extreme maginfication and is used by wildlife photogs as well as for racetrack photography.

To get a handle of these numbers why dont you pull up the manual of your current camera and see the focal range that comes standard. This will give you a good reference to compare other lenses with.

Thanks for that, appreciate it.

My current camera has a 12x optical zoom (love it), or 6.0-72.0mm.....

What camera do you have...

Canon Powershot S2 IS.....

If I decide on the 350D (which I am leaning towards at the moment, maybe because I'm familiar with Canons) is it better to just get the body and a good lense and forget about the kit lense (18-55mm)?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page15.asp

Actually your lens has 36mm-432mm focal range which is phenomenal. It has IS built in which is also great. The aperture range is F2.5-3.5 which is very good.

It would take very expensive lenses for an SLR to match this range and feature capability. If you merely intend to take car shoots which are mostly stationary anyway then your camera should be more than enough. I don't see you getting much better pictures from an SLR.

If you go for races or maybe more low light scenarios then perhaps the SLR will start to make sense.

I would save my money if I were you.