Less expensive DSLR's, Nikon or Canon

Jack wrote:
Thanks to all who responded to my original post. I just ordered the Nikon
D50 with the 18-55mm DX lens from B&H Photo. Not the best price, but I know
they are reliable from past experience.

Actually the $620 price is very good. A bit less than Amazon, though
Amazon offers free shipping, and 3% back if you get an Amazon Visa card.

I'd rather give B&H the business. I was just there a few weeks ago when
I was in New York, I always make their store one of my stops in NYC.
Great store.

In article ,
Jack wrote:

Thanks to all who responded to my original post. I just ordered the Nikon
D50 with the 18-55mm DX lens from B&H Photo. Not the best price, but I know
they are reliable from past experience. This will be my first DSLR (I have
3 other Digital cameras, but the delay when taking pictures of children
drives me crazy. I used my son-in-laws D50 and was happy to see that there
was no blurring when the children moved, as kids are wont to do and I got
the picture I wanted, not a second or 2 later.

I think you made a good decision, although I'd have tried to go with the
18-70mm lens instead (or 18-200 VR!), if I could manage the price
difference.


All of the Canon 350 and the Nikon D50 and D70(s) are wonderful cameras,
with very little to pick between them. The speed at which they take a
photo after you press the button is indeed much better than most
existing non SLR cameras (though that's a law of engineering money and
marketing, not a law of physics). I was photographing people playing
golf before a wedding last weekend, and easily got lots of shots of the
ball in flight just after being hit (these are with Nikon's ~US$150
70-300mm lens):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucehoult/117971665
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucehoult/117971726
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucehoult/117971902
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucehoult/117972159

You're just not going to do that without a fast acting camera.


Also, the camera was quick enough to capture this cute moment when the
rings were asked for and young Thomas totally forgot that was his cue
(they were in the blue package he's holding):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucehoult/117975561

That shot also, for me, shows what might be a sufficient tie-breaker
reason to go for Nikon instead of Canon -- flash sync speed. It was
taken at ISO200, f9 and 1/500th against a very bright sky/sea
background, and even though I was in the front row of guests I was
zoomed right in to the 70mm limit (105mm equiv) of the kit lens. (that
shot might have benefitted from being zooomed out a little more, but the
moment was a fleeting one so I didn't manage that adjustment).

The low end Canon cameras can use flash only to 1/200th vs 1/500th on
the Nikons, which means that in this situation the camera would need to
be stopped down to f14 (or the ISO increased from 200 to 500) to get the
same exposure on the background, but either of those would also cut the
flash effectiveneess down by a factor of 2.5. So you'd have to be
either 40% closer to the subjects, have a flash that was 2.5 times more
powerful (and Canon and Nikon flashes are essentially the same power),
or simply put up with the subjects being underexposed. Or, of course,
blow out the sky even more than I did.


As for D50 vs D70(s), it's also a very close thing. What made me go for
the more expensive D70s was mostly two things: the observation that
about 60% of the price difference could be accounted for by the
difference in the kit lenses, and the ability of the D70s to use the
built-in flash to wirelessly control an external flash, which sounded
like fun to play with and would require a "wasted" SB800 (worth rather
more than the difference in price between the two cameras) to do on the
D50. (Nikon has since introduced a cheaper controller that can mount on
the D50).

I'm sure you'll really enjoy your camera. I'm having a good time with
my first DSLR!

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:05:55 -0800, SMS, disingenuous as ever,
wrote:

Well they are slightly less expensive, at least in the initial cost,

Very good, high quality NiMH AA batteries are slightly less
expensive than the cheapest, riskiest Li-Ion batteries. But in the
long term, for most people's usage, NiMH is far less costly than
NiMH, your disinformation campaign notwithstanding. Many people
will see an additional saving as they may already have an NiMH AA
charger.


Another hassle with AA batteries is that you really don't get any indication
as to their remaining charge, except just before they are exhausted. This is
inherent to their flat discharge curve, where you can't base the remaining
charge level on the voltage.

