Well, the last couple threads I've started have been dead, hopefully this will do better. I didn't see a thread that I felt covered this in the first two pages, so if I missed it, I'm sorry. I'm interested in getting a DSLR camera for Christmas, this is going to be for railfanning primarily. I currently shoot with a Nikon N60, with a Tamron 28-300 AF lense. I very rarely adjust setting on this besides setting the camera to Action versus auto and going to Manual focus. The lense is on it's last legs too, so that's not something to influence a purchase. I've seen the Nikon D50 advertised at Costco and on the web at a very good price. I see that it uses the same CCD as the D70. I notice that a few people here use it. I also see that the D80 just came out, but I'm not sure I would need that. Tell me, what differences are there between the D50 and the D70 that would I notice given how little I currently play with the camera? Obviously, where I start and where I end aren't the same, but is there anything in the D70 I'd want right away? Also, what are the equivalent Canon models? What are the plosses and minus of that route? I'm not married to Nikon, It's just what I know. I want my actions shots to turn out well, I also want to do some night photography though mostly low action and some layout shots. Any thoughts?
Have you considered Sony's new A100K? At 10mp, it seems to be a real up and comer to the Nikon vs. Canon camps. It seems to have a lot of features for the price that neither Nikon or Canon are not offering for the price...and since it purchased Konica-Monilta line of lenses etc...It wouldn't be such a bad choice. http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/digital-cameras/sony-alpha-a100_reviews.html
Try one of theses sites along with side by side comparisons of your cameras in question http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/INDEX.HTM http://www.dcviews.com/
If you're open to any type of camera, I'd suggest the Pentax K10D, 10 MP, in-camera shake reduction, capable of using any Pentax K-mount lens all the way back to the '60s (and screwmounts with adaptors), all for approx. $1000!
I didn't see a suggested retail on that Pentax. It looks to be a lot fancier then I'm interested in, though I have nothing against it. As for the Sony. Ugh, I'm against Sony on Principle, it's a family thing. Do Nikon and Canon let you use older AF lenses? or even manual focus lenses? I know the N60 I had would mount just about any lense Nikon made.
A Nikon will let you mount and use any of their autofocus lenses and you can mount any of their post-1972 ("AI" or "AIS) manual focus lenses although you will lose the use of the camera's light meter. A Canon will let you mount and use any of their autofocus lenses and you can mount the manual focus lenses with an adapter to use them with the EOS system. I'd assume the same holds true for the loss of the light meter as it does with the Nikon system.
I think that Nikon versus Canon is one of those 40-year wars. I made my choice in 1968, and have stuck with Nikon. I've plunked two cameras on the same tripod with the same settings, and really couldn't see much difference. I think you can't go wrong with either one. The other alternatives also deserve a look. I like Nikon because I'm familiar with it; others like Canon. Being familiar with a camera is much more important to me than a 0.01% difference in sharpness. I've never broken a Nikon, although I have gotten the DSLR D70 wet enough to get erractic; my friends who shoot Canon have never broken theirs either. I do think Canon might be first to market with some features, with Nikon typically a few months or way more behind. To me, both have shown remarkable dedication to the market. You really can't go wrong with either one.
YoHo, the price at RitzCamera.com for the Pentax K10D is $999, which is the same price you'll pay for the Nikon D80 or the Canon Digital Rebel XTi (400D), and you get features much more similar to Nikon's D200 (~$1500) or Canon 30D (~$1200). :angel: If you don't want something "that fancy" why not go with the Pentax K100D, w/SR reduction, 6MP, ($699). You can end up paying less, as you have in-camera Shake Reduction, which allows you to use older lenses and still have that image stablizing feature. Pentax lenses always seem to recieve high accolades, and are at least as high quality as C/N, if not better. :shade:
I think Pete has the best approach,... it is almost like the infamous Ford vs. Chevy pickup debate... Most folks are on one side or he other for some reason without weighing the options.... That being said, I guess it is u to whatever you are used to,... Harold
I mentioned 40 years because it was 38 years ago that I bought a Nikon F with an f/1.4 lens for something like $368 big smackaroos--a huge stretch for a dirt-poor college kid, more than my first car. Probably one of the best investments I ever made. Probably paid for itself within a month.
