Maybe by now some of the pros in here have seen the type of photos I take most. My passion is for nature and landscapes. When I rushed out to buy a digital camera,I liked the size and feel of the Nikon8700.Thinking more megapixels the better I have tried many settings and different times of day, night,rain,snow etc. Am not the happiest camper with the results.The zoom on this camera is not particularily good,and the manual settings are hard to adjust.Also trying to capture something in action is really hard.(which may be the case for most digitals) Now I want DSLR and have seen some of the best in here. Seems like a Canon 20D or Nikon D70 would be the narrowed down choices.But then lenses.I believe I could benefit with Nikon because of the use of older lenses.Though I keep getting swayed by Canons quality. Going to need help with this,by reading and asking questions. Then again any words on Dimage?

I'm not sure if the terms SLR/non-SLR are really still completely descriptive. It seems that the "consumer" boxes tend to have an electronic viewfinder; you focus and compose through the electronics. [Do they even have a mechanical shutter?] There are advantages and dis-advantages to this design, but one of the characteristics seems to be a lack of responsiveness. This is improving. For landscape not an issue. For nature, could be really dissapointing. "DSLR's" view through a more traditional mechanical mirror and prism, without introducing any electronics delay. There still is a slight lag between pushing the button and capturing the image, but this delay is much closer to what we are use to in film. [As with film SLR's, the viewfinder blanks out during the actual instant of exposure, and there is a rrsounding "clunk" of the mirror. That's why real purest street photographers still buy Leica rangefinders...] The "consumer" boxes have been very optimized for cost and size. So the lens, sensor noise/dynamic range, etc., are only as good as they need to be for the major market share. If you already have an investment in Nikon lenses, migrating to a Nikon seems rather natural. We could have a real heated discussion here about the merits of Nikon glass vs Canon. But if you already have big bucks invested, why switch? Controls, menus, and pushbuttons is an ongoing study in complexity. It seems they teach in Marketing 101 that a bigger feature list is always better than a smaller feature list. Since "DSLR's" are more intended for folks who need fast, consistant results, one would hope the controls would be more sensibly placed. One would hope...

Hi Doug BIG subject I believe you will get two responses here, one from each of the Nikon and Canon camps. I as you probably know sit on the Canon side of the fence. I know two people with a 20D and must say it looks am impressive piece of kit, Canon seem to be a little less of a problem with regard to the censors collecting dust than the Nikon. I also know two people with the D70 that two is an impressive camera, although I wouldnt swap it for the 10D. I guess the next bit depends on how much $$$ you want to spend, the D70 is cheaper than the 20D, however the 10D is well priced now. The Canon 10 and 20D's lowest ISO is 100 as opposed to the Nikon's ISO 200, and IMO puts out a slightly cleaner image. Also IMO the bonus of using older lenses may not be a bonus! This is partly due to the sensor crop on the DSLR's that are not full frame, as part of the outer view of the lens is not used, this has the effect of the censor picking any imperfections in the lens, this is why some of the newer lenses made state that that they are optimised for digital. I am certain that not all will agree with me, but I have done much research on this, and this is a very brief skim of my findings. Canon/Nikon always a big debate, I have seen the difference on screen and print for the cameras that you have mentioned, not much in it but there is a difference, and swings slightly on the Canon side (Just my opinion) Having said that if you have Nikon lenses like their cameras etc, maybe you should stick with them. I will let someone else have a go now. Simon

Message edited on: 01/25/2005 04:08

Well Misha can type faster than I can! Anyway to answer Mishas question, yes on the DSLR the controls are more sensible, on the 10D all shooting settings can be changed with one hand via buttons, finger and thumb wheel. You dont need to do into the menu other that no change custom function, format etc.

I've tried Dimages and they are simply not as good as Canons and Nikons. OTOH, I'm a fan of Olympus. :-) I'd recommend E-1 or even E-300. The latter is somewhat slower than E-1, but it has 8 MP and supports FAT32 for micro-disks. They both take same lenses. E-300 would be a good choice for an entry-level DSLR. It is a bit more expensive than its direct competitor, Canon EOS-300 D (Digital Rebel), but also quite a lot better. Good lenses cost as much as the body (or more), though, and the little zoom that comes with E-300 is ... very mediocre. You'd have to buy Zuiko 50-200 (100-400) mm for nature photography. I've tried it and its really good. People have been using Zuiko 300 (600) mm tele with E-1 and the results are admirable. You can also check Sigma DC lenses, too.

right now I have a Canon EOS 10 D but i will sell it soon. Ther camera is great and the 20D is even better.( I'll bought something else but this isn't important here/ still canon) Yes the nikon is cheaper. But I would prefer a 20D. Now why would I give you the advice not to buy a 10D ? Ok not because the 20D has 8 instead of 6 Mp, but because it has much lower noise. The Sensor is new and really better. So it really depends how much you wanna spend if you want it really cheap you could get a Canon 300D still very good camera and very cheap also compare to the nikon.

