Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon EOS 30D vs. Nikon S70S?
- Thread starter smythson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
6MP vs. 8MP
ISO 200 vs. ISO 100
1.8" screen vs. 2.5" screen
595g vs. 700g
3fps vs. 5fps
depends on what these are worth to you. If you already have lenses that's a big consideration.
ISO 200 vs. ISO 100
1.8" screen vs. 2.5" screen
595g vs. 700g
3fps vs. 5fps
depends on what these are worth to you. If you already have lenses that's a big consideration.
carletonmusic said:
Don't forget that Nikon offers wireless TTL flash control built-in, along with flash sync to 1/500 of second. But Canon offers Picture Styles.
Also for most the tale of the tape of the two does not matter for most photographers in their actual shooting.
True, and true. But right now the difference between bodies is like $700 ($699 for the D70s and $1399 for the 30D. Heck, one can say that the D200 at just $300 more than the 30D is an even better buy if you look at the specs only.
If there are no lenses to carry over, then one should look at lenses that one might reasonably afford in the near term.
Nikon has two lenses that are really sweet, the 10.5 fish eye and the 18-200VR, Canon has nothing like them so far. But Canon does at the higher price level have their new 17-55IS and a decent 70-300IS in the mid price range, as well as the nice 17-85IS, Nikon does not yet offer these types of lenses with their VR tech as of yet.
Yes, the 30D is worth the extra money, but only if you know the differences between the cameras already. If you don't, then you probably don't need a 30D and a D70s is better for you.
Have you had a chance to handle the cameras? Until you do, don't make a decision unless you have a lens collection.
Last year, I looked at the Nikon D100 and the D70. Both were in my price range, similar sensor (6MP), they fit my lenses, and have many other common features. After playing with both of them, I went with the D100 BECAUSE it could take a vertical grip (OEM grip). I won't buy another camera without this feature. Anyway, my point is that you should get the feel of each before buying.
I would get the 30D over the D70s, but I would get the D200 over the 30D for a little more money. Both Canon and Nikon make great cameras. Just remember, you aren't just buying a camera, you are buying into a SYSTEM.
Happy shooting,
Mike
Last year, I looked at the Nikon D100 and the D70. Both were in my price range, similar sensor (6MP), they fit my lenses, and have many other common features. After playing with both of them, I went with the D100 BECAUSE it could take a vertical grip (OEM grip). I won't buy another camera without this feature. Anyway, my point is that you should get the feel of each before buying.
I would get the 30D over the D70s, but I would get the D200 over the 30D for a little more money. Both Canon and Nikon make great cameras. Just remember, you aren't just buying a camera, you are buying into a SYSTEM.
Happy shooting,
Mike
The D70 cannot sync 1/500s flash with the built in flash. Also, the 20/30D has wireless flash control built in too, its called the pop up flash.Chip NoVaMac said:
Canon does have a 10-22mm zoom lens. And Sigma makes an 8mm fisheye for both platforms.
On a side note the D200 can only sync 1/250 just like all new canon bodies.
As always with cameras, you get what you would need the most.
The Canon has a bigger LCD, faster USB output, is time-lapse capable, has more ISO versatility, better white balance control, a larger buffer, and up to 5fps burst speed. It may have a smarter flash-exposure system - E-TTL II - but I'm not sure.
It has a number of extra features which the D70S lacks.
It's also about twice the cost of the Nikon, before lens cost comes into play.
It doesn't have a Canon-brand all-around lens like the 18-200mm VR....yet.
1.6x focal length multiplier.
The Nikon has a faster flash sync, bigger exposure compensation range, and more timer versatility. It's probably a little better built than the Canon, but doesn't have many features the Canon doesn't.
For superior features in a Nikon body, you're better off looking at the D200.
At about half the price of the Canon, it's a much less expensive camera, although lenses from either manufacturer can narrow the total cost ratio quickly.
It has a popular, Nikon-brand all-around lens, the 18-200mm VR.
1.5x focal length multiplier.
8MP looks better on 8x10 prints, but 4x6 won't show any visible difference.
