D70 .. D50 ... help with purchase / advice

[kd5boc]

Well...the arguments are valid...Canon vs. Nikon.

I myself used to use my Canon AE-1P and it's 50mm 1.4 lens, but decided to try Canon and never really liked it.

I decided on Nikon, and then went to looking at digital. I still use my AE-1 for IR and B/W...fun stuff.

I was at first going to buy the d70s, but they were out of stock so I bought the d50 (Plus it was $200 off when I got it!) At that time I knew that the differences between them were:

d50 - no second command dial
d50 - no WB fine tuning
d50 - slightly updated sensor with slightly lower noise at ISO 1600 (better according to static tests, but we all know static tests do not reflect real world usage.)
d50 - no built-in wireless flash control
d50 - AF-A (camera chooses AF-C or AF-S)
d50 - Auto ISO (I use the PASM modes with the auto off 95% of the time, but when using the camera quick settings I might as well let Nikon control the ISO as well)

otherwise they are the same camera, have the same settings, and am proud to say i have NEVER regretted the decision to get the d50. I was able to buy a good SD card (which has never been filled) a bag, tripod, and Sigma 70-300 macro.

As far as the 18-55 goes, I would have liked to have had the 18-70 with it's focus meter and maybe the extra zoom, but the kit lens has satisfied EVERY requirement I have put to it. Quiet focusing, quick focusing, very close focusing, sharp pictures, and I have yet to see any lens flare or ghosting unless shooting directly into the sun. I've found myself around 18-35mm about 80% of the time and using my Sigma at 200+ for sports and macro the other 20%.

It's not the camera that makes the pictures...it's the photographer. The camera is just a tool to help.

 

[dogbone]

...why would you not want to keep those lenses and get a canon 350d to use with them?

Because he's smart enough to go for a nikon. bejeezus.

...if you decide to go canon then 350d is a great camera, even if a bit small.

What?! you admit in print that the Rebel (dontcha luv that name) has a pokey little toy look and feel?

EDIT: above post forgot to mention that the D70 is slightly bigger and feels a bit better. Might have a larger lcd too but I'm not sure.

 

[tektonnic]

I dunno bout the US store but the UK Apple Store was sellinthe D50 with 1gb SD card pretty cheap, might be worth having a look - also if your a student you can get educational discount from Apple (again for defo in the UK)

 

[Abstract]

At that time I knew that the differences between them were:

d50 - no second command dial
d50 - no WB fine tuning
d50 - slightly updated sensor with slightly lower noise at ISO 1600 (better according to static tests, but we all know static tests do not reflect real world usage.)
d50 - no built-in wireless flash control
d50 - AF-A (camera chooses AF-C or AF-S)
d50 - Auto ISO (I use the PASM modes with the auto off 95% of the time, but when using the camera quick settings I might as well let Nikon control the ISO as well)

The benefits of the D50 over the D70s is well documented, and while the D50 is a great camera, it would be an incredible camera if it had these:

1. A grid in the viewfinder to help line things up.
2. No backlight for the settings LCD on top.


These 2 things that are missing in the D50 but present in the D70s may have actually gotten me to buy the D70s despite all the benefits of the D50. Why? Have you tried shooting in the dark using a D50? It's hard to use the D50 when you can't even see the frackin' settings on your LCD. Not all changes can be seen through the viewfinder. In the dark, I use my mobile phone's screen to light my camera, so I can make sure I have the camera set correctly. This hasn't been a massive issue, but it has come up numerous times. Using my mobile isn't a problem though, so I just roll with the punches and deal. Besides, I do love my D50 in every other respect, and wouldn't have been as happy holding a D70 knowing that the D50 is still sitting on the store shelf.

If the D50 inherited these 2 features, I'd probably sell my D50 and get a D50s when they come out (maybe next year?). That's how much I want a grid and a backlight for the LCD up top.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

D70 all the way

high frame rate, wider shutter speed range, higher flash sync,

Extreme compact flash cards are cheaper and easier to find then SD Extreme cards.

also the D70 being compact flash will allow for the use of a microdrive --- high capacity for when you are going to be shooting a lot of RAW, and believe me, once you go RAW, you won't willingly go back

A good recap of differences; though 2.5 vs 3fps is not much for some. 1/4000 vs 1/8000 top shutter speed is not much use for most. Ditto for the higher sync speed.

The main reason IMO to go with the D70s is the $150 difference in price for the body, one gets a more capable body. You forgot the wireless flash commander for SB600 and SB800 flashes. And if one is considering a kit, the 18-70 is a better lens of course.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that Nikon is telling us to expect sever shortages of the D70s. Hope they are wrong!

 

[jared_kipe]

d50 - slightly updated sensor with slightly lower noise at ISO 1600 (better according to static tests, but we all know static tests do not reflect real world usage.)

This is such FUD, how exactly do "static tests" not reflect the "real world"?
Were the "static tests" done in a universe where the laws of physics are not like the laws of physics in your "real world"??
Does the ISO noise of a camera change based on your will??

You're basically saying Science and scientific method are flawed because thats not what happens when you get your hands on things.

 

[ChrisA]

This is such FUD, how exactly do "static tests" not reflect the "real world"?

Don't be to hard on him. I think what he ment is that many quantitative tests do not model human perception. Or in other words "numeric differences in measured results somethimes are not noticed by humans."

This is actually why JPG and MP3 "work" the results of compression make a huge measured difference but the compresion algorithm is designed to toss out information that humans notice the least.

So it can be the same with noise in a camera file. Large measured diferences may not be noticable to human eyes. If so (notice the "if") then it is true that the scientific test was irrelevent in the real world. Not wrong just not usfull.

The best (most usful) test would be a double blind test where judges look at images and grade them. I've not seen anyhting like this ever done.

So how can it not reflect the real world -- by measuring stuff that does not mater and ignorring stuff that does.

 

[kd5boc]

So how can it not reflect the real world -- by measuring stuff that does not mater and ignorring stuff that does.

That's what I was trying to say. The actual picture is my determining factor in purchasing...not static tests with controlled lighting, and perfect colors. It's nice, yeah, and lets me know how accurate it is, but is no measurement of how...well...how well the auto WB takes sunsets, or incandescant lighting. I want to see pics, not charts.

But either way...ISO 1600 is VERY good on the d50.

Tom

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's what I was trying to say. The actual picture is my determining factor in purchasing...not static tests with controlled lighting, and perfect colors. It's nice, yeah, and lets me know how accurate it is, but is no measurement of how...well...how well the auto WB takes sunsets, or incandescant lighting. I want to see pics, not charts.

But either way...ISO 1600 is VERY good on the d50.

Tom

Amen to that, I have the "horribly noisy" Panasonic LX-1. Guess what I have 13x19's that look better than what I could expect from high ISO 35mm film; and gives a pretty good run against APS-C DLSR's.