Hi,i use a Nikon Coolpix 8800 and Sarah a Sony DSC 828. really the Sony is very fast and has a great lens. the Nikon is much more slower, but i like the telezoom and the VR System.for a DSLR i am waiting for 16 Megapixel.maybe its possible to get a Digital Film for the old SLR Systems in the future.thats my first wish i have. gerhard

@ gerhard Yest that's a good idea. I can tell you the 16Mp are really fantasic. It's incredible how this image looks. Perhaps I can show you something next week or so. @ topic It really depends what you want. I never could go back to a "normal" digi cam but it depends from person to person.

Doug, I am in the same boat you are in, I too have the Nikon 8700 and am not the happiest camper in the world with it. I was gung ho Nikon until I actually became familiar with this camera. Yes I have a hard time catching anything in motion and yes the manual settings are hard to navigate if not damned impossible!!! I am looking at the Canon 20D! I recently spoke with a professional photographer that went totally digital, he owns the 20D and a few 1D's. He said that he gave up his Nikon system, had actually owned a Nikon D-SLR and was disappointed with it. He also stated that he gets "true color" from the Canon. I was seriously going to purchase a Nikon D-SLR until I talked to this man, now I am afraid that I am leaning towards the Canon line, I am going to wait until this spring to make my purchase. Brenda :) P.S. I have an FTBn and an AE1 and I just can't beat them!

SLR digital, Canon or Nikon, any camera will be fine for every amateur photographer, even the Canon 300D (I'm using one). Any SLR camera body from Canon and Nikon has enough quality for almost every purpose. The real thing is about lens. Canon has about 50 different lens for their DSLR models, the EF and the new EFS series. The quality, the variety and price ranges are wide. I would suggest to save on the body and invest heavily on lens.

@fap77 ok that's right but you don't need to invest much in lenses because with a canon 300D ther is nearly no difrence between a 500 or 1500 lens. And again yes Mp are all the same between the 300D, 10D, 20D or D70 but the noise is the big diffrence.

Message edited on: 01/25/2005 11:24

neverfinder I dont understand what you mean by nearly no difference between a 500 and 1500 lens. Sorry that doesnt make sense to me. The 20D is 8.2 MP and that is partly why the noise is less 10D/300D 6.3 MP (all 1.6 lens crop) D70 6.1 MP (1.5 lens crop) Noise on the 10D/300D is non existent at 100 ISO it is at higher ISO's that it becomes a problem, (not so much on a 20D) but no more that grain if high speed film Use cheap lenses on a DSLR and you notice it, if you have used a quality one, maybe even if you havent.

@ Lostpatrol Ok It depends on which kind of lens. But if you take a 70-200 lens from canon for 1500 compare to an cheaper 500 zoom lens ther is a diffrenc but not big enough to pay 1000 more. This changes if you are using the 20D or even a better body. But with a 300D the diffrence doesn't matter. And the noise of the 20D is less cause of the new sensor and not only because of the 2 Mp more. I say this because I tested it. My friend has a 300D and we took some test shots with my lens and and his sigma lens for 550. Than I compared them at 100% and the diffrence is not so huch. I mean if you take a very cheap lens for 200 or so than you don't have to discuss it.

Attached Link: http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/VideoArtefacts/VideoArtefactsPosterization.html

Ah now it makes sense. To me a 500 lens is 500mm and a 1500 lens is 1500mm I agree that there is not enough difference to pay an extra 1000 /$ or whatever the currency is. There is also some confusion in general as the definition of noise and what is actually posterization, which if I remember correctly was discussed in a thread 3 or 4 weeks ago. These two things are different. Noise is usually red green or blue artefacts in a jpeg whereas posterization is blockyness in an image see link

Message edited on: 01/25/2005 16:06

Ok...I guess i'll wade into this after my D70 experience... Since I returned my five d70's to Nikon I have done tons more research with respect to "dust" issues on DSLR's. It appears that despite what some folks say, ALL DSLR's will eventually be affected by dust getting on the ccd sensor...doesn't matter whether it's Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc... As an example, just check the forums at Dpreview for your favorite camera...search for "dust" Many say it's not a big deal...well if I spend $1500+ for image quality, I think it is... Bad news; 1) Most come with dust brand new in the box 2) Dust will be attracted to the sensor even if you don't change lenses (zoom lenses tend to suck air into the chamber) Good news; 1) Most dust specks only show up at high apertures with uniform light backgounds 2) Yes, the sensors can be cleaned...(do so at your own peril) 3) You can clone out the spots with your image editing program In response to Lostpatrol's comment that Canons tend to collect less dust than Nikons...it's possible, but many owners seem to feel that it's more a function of the distance between the filter and the sensor...Canon's is apparently further away, hence the dust doesn't show up quite as much. I'm not knocking DSLR's...or any particular brand...just be aware that if you are not prepared to live with dust issues then maybe they aren't for you. Personally, I am still disappointed and undecided.... PS...if you are stuck on Nikon because of your lenses...apparently they will have an 8mp (20D competitor) out this spring....it may be worth the wait.... PS# 2 Also note that not all of your older lenses will give you full digital capability/features. my 2 cents....

