Silvia Club of NSW

its time to upgrade i think from my Canon 400D

ok so im looking for people with either of these models for some info please?

im borrowing a D700 over the weekend to have a play, my boss is trying to convert me to nikon.

its cheaper for the canon because i have a flash and a lens i can use till i can afford what i want. but the nikon is cheaper in its initial purchase. plus everything else is cheaper too.

ive read reviews, apparently the nikon is easier to use, functions are just 'there' to use instead of buried in a menu.

_________________
M35 Stagea.info @ http://www.m35stagea.info/

Its a decent investment there Zei.

Personally while Nikon certainly was once the leader in camera technology and quality, I don't think that is the case now. I'm seeing Canon being much more innovative in this technology area and I believe will have a longer life. I'd go for Canon for this reason.

In terms of quality of picture - people could argue till they are black and blue - at the end of the day, the quality is going to depend on (1) quality of lens (2) ability of photographer. There is just not enough differentiation between the two in regards to image quality.

Now, specifically for 5D - exactly what features are you expecting to use that are not available in 400D. Are there really enough "new" features to justify $2000 price tag for upgrade.

Wouldnt $2000 worth of glass for your 400D be a better investment?

Also - I assume you've taken a look at the 50D? Its pretty nice for not quite so much $

_________________
-Dan

mmm, i'd get a 5D MkII if i was going to upgrade

hhmmmmm @ 50D, from the reviews they have had some issues with them...i can't justify upgrading my 350D to a 2 digit series, i cant justify the cost vs. increase in useability or any real extra features that will change the way i take photos...having said that i can only go from photos i have seen and i have used a 20D in the past , all i can see being the differences is a few more megapixels and a slightly but not greatly increase in low light ISO noise and some extra focusing points, a 5D is a considerable jump in ISO quality etc, and Full Frame and that i can justify, but thats a big jump if you are going to use it for a hobby camera or take "holiday snaps" , plus all the non FF lenses you have will be rendered useless so u would have to buy more glass too

i have a 350D now and use a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 and a Canon 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS USM for most of my shots, and its more than fine for everything i am using it for and the glass makes all the difference with the shots, hehe im looking around for some more glass for mine at the moment

never ventured to Nikon post some comparison pics

_________________

Here's an interesting method for measuring camera sensor performance...

It's from DxO Optics and attempts to be kinda what 3DMark is to PC's.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

_________________

the 400D is a crop frame, i want to go full frame. its the whole purpose of the upgrade. new lenses would be great, but on a crop frame camera, and 'budget' processing technology, i wont be much better off i think.

its also an excuse to buy new glass, as im going to tell the mrs that the sigma lens ive been using wont work with the new camera. personally i think the lens is a great start. i just need to be able to spend some money on it

to be honest, im leaning towards the nikon. unless i want mega megapixels, the nikon seems a better camera.

im borrowing a D700 this weekend to see how i go with it.

the 50D appears to be worse than a 40D and its supposed to be an upgrade. so i wont be doing that lol

aaron, if i see you with that canon 70-200 im gonna beat you till you give it to me fucking LOVE that lens!!

as for price, the nikon wins. and i have to disagree with nikon no longer the leader in DSLR. with the D3 and D700, they seem to have jumped ahead - thats MY opinion tho. not trying to start an argument

but FYI im a canon man, id rather buy the 5D, but i want a easy to use camera, im not just looking for a 21.1MP camera.

_________________
M35 Stagea.info @ http://www.m35stagea.info/

ohh and thanks for your replies

_________________
M35 Stagea.info @ http://www.m35stagea.info/

yeah - 21 mp is insane. Unless you are creating street billboards, I doubt many people would really be able to take advantage of sizes like that.

At the end of the day, its the camera you feel most comfortable with is the one that's going to give the best results...

Regardless which cam you choose, you are going to loose quality in jpeg compression (assuming you plan to post to the web)

A good photographer could take 6 different cameras, take the same shot, do usual level of photoshop post processing, and no-one will be able to notice the difference on a 1024 web pic.

If your actually printing pics in anything larger then A4 sizes, then yes, you will definitely see advantages and differences - though I would still argue, anyone properly trained in the camera they are using will still take great shots.

The Nikon would be a great cam, and I have honestly thought about crossing over also, but unless my camera is defective - I doubt my quality of pic is going to change. (for what I do with it anyway)

So I guess it really comes down to personal preference.


One a side note, I'm starting to try and do some HDR photography - its pretty interesting, and not quite as easy as the theory says. Results will vary regardless of camera used for this technique.

_________________
-Dan

just read up on HDR tecniques. play with photoshop and do it synthetically

_________________
M35 Stagea.info @ http://www.m35stagea.info/

Photomatix FTW with HDR...


http://flickr.com/photos/oricle/2772629 ... 685424901/


http://flickr.com/photos/oricle/2867481 ... 685424901/

_________________

Synthetic HDR are not much chop (either that or my photoshop skills are shite - which is entirely possible).

Raw files of different exposure merged through Photomatrix is the way to go - they look awesome (like Oracles above)

I've been waiting for an afternoon/evening where its high contrast, bright sunshine and clouds + low wind...

Have fun with the Nikon over the weekend.

_________________
-Dan

Would would you guys recommend for an entry level DSLR? Under $1200?

Cheers,
-Mitch

Zei's 400D when he upgrades hehe

_________________

Cannon 1000D, or 450D for around that price...


or give Zei a bj and he might do a good price for you on his 400D.

_________________
-Dan

id steer clear of a 1000D, get the 450D. my mate has one and its nice!!

for under $1000 do you want a DSLR with lens or just the body and youll buy a lens on top?? because you can get different models.

dunno when the 400D will be up for sale. but i got 4 batteries, a battery grip and a 430EX speedlite as well

_________________
M35 Stagea.info @ http://www.m35stagea.info/

Thanks for the advice so far I'll probably buy body and lens together to get started, I'd like to buy the body + decent all round lens but I dont know enough about the products to make that worthwhile yet.. Is it essential to get a camera that can produce RAW files? I just want to get sarted with an allround package but I like taking macro / night scenes and some sport/auto stuff..

I've been looking here: http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/digital-slr-cameras-c-2.html but if anyone can recommend other cheap places in sydney let me know

If you had to choose between: Nikon D60, Canon 450D (40D is too much unless I get an import) or an Olypus e520 with standard 18-50something lenses which would you go with? #fps is pretty important to me, and price of extra suitable lenses (to get a macro one later..)

Thanks!
-Mitch