Both will serve well for putting together various printable documents, as well as any web work.
The Canon's bigger buffer, faster 5fps burst speed & higher ISO make it a better Sports photography tool, though it's no 1D Mark IIn.
I own a Canon Rebel XT. It's lightweight, not sealed, and it feels platicky, but its performance suits my purposes. I bought it for image quality and good resolution, not looks or sturdiness.
After Canon's current mail-in-rebate, the Rebel XT costs about $80 less than the Nikon D70S.
The Canon has a bigger LCD, faster USB output, is time-lapse capable, has more ISO versatility, better white balance control, a larger buffer, and up to 5fps burst speed. It may have a smarter flash-exposure system - E-TTL II - but I'm not sure.
It has a number of extra features which the D70S lacks.
It's also about twice the cost of the Nikon, before lens cost comes into play.
It doesn't have a Canon-brand all-around lens like the 18-200mm VR....yet.
1.6x focal length multiplier.
The Nikon has a faster flash sync, bigger exposure compensation range, and more timer versatility. It's probably a little better built than the Canon, but doesn't have many features the Canon doesn't.
For superior features in a Nikon body, you're better off looking at the D200.
At about half the price of the Canon, it's a much less expensive camera, although lenses from either manufacturer can narrow the total cost ratio quickly.
It has a popular, Nikon-brand all-around lens, the 18-200mm VR.
1.5x focal length multiplier.
8MP looks better on 8x10 prints, but 4x6 won't show any visible difference.
Both will serve well for putting together various printable documents, as well as any web work.
The Canon's bigger buffer, faster 5fps burst speed & higher ISO make it a better Sports photography tool, though it's no 1D Mark IIn.
I own a Canon Rebel XT. It's lightweight, not sealed, and it feels platicky, but its performance suits my purposes. I bought it for image quality and good resolution, not looks or sturdiness.
After Canon's current mail-in-rebate, the Rebel XT costs about $80 less than the Nikon D70S.
smythson said:
If youdeside to go with Nikon I think you'd be better off getting the D50 and putting the money in to a lens upgrade. Unless there is some feature of the D70s that you need. The D50 actually does some things better then the D70s
Some features you realy don't need like the D70 remote flash thing. My old Nikon F3 which is mechanical and works with no battery installed can "remotly" control my studio lights just fine. They've been making inexpensive flash slaves for years
So think about the total system and the total system cost. For the same money as the Canon 30D with a "kit lens" you might be able to have a D50 with a pofessional level f/2.8 zoom. It's the lens that makes th image, the camera body only records it.
Comparring body to body is not the way to do it look at the total system len(es) and body combined
Also it seem odd to compare the 30D to a D70. I'd think you'd be looking bodies that are coser like the 20D vs. F70 or the 30D vs. D200.
I forgot to bring that up, you're probably better off getting a 20D if you're budget conscious. The 20D is very close in specs to the 30D, and in my opinion both the 20 and 30D are better than the D70.ChrisA said:
The D50 is an interesting option, you could get that and save even more money. I think if I had to get either the D70 or D50, I'd get the D50.
What I really want to know...
Basically what I wanted to know is this... does the extra 500 dollars for the Canon 30D over the the Nikon 70s really make that big a difference. I need something basic for web and magazine work.
I have been looking around a lot, The Rebel XT is junk, the D50 feels like a toy and the 20D isn't that much cheaper.
I am just starting out and I travel a lot too, so someone is going to snipe my camera.
What I really want is the Nikon D200, but that is a budget breaker, I mean I NEED the new black MacBook, now don't I?
Basically what I wanted to know is this... does the extra 500 dollars for the Canon 30D over the the Nikon 70s really make that big a difference. I need something basic for web and magazine work.
I have been looking around a lot, The Rebel XT is junk, the D50 feels like a toy and the 20D isn't that much cheaper.
I am just starting out and I travel a lot too, so someone is going to snipe my camera.
What I really want is the Nikon D200, but that is a budget breaker, I mean I NEED the new black MacBook, now don't I?
smythson said:
No, it doesn't for what you say you need. A D50 or Rebel XT will be more than you need -- not sure why you claim the latter is junk. (Maybe for pro needs, but not for prosumers.)
