Ben Horne wrote:
The Rebel produces higher quality photos than the D50, but the D50 is built better and has a better feature set. They're close.
I haven't seen any data to back up the D50 being built better. If anything, the XT has a steel sub-frame and the D50 does not. Both cameras have different feature sets. Which one is better is very subjective. Of course, I think the Rebel has the best features for my needs.
smaniscalco wrote:
Available 100 ISO.
Lower noise.
Better image quality.
All except the available 100 ISO being IMO.
The second half of my statement, about Canon having the lead in sensors is just as important. From what I can see CMOS wins. New Nikon bodies seem to confirm this.
Well, the 300D doesn't really have lower noise than the D70 or 50, but the 350D does.
As for image quality, the metering on the Nikons is better, as it has iTTL flash control, the D2H meter, and spot metering. And it has 1/500th flash sync which is really nice. I would say the metering of the Nikons breaks the approxiamte tie between the sensors.
And as for ISO 100, that is only a really big deal to certain people (landscape shooters come to mind). But then again, there is always ND filters.
MPerdomo wrote:
As for image quality, the metering on the Nikons is better, as it has iTTL flash control, the D2H meter, and spot metering. And it has 1/500th flash sync which is really nice. I would say the metering of the Nikons breaks the approxiamte tie between the sensors.
I might agree with you if we were talking about JPEG, but splitting hairs about metering is pretty pointless for RAW shooters. Canon's metering may not be quite as good as Nikon's, but it isn't off by 2 stops in either direction. Spot metering is only really helpful in fairly uncommon situations, and even in those you have to be a good photographer to intelligently use EC to nail the exposure - and in that case, you're probably shooting RAW anyway.
Well, the 300D doesn't really have lower noise than the D70 or 50, but the 350D does.
As for image quality, the metering on the Nikons is better, as it has iTTL flash control, the D2H meter, and spot metering. And it has 1/500th flash sync which is really nice. I would say the metering of the Nikons breaks the approxiamte tie between the sensors.
And as for ISO 100, that is only a really big deal to certain people (landscape shooters come to mind). But then again, there is always ND filters.
From Phil's review over at DPReview: Dropping the sensitivity of the EOS 300D down to ISO 100 produces (as we would expect) a very clean image with no visible noise (even at the 200% magnification used above). Clearly this is a noteworthy advantage the 300D has over the D70 which can't match the Canon's low shadow noise.
The review also shows a slight nose advantage to Canon when comparing both cameras at 200 ISO. I had the chance to work with images from both cameras before buying and I prefered the 300D.
I use very little flash, so sync speed is a non-issue for me. Spot metering would be nice.
Perhaps more important to someone deciding between Nikon and Canon platforms is, once again, Canon's leadership in CMOS sensors. The XT packs more pixels in the same space as the 300D and still manages to lower noise levels. Nikon has not managed significant sensor improvement short of their top of the line model.
If you were to compare the D70 to the 350D then I would say the D70. Reasons being the amount of control you can get with the D70 (knobs and buttons galore) and the spot-metering feature that only the professional cameras Canon has (except the new 5D). The Nikon flash system has been known to be more consistent than the Canon system.
But you are asking between the 350D and the D50. The D50 is lacking in these these features: It has no mirror lock-up, has no depth of field preview button, two things I think are vital to landscape and portraits, respectively.
Sam Bennett wrote:
I might agree with you if we were talking about JPEG, but splitting hairs about metering is pretty pointless for RAW shooters. Canon's metering may not be quite as good as Nikon's, but it isn't off by 2 stops in either direction. Spot metering is only really helpful in fairly uncommon situations, and even in those you have to be a good photographer to intelligently use EC to nail the exposure - and in that case, you're probably shooting RAW anyway.
Honestly though, you shouldn't get into the habit of just shooting away with the attitude that youll just fix everything once you get back to the computer.
But I can understand it in situations where you need to go beyond what the meter/camera can do, and need a raw file with enough lattitude to fix the shortcoming.
MPerdomo wrote:
Honestly though, you shouldn't get into the habit of just shooting away with the attitude that youll just fix everything once you get back to the computer.
No, but as someone who takes photographs of highly contrasted subjects often, I know that there are finite limitations to what camera systems can or cannot do - it's just a fact of life with what I do. If I'm taking a photo of a guy in a tux or a border collie flying over pure white jumps, there really is no way for an algorithm to decide what's supposed to be pure white or not. There's no way for the camera to know which value is supposed to be 15% gray. You can theorize about how all these things make such a big difference, but when it comes down to it even people with the latest and greatest auto exposure systems still whip out light meters because in the end, all cameras are stupid.
