AL-FAMOUS said:
by saying things about buffers when the camera your recomending is half the size?
ohhh spanked
i like nikons (as i have said) but i get annoyed when you became a fanboy and started saying how much better a d70 was than a 20D, which is simply untrue and bad advice for less knowledgeable people/purchasers on this board. if your comparing the 300d vs the d70, get the d70 - its a much better camera, however if you want the best camera (in a non profession 1 series camera) then the 20D is the best option (which i proved in the previous answer to your post, that you conveniently didnt reply to as it makes your point invalid) im more interested in which camera is the best than which brand is your best,
Nah. You've only proven that you think the d70 feels like a toy. See you need to prove this, prove that, prove canon, i don't care what you have to prove.
Most people out here these days are budget concious. in my reply to the guy's post, I was saying that for the price of a D70 + Sigma, you get a more flexible and usable entry level system. ISO noise isn't a big concern, and fps isn't that big of a difference, neither is buffer, and with the 20d's firmware and focusing issues, the D70 will be a better functioning camera giving good value for the money, overall similar performance AND they'll have an infinitely better lens system, which will give the d70 even more of an edge.
You can talk **** all you want about kit lenses, but the lens that comes with the d70 is hardly a piece of junk like those kits lenses that come with the rebels and 20d's. the image quality i've seen from that lens is stunning, and really adds and compliments to the D70. The images I see coming from Canon's kit lenses is vastly inferior. The rebel/20d doesn't impress me until you put some L series glass on it.
So let's do it this way:
20d, no lens = $1499
Sigma 70-200 = $699
Cano 24-85 = $350
Total = $2548
D70 with kit = $999
Sigma 70-200 = $699
Total = $1799
To get a 20d with a comparable lens to the Nikkor 18-70, (which you really can't get with the Canon, if only because their kit lenses aren't very good.) you'll need to go the route of the 24-85, get the 20d with no lens and spend $2600 total.
Most people who want pics of their kids playing sports aren't gonna spend that kind of money. So as far as bang for the buck? The d70 wins hands down. You could get a rebel/rebel xt, but you're dealing with a flimsier body with less control than the D70, which means consumer is more likely to replace it sooner, or break it faster. I know MANY stories of 70-200 lenses at f2.8 (size=big) pulling the lens mount off the original rebel.
So what we've learned here is Nikon's D70 is HARDLY a toy. It's a lean, mean middle of the road machine, offering performance that is very close to Canon's mid-level flagship (20d) offering only a marginally smaller amount of pixels if that matters to you, and allowing you to get a better wide-normal zoom and a great tele zoom to cover a range from ~28mm - ~300mm. Go with the rebel, you can do something similar lens wise, but you lose a lot of functionality and don't really gain much in pixels. Plus your 17-55 kit lens is vastly slower and inferior to the nikkor. The d70 can compete with either and come out as a better value if only because the lens, for 99.9% of consumer purposes, is a quantum leap in performance over what Canon offers in the same range. If you get the equivalent 20d system, you're out an extra $750 which could be used to purchase a flash, extra CF or even an iPod photo and camera connector to download your shots to.
And if we take my original post in this thread into account, we can see that we're not sacrificing so much in image quality in comparison to the dollars saved.
Same with the D2x versus the 1ds mk II and the soon to be D50 with the original rebel and new rebel. It's an even more pronounced price-performance issue with the D2x versuses the 1ds mk II, but I won't go into that here. There you'll REALLY see nikon innovating over canon. In spades. The D2x as a high-resolution flagship makes me shudder at those spending $8k on the 1ds MK II, whereas the D2x functions more like a D2x AND a D2h all in one. And even after spending $5k on the D2x, you have enough to get a D2h/hs as a compliment and STILL Spend about the same as if you bought ONE 1ds MK II.
There's tons of reasons to choose nikon or canon. And when it all boils down to it, I see a lot more advantages to buying into the Nikon system as it delivers the features many of us want at more affordable price point. (only more because regardless of brand, $5000/$8000 is TOO MUCH for ANY SLR)
Factor in image quality being a toss up between the two, and I'm hedging my bets on nikon. And remember, i'm more vested in Nikon, and I have reasons for saying this, but Al does too, as he's vested in Canon. Seems to be a lot more Canon/Nikon stuff since the D2x hit the shelves and people started seeing how killer of a camera it is...but I'll stop short of saying what I want to say here.
Remember...canon has REALLY only been the "leader" for about a year and a half here. The 1ds was the one that really began to distance them from the pack, but it seems the D2x is a more than worthy competitor and in many cases beats the 1ds/1ds mk II... and i'm sure you remember when Canon had the IMPRESSIVE d30 competing against the D1 which walked all over it, don't ya?
In the end, pick either and you'll be happy. If you want to know, I'll gladly point out differences between the systems, recommend a nikon (as their value in the consumer line is much better, IMHO), and let you go on your way.
I'll be even more happy to talk about exposure, lighting, low-light, time lapse, portraiture, product shooting, et. al. and gladly showcase my work for anyone who wishes to gain some inspiration or for anyone to use a springboard for ideas, questions, etc., or whatever.
