I'm contemplating getting a D50 or Canon XT for lightweight trail/bike use. Size and weight is critical for this ap. Note: This will not be my "primary" camera........... will have a D200 for that but I will use this light/cheap body whenever I'm out on the trail or riding.
Anyone here have both cameras or experience with these cameras in terms of sharpness/punch? This camera will be mainly used for landscapes/outdoor pics. I'm not at all concerned about the Canon ergo stuff or "brand loyalty" except for the lens issues. If I did go the XT route I'd probably just get an adapter and use my Nikon mount Tokina 17mm on it.
***** Also, is there a D50 sized replacement planned for early/mid 06. I would definately wait 6 months .................. if there was a replacement in the works.
I do not have a D50, but my local Nikon rep showed me some 40 inch lightjet prints he had made of some window light portraits he did of his kids with his D50. I am a good photographer and I could not have made better prints this big from very many of my D2X files.....As good maybe....Maybe better if you looked at them really close up or with a glass.....but not really qualitatively better.
I must say, I was impressed. The Nikon Rep has a D2X and the D50, he is a reasonably good photographer and he says he is using the D50 a lot.
huh? sharpness is just another parameter to set in the camera. sheesh every review I have ever seen from Phil he turned UP the sharpness on the canon cameras in his review against other cameras. He also will tell you that even when you set the canon camera to 0 sharpening that there is Always some sharpeneing being applied, some even speculate that some is applied to the Raw file as well. if you have nikon in your bag anything but a nikon doen't really make sense at all to me , get a Sony RD-1 if you want a point and shoot rig, it has the same sensor as the D2x in it although it is a bit smaller (1.6 vs 1.5 crop in the D2x)
I don't know if the comparison with the 350D is universally valid...
A few pages later in the same test, it seems that the D50 is much sharper than a 300D (same resolution). It could be the lens, the focus, the sensor resolution.... The 350D could deliver slightly better pictures, but is anybody going to see any difference if you print at a normal size ? I have seen 'normal' amateur pics coming from both camera's and all were excellent.
Unless you will really shoot under extreme conditions, I don't think you should base your decision on such a test, but more on ergonomics (handling), lenses, functionality, ...
Stripper wrote:
I do not have a D50, but my local Nikon rep showed me some 40 inch lightjet prints he had made of some window light portraits he did of his kids with his D50. I am a good photographer and I could not have made better prints this big from very many of my D2X files.....As good maybe....Maybe better if you looked at them really close up or with a glass.....but not really qualitatively better.
I must say, I was impressed. The Nikon Rep has a D2X and the D50, he is a reasonably good photographer and he says he is using the D50 a lot....Show more →
John
Thanks for the feedback. What you say makes sense.
Perhaps Phils' samples are just "bad". .......... I.e. There really shouldn't be that much difference between a 6MP and 8MP image.
jmcfadden wrote:
huh? sharpness is just another parameter to set in the camera. sheesh every review I have ever seen from Phil he turned UP the sharpness on the canon cameras in his review against other cameras. He also will tell you that even when you set the canon camera to 0 sharpening that there is Always some sharpeneing being applied, some even speculate that some is applied to the Raw file as well. if you have nikon in your bag anything but a nikon doen't really make sense at all to me , get a Sony RD-1 if you want a point and shoot rig, it has the same sensor as the D2x in it although it is a bit smaller (1.6 vs 1.5 crop in the D2x)
Thanks for the clarification on Phils reviews. dpr............. <===
Off subject:
The new Sony looks like a good first try at an APS sized sensor P&S. However, it's still way too big for my intended use (+6" long).
A D50 + small WA prime is the size I'm looking for. I've also got a really small P&S that I currently use for outdoor use. It's sloooooooow as a pig though.
johnnymg wrote:
I would generally prefer the Nikon (because I already have some N lenses) BUT the sharpness looks rather pathetic compared to the XT in Phils review:
So you either bump the in-camera sharpness up, or sharpen with unsharp mask in post-processing to attain the level of sharpness that you want. What's the big deal?
If you are getting a d200 for a primary, what's even the question? Its kind of silly to have two different systems--and you are asking on a Nikon forum. You already know what answer you will primarily get, so you've already made your decision and are just wanting reassurance.
Truth is, both sides will argue that their side is the way to go, and you won't go wrong either way.
That's coming from a guy that prefers Canon.
And lenses primarily determine sharpness--that extra sharpness is coming from using the better f1.4 lens, and the fact that their is a little more MP to capture detail. The canon f1.4 IS a sharper lens than the 1.8. I've used both.
Now if you were trying to decide which one as your only camera, I might say the XT. That clearly isn't the case, though---and again, I think you've already decided.