A new contribution from the UK, please excuse me if this subject has been covered on another thread. I have been reading your comments regarding specifications of the various camera but nowhere do I see anything about the various file formats and their effect on final image quality. I am a Nikon man for more years than I care to remember but irrespective of camera manufacturer what convinced me that digital had arrived was the change from shooting best quality JPEG images to using the camera RAW file format. This format produces large file sizes but with the price on memory cards being so reasonable I do not find that a problem. RAW files produce the nearest thing to a film negative, all the information the camera collects is preserved with no in camera processing so when working in Photoshop etc you are working with the best possible image file, what you do with it afterwards is your choice, always use a ' save as ' and you digital negative is preserved intact should you decide to return to do other work on it. In my opinion this is as important as sensor specifications etc, there seems little point having a camera capable of producing a 8 or 9 Mb file and then letting the camera discard so much of the image information with no control by the photographer to produce say a 2 MB JPEG image, so much information has been lost before you start to work on the image.

Good info from everyone. Sure helps to make decisions. Pretty sure I will return to Canon. The choices of lenses will be the next thing. Looked at the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM(image) Then maybe a reasonbly priced one for wider landscapes to start. The 8700 will suffice for macro shots so will keep that around for work and hacking around. My intentions are to be able to print some really decent shots, first off around my city,then frame them and donate to the city hall and some community center for display.Have seen it done before and thought a good idea. Figure this is a good way to kind of solicit,and who knows...could lead to being able to make some small profits at one point. Can we talk about lenses now?

Ok what kind of lenses do you want ? I mean or how much do u wanna spend ^^ ? @MGTF I don't now the diffrence between jpeg quality but I think most of the people really taking serious what they are doing are only shooting in raw and there the qualitie doens't matter.... Its your skill on the PC than ;-)

I need something for taking things like in flight birds,and long range shots of many of the wild birds around. Also for faster action shots. Mountain to city zooms.things like that. I also would like a lens that will be good for family portraits and different indoor set ups.I'm figuring the body will be around $1600 then one lens around 1600.The other I would not want to spend much more than 500. Will need some for a better flash unit too.My older sun flash is ok,but I could use something higher quality. Perhaps next year a macro lens that I heard has the flash in a ring inside. But for now I want a set up for nature landscapes. I have that in older 35 mm gear.Canon AT1 and a few lenses and filters,butdigital is how I want to stay now.

MGTF Yes good points raised. I agree that there is little point in spending all that money to compress it all into a Jpeg. What I do is this: Shoot CRW RAW, and d/l that to PC and rename them to something relevant to the shots like a location etc. Process them and then save them as TIFF or PSD into a sub folder, and also convert to Jpeg into another sub folder (for web use)all the files are in one place, I can see an image name so I know what RAW file it is if I need to process it differently in the future. Finally I burn the whole lot to 2 separate DVD's (over cautious me!) Dont know anything about the new CRW II Doug. Yes we can talk lenses. I use the 17-40 f4L for landscapes, fantastic lens and tack sharp Dont know about the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, Jimery would be a good one to ask on the big lenses, thats his territory. Longest I have got is the 70-200 f4L (enough for me) and great quality. Also have the 50mm f1.4 USM (excellent lens) good length for portraits on the DSLR 100mm Macro f 2.8 USM (excellent lens) Also good for portraits, and picking a detail from a city/landscape

Attached Link: http://www.outbackphoto.com/the_bag/uwes_canon_lenses_2004/essay.html

Ok so I have an page her you should take a look they tested most of the used canon lenses. They really now what they are talking about. And I can speak from my lenses I have got the 70-200 f4L + 1,4 converter. It's really one of the best lenses. I also own the 50mm f1.4L wonderful lens, specially in low light. and the 100mm Macro is nearly a must have lens. For wide angles I would say a sigma lens is good enough. ( I'm using one until I get my new camera than I will buy the 24mm 1.4L USM. I mean there are some fantastic lenses from canon like the 85mm f1.2L USM or the 100mm f1.0L, but they are very expensive and if you buy a 20D you have a 1.6 converte already in there so the the two lenses aboth aren't tyhe best for portraits. For a very long lens you should think about the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM it's a great lens. And you are more flexible with taking pictures. (You have a range than from 160mm-640mm)

I was torn between 300D Rebel, 20D and the Nikon D70. The final decision boiled down to the Rebel, I saved enough money to get a descent lens with the Rebel for what the 20D would cost. Like it has been said before, put your money into the lens and all the DSLR bodies are good.