Rebel XT is junk?.....It may not be built like a tank (more like a toy, in truth), but performance-wise, if you ask just about anyone who has used one, they'll probably tell you it's quite good. Doesn't have every single feature of a pro-grade SLR, but...I happen to like mine. It's an entry-level dSLR, like the D70 & D50.
For web or magazine print, any of them will be fine. You might even prefer a Sony DSC-R1.
For web or magazine print, any of them will be fine. You might even prefer a Sony DSC-R1.
smythson said:
The EOS 350D (most places) / Rebel XT (US) is a very nice camera - and the images it can produce are amazing - check out this MR member's flicker pics.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digital_rebel_xt/
My sister has been a serious amateur for over 20 years and she swears by her 350D (I have a 30D, but I certainly like the 350/XT). It's a great size for travel, by the way.
I have tried a D50. All of the DSLRs are certainly better than film in terms of clean images at higher ISOs, but I've been amazed at the low noise on the XT/350 or the 20D or 30D.
You note that you are worried about having your equipment stolen when traveling. You're renters or homeowners insurance will cover a stolen camera in most cases. To reduce the deductable for just the camera, add camera-specific insurance to the policy (should only be a few dollars more a year).
If you're young (relative term) and are going to be doing backpacking / eurorail / youth hostel type travel, I'd recommend a good P&S to meet that part of your needs. It will always be with you, it won't be strapped around you - which is not a great social interation option sometimes, and can easily be concealed in a pocket. I've gotten great images from a three year old Elph. Perhaps something like an Elph or a Canon S series (for more control) would be a good option.
First off, the Rebel XT and D50 are not junk, they're just smaller and with cheaper materials.
Secondly, the 20D can be found for right around $1000 from reputable places like zipzoomfly.com or buydig.com or beachcamera.com .
I've never been a big D70 fan, the D200 is a nice camera, but probably shouldn't be priced as high as it is.
I think the 20D is probably enough for you.
Secondly, the 20D can be found for right around $1000 from reputable places like zipzoomfly.com or buydig.com or beachcamera.com .
I've never been a big D70 fan, the D200 is a nice camera, but probably shouldn't be priced as high as it is.
I think the 20D is probably enough for you.
form said:
Right on the 4x6; but the 8x10 reference is subjective. It depends on how it is printed, and perhaps just how closely you look at the final print (I know some go around with high mag lopes for printer inspection).
At a full frame print (8x12) from a 30D and a D70s; one looks at 292dpi for the 30D verses 250dpi for the D70s. About a 14% increase in resolution of 8mp verses 6mp. Not much of a difference to sway many.
Keep in mind everyone has their own ideas as to what is an acceptable dpi for printing. I have heard the theory that with Epson printers anything above 240dpi is a waste. I have seen and heard from pros that get big bucks for their prints that 180dpi is enough. For dye sub printers the dpi rule is 200. And for some nothing less than 300dpi need apply.
As a point of reference, the D200 would do an 8x12 at 324dpi. I tend to support the 240dpi clan on Epson printers. At that dpi you are looking at max print sizes without interpolation of about 9.7x14.6 inches with the 30D, 8.3x12.5 for the D70s, and 10.8x16.1 for the D200.
Interpolating or "rez'ing-up" a file for many does not mean a bad print. We have a sample from the D50 NEF file in our store printed at 24x36 inches. And my lowly Panasonic LX-1 has given me some stunning 12x18's from an 8mp file.
jared_kipe said:
I think that the D50 does not feel any different than my recent D70s purchase. Or how the used D100's I have tested in the store feel.
I agree that the XT is not junk. I own one of these too. It doesn't have the feel of the D50 or D70s in terms of build; but it has survived much abuse.
Not sure if you are really talking about the D200 or the D70s. Current main stream pricing for the D70s body is $699 and the D200 body at $1699. For what each offer they are steals IMO, and many others too.