This is not true at all, as I've pointed out several times before.
The reason for not adding a good battery level indicator in cameras
that use AA batteries may simply be that the manufacturers prefer
adding such features to their more expensive models as an incentive
for buyers to pay more. If you want to get a second charger to keep
in another location, you wouldn't want to get one from the camera's
manufacturer, as you'll probably pay anything from $50 to over $100.
Fortunately, cheaper chargers are available, but if you have several
different cameras, you may have to buy several different chargers.
This is not an issue with AA batteries.


But aside from the lenses, all the Pentax DSLRs (except the low-end DL
model) feature a true glass bright pentaprism finder instead of the dim
pentamirrors used in every other DSLR in this price class... the difference
is instantly apparent if you look thru a Nikon D50 and a Pentax at your
local camera store.

This is a minor advantage. It certainly isn't something to completely
base a purchase on.

When it comes to preferences, you once again show that yours
matter greatly, overwhelmingly whereas other people's preferences
are minor. Just a few messages back in this same thread you said
"The lack of continuous auto-focus, except in action mode, on the DS
and DS2 eliminates them from consideration". My camera has a
continuous auto-focus mode, and other than testing it briefly over a
year ago, haven't used it since. I suspect that that battery
wasting mode is not often used by most photographers. If it's a
feature that you use often it would be nice if you said something
like "I need that feature, so not having continuous auto-focus
eliminates those cameras from MY consideration", instead of implying
that it should be eliminated from everyone's consideration. But
this is your way, and as we see over and over again, you won't
change.

You have wrong. SMS has set the view to the right point. Please, if you
don't know well the subject, don't misinform the readers.

And there are even more benefits than SMS said to use lithion batteries over
NiMH. And I speak not only as a power user, but as electronic engineer to.

Excuse me, but I will not have the time to come back here to continue this
argument, so I will not answer any follow-ups.
--
Dimitris M

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:10:02 +0300, Dimitris M wrote:

You have wrong. SMS has set the view to the right point. Please, if you
don't know well the subject, don't misinform the readers.

And there are even more benefits than SMS said to use lithion batteries over
NiMH. And I speak not only as a power user, but as electronic engineer to.

Excuse me, but I will not have the time to come back here to continue this
argument, so I will not answer any follow-ups.

He flees, shedding ignorance in his wake. Have it your way but ...

Li-Ion does have some advantages, but SMS routinely overstates the
case and often makes several that are flat out wrong. One
particular example is the long term cost. Depending on how they are
used, Li-Ion can be more inexpensive than NiMH or alkaline or far
more expensive than both. The way most people use their cameras
would put them in the group that would save much money if they used
AA batteries, and whether alkalines or NiMH would be cheaper would
depend not only on usage but the camera as well. A pro that
averages hundreds of shots per day or more, would find little to
choose between NiMH and Li-Ion. Where Li-Ion excels is a middle
ground, where it wouldn't get as much use, but NiMH would need more
frequent recharges due to self-discharge. But when used this way,
Li-Ion batteries become much more expensive long term because they
deteriorate with time, whether they are used or not, which greatly
reduces the number of charges they can provide. SMS always ignores
this. Because a very small number of photographers can use Li-Ion
in a cost effective manner, he overstates the case that Li-Ion will
be cheaper for everyone, and that's clearly not the case.

If you want specific, concrete examples I can provide them. But
long term cost is not the only area where he fudges facts. I assume
that since English doesn't appear to be your native language you may
have a harder time than most at spotting SMS's oft-used technique of
stating a specific advantage of Li-Ion batteries that is true but
leaving out the qualifiers that allow him to falsely make it seem
like a universal advantage. Long term cost is not the only area
where he does this. Which battery do you think is the best for use
in very low temperatures? If you say Li-Ion, as SMS frequently
does, you'd be wrong. It's better than most, but not the best.