One of the people I was with in Cheyenne this last week had a Canon He liked it. He had a Tamron lense for it which he said was even better then the Canon lenses and cheaper. I'm all for cheaper. I get the feeling here that it may not be possible to go wrong.
I think the Tamron lenses are pretty comparable at the low end of the market, but perhaps not as rugged. When you get into the professional lenses, there is a huge difference in quality and ruggedness. Many people have more camera, and also more lens, than they can use most of the time. The finest of lenses will not work well if the camera is shaking during the exposure. I have a Tamron 28-200 that I really don't like any longer. It's been replaced by two Nikon lenses: a 24-85, and a 70-300. Much better results because the zoom range is as great. And the 28-200 always extended to 200 due to gravity. To me it was just an awkward lens without any real strengths.
It appears the Canon/Nikon duel has Nikon in the lead for the moment. A lot depends on what tricks the marketing folks have up their sleeves. New model sony used Minolta mount lenses. Hard to say how they will hold up. Pentax ownetrs will be happy to upgrade to the K10D. Do you really need to spend $1000 for a good system? An alternative to the DSLR may be cameras like the Kodak Z612 P712 high zooms, Canon S3IS for about $300-400. THe 10-12x zoom gives a range from 35-400mm. The IS is supposed to make a 2stop difference in hand holding the camera. Some have a macro setting to do closeups of trains. I figure if it can do a business card, that may be OK.
I guess its each to his/her own when it comes to digital cameras, I have been so happy with the available prosumer cameras that I have found no need to get a DSLR, at the moment I am using a pair of Fuji S5600s, more than happy with the picture quality, after lugging a complete 35mm SLR system around Weddings for over 30 years it makes a pleasant change to have lightweight equipment, as I dont intend to make enlargements bigger than A4 I find these cameras do a great job, no shutter lag problems, great focusing and first class metering.
Old Shutterbug, welcome to Trainboard! Like you, I was used to the 35mm SLR and actually that's the reason I bought my Nikon D50 to get into the digital world. Pete has the more professional models and the D50 is often referred to as "entry level" DSLR. I couldn't be happier with it. I have found it to be a wonderful railfan tool. Haven't been in any real bad or below zero weather with it yet but I am very impressed with the battery life. YoHo, I think you are right, and as others have pointed out, there are Nikon fans and Canon fans, and I don't think you can go wrong with either brand. I'd like to learn more of Pentax' entry as I was a long time user of Pentax 35mm equipment. If you can find one of the older models of either brand, they are much less expensive than when they first went on the market. I got the D50 with Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses all for about $700. :teeth:
My Rebel XT is under the table here right now, I use it for all my model shoots nowadays. Its soooo much fun. Which reminds me, i need to buy a new card for it
I'm knew here and relatively new to railfan photography but I've been a Nikon user for more than 30 years. Given that you've already got a Nikon body and lens, I'd stick with Nikon. You can still use the lens you have and can buy just the body only and save a few dollars, and have your existing film body as a backup. I'd go with the D80 -- it's 10 megapixels instead of the 6 on the D50 and D70. 6 is enough for most uses but 8-10 has become the standard for digital SLRs. It's kind of like buying a computer with less than the latest chip or memory -- even the latest is going to be out of date by the time it arrives, so why buy something that's already out of date. But if you're on a budget, I would still go with at least the 70 over the 50. It's just a more serious camera in many regards as others have mentioned. If you're really on a budget, Nikon has the D40 coming. Even though I'm prejudiced in favor of Nikon I'd say stick with either Nikon or Canon and avoid any other brand. The range of lenses, accessories, etc., both manufacture brand and third party is so far beyond what any of the other manufacturers offer. And with camera companies and film companies dropping left and right (Bronica is gone, Konica-Minolta is gone even though Sony has picked up their lens mount), they're going to be the only two left standing when the action shakes out.
[/quote]And with camera companies and film companies dropping left and right (Bronica is gone, Konica-Minolta is gone even though Sony has picked up their lens mount), they're going to be the only two left standing when the action shakes out.[/quote] No real surprise in seeing Bronica bite the dust, Minolta was a bit of a shock but after spending 30 years in the camera trade I think it will take more that Canon and Nikon to put Olympus, Pentax, Sony and Fuji out of business, other entrants into the DSLR trade are Samsung, I have a feeling we will also see Kodak back in the consumer SLR business one day in the future.