I will assume that you were referring to the D200 though. The $300 price difference gives quite a bit more than the 30D if you look at the specs only. 10mp vs. 8mp. Wireless TTL flash capability built-in. +/- 5 stops compensation vs. 2 stops. The D200 offers 9 frame bracketing, perfect for the HDR function within PSCS2. Weather sealing on the D200, absent on the 30D.
I may sound like a Nikon fanboy, but I am not IMO. I still own both systems. I do miss the RAW+JPEG selectable quality modes that Canon offers, as well the B&W with filter modes. I bought a second Nikon body (the D70s - had a barely used one offered to me well under $400), only to make using the 18-200VR and the 12-24 abit easier. Also the screen gridlines of the D70s will give me some better guidance as I use the 12-24 and my fish eye 10.5.
smythson said:
If you are doing web and magazine work you certainly do NOT need a lot of pixels. The D50/D70s will give more then you need.
The next question is what subjects do you shoot? You subjects will determine which lens you want. Magazines tend to be very specialized. Is it Sports or quilt making? Seriously if yo are photographing quilts you'd want a difent setup then if doing ice hocky. No one here has really given any meaningfull advice because they don't know what you will be shooting. Bt now that we know how the work will be published we all know you don't need lots of megapixels
What I shoot...
I am an automotive jounro for the big men's magazines and a large website that ends in oo! I like quilts, though.
I want something to learn on that I can shoot some car/track shots and some beauty shots but nothing too crazy where I will need the best camera in the world. I am no Ansel Adams. Just basic shots we can run.
I need something durable, b/c I always jump from one car to the next and am always on an airplane traveling for work and w/cars, there is dirt and grease.
Should I get a D70s and a good lens and learn with it, or should I get something awesome like the D200, where I will never have to replace (or at least for a few years).
I have a Nikon Coolpix 5400 and a Kyocera SL 400R, so I am covered, sort-of with a P&S.
thanks...
I am an automotive jounro for the big men's magazines and a large website that ends in oo! I like quilts, though.
I want something to learn on that I can shoot some car/track shots and some beauty shots but nothing too crazy where I will need the best camera in the world. I am no Ansel Adams. Just basic shots we can run.
I need something durable, b/c I always jump from one car to the next and am always on an airplane traveling for work and w/cars, there is dirt and grease.
Should I get a D70s and a good lens and learn with it, or should I get something awesome like the D200, where I will never have to replace (or at least for a few years).
I have a Nikon Coolpix 5400 and a Kyocera SL 400R, so I am covered, sort-of with a P&S.
thanks...
Chip NoVaMac said:
I agree the D200 is a good camera. But I think a lot of the features would be nice to have but I would probably never use them. And some of those features I really can't see a reason to have. ±5 stops compensation?? If I'm gonna want to do that I'll use full manual thanks. 9 frame bracketing? purely for exposure I think 3 frames is usually more than enough.
I don't have any weather sealed lenses, and don't plan on getting any so the weather sealing is kinda a moot point.
And the resolution jump from 8.3mp to 10.2mp isn't that impressive. Now the jump to 12.7mp is much more impressive. (from 8 obviously not from 10). Also I think Nikon took a step back in using a CCD, they used a CMOS in the D50 and D2X but then decided to use CCD with the D200?? Why Nikon, why?
jared_kipe said:
I don't think Nikon used a CMOS sensor in any of thieir DSLR camera. I just cut and pated this from the nikon web site's D50 page "RGB CCD, 23.7 x 15.6mm; total pixels: 6.24 million" It is a CCD. In theory CCDs can have lower noise but CMOS can have faster readout and lower cost but in the real world we care only about the "total system" and the sensor is only part of that.
I agree wth you about features.
As for what camera functions you need. Not many. Cameras have become like word processors. How many features does the average user actually use? What? about 10% of them. Most are only there so the product looks good on those checklist type reviews we all read. Have you ever tried to use (say) the 2.5 FPS thing? Much better results if you pres the shutter yourself so you can choose the exact instant.
One interresting exercise is to find a bunch of pictures you like and try and figure out what camera features the photographer used. In most cases the answer will be "expensive glass" The professionals all know what really maters.