Add to this the fact that we still live with the reality of limited dynamic range with these cameras and that you have to underexpose consistently to later get the dynamic range you really want, and you can see that RAW workflow really is just a fact of life for some people.
I've gone back and forth at a great expense to finally figure out what system will work for me and my shooting needs. Started digital with the D70--excellent camera. Went with the 20D after reading about the noise and 3200ISO ( at the time of the switch I was shooting HS basketball ). The 20D is a great camera but I thought I needed more ( I should stop thinking and just shoot ) and bought a 1D. Too much camera and a financial situation forced me to sell it all and start over when cash flowed. Bought the D70S and gave it a try one last time--I needed 100ISO for landscape and really wanted to use the Canon 135L once again. I finally decided the Canon 350D with grip was what I could use. Alot of expense like I said, but alot of thinking about what I shoot primarily. I finally nailed it down to the 350D/grip, 17-85IS and 135L+1.4X. The 135 for outdoor portraits. Add the 1.4X for outdoor sports--my kids playing soccer. 17-85IS for family snapshots and landscape. Indoor sports I'll deal with in time--most likely the 50 1.4. It's been a long haul and alot of expense, but I'm very happy and content with what I have. Good luck with your search.
Sal Baker wrote:
I haven't seen any data to back up the D50 being built better. If anything, the XT has a steel sub-frame and the D50 does not. Both cameras have different feature sets. Which one is better is very subjective. Of course, I think the Rebel has the best features for my needs.
It doesn't take data, it takes handling the cameras. I do that on a daily basis at the camera shop I work at. The D50 is built better. It's more solid, and the ergonomics are better.
Ben Horne wrote:
It doesn't take data, it takes handling the cameras. I do that on a daily basis at the camera shop I work at. The D50 is built better. It's more solid, and the ergonomics are better.
Eh. I know where you're coming from, the D50 has a more "confident" feel, for lack of a better word - but that's different than it actually being "better built", imo. Personally, I use the XT as a second camera which is usually dangling on a long strap on my right side, inevitably getting banged around as I move through crowds, around furniture, and so on. The camera is fine. Until someone shows me that the D50 can take a fall from 6ft and the XT can't, I'll remain skeptical about build quality in terms of reliability.
It doesn't take data, it takes handling the cameras. I do that on a daily basis at the camera shop I work at. The D50 is built better. It's more solid, and the ergonomics are better.
Actually, as subjective as this is, I'd have to agree. I seriously dislike the XTs ergonomics. I'd still put up with them though for all the reasons I've stated in earlier posts to this thread.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Eh. I know where you're coming from, the D50 has a more "confident" feel, for lack of a better word - but that's different than it actually being "better built", imo. Personally, I use the XT as a second camera which is usually dangling on a long strap on my right side, inevitably getting banged around as I move through crowds, around furniture, and so on. The camera is fine. Until someone shows me that the D50 can take a fall from 6ft and the XT can't, I'll remain skeptical about build quality in terms of reliability.
Solid "feel" is a nice thing. I like the term "confident" too.
The 300D has probably taken more verbal hits regarding build quality than just about anything out there, but I think it's really more perceptual than anything. I abuse the hell out of mine and it has never failed me. I think that short of water sealed "pro" cameras, just about any SLR can take what most people have to dish out.
I would think where you want to end up long term in terms of building a complete system,
I would go to a camera store and have a play with each camera and also do some research on which lenses you might want to buy now and in the future for your particular style of photography. Depending on what lenses you like, may influence which brand you go with.
Knowing Nikon cameras ( I used to have a D70), I'm sure the D50 is a good camera. But I prefer the speed of the Canons and the big lens selection (not that I can afford halve of them). With landscape photography, you may not be bothered with speed.
Bottom line is pick the camera you think you will have the most fun with.
I was between these two cameras and I ended up going with the 350d.
Before deciding I wrote down a list of plusses and minuses and the 350d came out on top.
I actually had the small size of the camera listed as a minus but surprisingly I've gotten used to it and I find the small size/weight to be convenient. Even after I upgrade to a better model, it'll still be nice to have a "small" camera for certain occasions and the 350d will do just nicely.
Another selling point for me was the media. D50 uses SD card instead of CF. My current P&S camera plus most higher end digital cameras all use CF so once I do upgrade I wont have to worry about buying another $200 memory card.
I'm very happy with the 350d. This kit lens is working well for me as a beginner. It's a good learning lens for a beginner like me. Here are a few of my first shots with it