One important thing is the camera has to feel like a part of me. If it is not comfy in my hands I will regret it.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12379&Form.ShowMessage=2093966

I've just got a 20d, and I too need to decide on lenses. I'd posted in a separate thread (see link) without realising the discussion here had moved away from bodies, and onto the glass bit :P

Like dBgrafix, I could keep my old camera about for a bit (Sony 717) for doing macro/close up work. The stock 18-55 should suffice as a general purpose lens for now, so perhaps the 70-200L would be a good first choice, it certainly seems to be well regarded by a few posters here (got any examples in your gallerys that used this lens peeps?).

Does anyone rate the canon 17-85 IS lens? Am I better sticking with the 18-55 that came with the camera? Finally, how much benefit would I get from a teleconverter?

LostPatrol. Your working method more or less mirrors the way in which I work, just getting into using DVD as opposed to CDR for backup purposes ( one DVD for use, one securely stored away ). If anyone needs convincing of the advantages of RAW I can only suggest they take the same shot as a JPEG and a RAW image, open PS or whatever package you use and see just how much adjustment flexability you have with the RAW image. My own findings are that whilst the mid tones might not show a significant advantage the detail that can be retained in the highlight and shadow areas will show the RAW image advantages, the shadows in particular remain clean with no colour casts ( as used to be seen in underexposed colour negative material ). The ability to fine tune the colour temperature post capture is a major plus to achieving an end result that matches what you saw at the time of taking the image. I personally could not accept the fact that the camera was making decisions about what and how much information to discard when shooting a JPEG image. neverfinder. My photographic background is based around a wet black and white darkroom and shooting colour transparencies, moving to digital imaging my computer adjustments are limited to what I would have done in a wet darkroom, i.e shading and burning in, adjusting the brightness to suite and adjusting the contrast all techniques but now instead of using my hands I use the mouse, I do not use any of the more involved PS techniques because at the time of taking the image I have the finished image already visualised in my head. This is not to imply a critism of those who make full use of of PS but just my rather traditional approach ( I am old ! )

I will choose first of all the photographer and his/her eyes...pro material dont make you a pro photographer....My opinion...Love and Regards The BlackSheep :-)

True enough Sylvaine... Thing is there is some shots I would like distance. Also the ability to change lenses. Add filters whatever.

Doug - I won't repeat any arguments, because I hear/have to stand these discussions every day: esential is the fit of sensor and lense, that means f.i. a Nikon-compatible DSLR will give best results only with the best (and that means generally prfessional/expensive) Nikon lenses (replace Nikon by Canon and you get the same); if you have old lenses which were good for film, they will most likely not satisfy you with a digital camera (that's what sales people usually do not tell). My actual images are made with a Fujifilm S7000 - works pretty well but has limitations. With your bird images you'll need a good tele lense and perhaps an image stabilisator (Panasonic). If I was free I'd take a Fujifilm S3 Pro with an excellent Nikon lens (probably 2) (2.000 EUR + lense + accessories + ...)

With film, I have seen real performance differences between the Canon "ordinary" lenses, and the "pro" L series. It is real, not just numbers on paper. [This does not, however, imply that great work requires expense, or even that more expense will yield greater work.] I would tend to think, though honestly do not have the numbers to prove it, that any of todays $300 lenses are generally better that those available to 35mm photographers in the 60's and 70's. Fantastic work by great artists during that period. [OK, we really don't need flames about legendary German optics; most of us couldn't afford it.] While true that "digital" lenses could be optimized for performance for the smaller sensor area, generally 35mm SLR lenses ALREADY perform better in the central area than at the edges of the frame. I looked quickly this morning, and could not find a comparison with some of the "digital" optimized lenses. It would be nice for someone here to provide a comparison; same proce range, etc. [This is for the Canon 85mm f/1.8 $325] I would not feel in any way "ashamed" by using one of these on a brand new digital body. However, an "optimized" digital lens may indeed have better performance, be lighter, cheaper, etc. Does anyone have a good comparison? Here, I've shown MTF curves. But I believe performance in the central region behaves similarly for other imparements; distortion, chromatic aberation... ____ As for "comfy in hands", I know that the Canon digitals are very similar in handling to the Canon film cameras. They found a way that their customers like, and are tending to stay with it. I'm not sure if this is the philosophy used by Nikon or other manufacturers? If you are happy the way a Canon film camera handles, you'll likely be happy with the way a Canon digital handles. [This seems to be the same with SLR's and Point&Shoots, BTW.]