Kate Ellen
I have 3 picked out...
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7026069&type=product&id=1099394810083
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8139169&type=product&id=1158323379076
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8363674&type=product&id=1177717703253
I can't decide! They all seem good to me. Which one is best? I will be taking nature photography, and especially pictures of myself (modeling). I love detailed photos. Which would do the best and take the most 'professional looking' picture?
BTW I'm getting my camera tomorrow, I need answers quick :D!
Answer
Nikon D40 vs. Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT)
I have never used a Canon EOS 350D, so I can't actually compare the cameras, but I favor the D40 because it has a spotmeter and the 350D doesn't. Although the D40 seems small, it is practically the exact same size as the 350D.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos350d%2Cnikon_d40&show=all
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page17.asp
tells us that the Canon 350D meter calibration is off by about 1/3 of a stop. This would not really present any problems, except that it suggests "something" to me about the quality, since the Nikon and Pentax are dead on.
Scroll on down the page for image comparisons. The D40 is clearly sharper and shows less noise at all ISO settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page18.asp shows us that both handle shadows equally, but the D40 clips the highlights by about 1/3 of a stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page21.asp shows a side-by-side of studio images. The 8 MP of the Canon 350D at least put the camera on equal footing with the Nikon D40 for image quality, but you have to take note that the Rebel XT is shot at ISO 100 and the Nikon is shot at it lowest setting of ISO 200. I think the Canon images may look a little better, but we know from the prior page that under equal lighting levels, the Canon will start to break up before the Nikon.
The reviewer says, "While it is possible to pick areas of the image which lend some credence to the EOS 350D's 34% pixel count advantage it's clear that the average observer would not notice these differences and that you would need a very large output size for any of them to become visible."
Check this out...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/canoneos350d_samples1/originals/img_4068-raw-dpp.jpg is taken by the Canon 350D with a 17 mm focal length at f/6.3, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using RAW.
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/nikond40_samples/originals/dsc_1206.jpg is taken with the Nikon D40 with an 18 mm focal length at f/4.5, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using jpeg.
The point of focus for the Canon photo is a bit deeper than it is for the Nikon, but even having 8MP and using RAW and a smaller aperture, I think the Canon image breaks up a lot more than the Nikon. You can barely make out the features on the face of the gentleman in the background. Is this the camera or the superiority of the Nikon 17-55 lens, which so many of us here praise???
Okay, I've made my stance clear. I like the Nikon D40 better than the Canon EOS 350D, so here's my general review of the D40.
The Nikon D40 is a great little camera, very easy to use and quite reasonably priced. It has a few "consumer friendly" totally automatic modes that make it very easy to use, but still offers total photographic control when you are ready to take charge. It will get you in the Nikon family which is a great place to be. If you buy accessories and lenses, you will be able to use everything on any Nikon that you might upgrade to later on.
Check out Nikon's "Picturetown" promotion, where they handed out 200 D40's in Georgetown, SC. http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown/
Here are a few reviews, in case you have not read them yet. Be sure to note that they are several pages long and some of the reviews also have some sample images that you can look at.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/nikon_d40.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3756/camera-test-nikon-d40.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40-recommendations.htm
I hate to see people slam the camera because it can't autofocus with older Nikon lenses. It is true that there is a "slight problem" with older Nikon lenses not autofocusing on the D40, but if you do not own a bag full of older lenses, it is not going to be a problem. It is barely a problem anyhow. If you check www.nikonusa.com for "AF-S" lenses, which are ALL 100% compatible with the D40, you will find 23 lenses, including 7 "VR" (vibration Reduction) lenses and one true macro lens with "VR". There are another 25-plus lenses in the current catalog that provide all functions except autofocus as well as many (possibly dozens) "out of print" lenses that will work just as well. In addition, although these lens will not autofocus, most of them will still give focus confirmation. From the D40 manual: "If the lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of faster, the viewfinder focus indicator can be used to confirm whether the portion of the subject in the selected focus area is in focus. After positioning the subject in the active focus area, press the shutter release button halfway and rotate the lens focusing ring until the in-focus indicator is displayed." (See http://www.members.aol.com/swf08302/nikonafs.txt for a list of AF-S lenses.)
The D40 only has 3 autofocus zones arranged horizontally at the center, 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions. This might be considered a limitation, but realistically, most people will find this perfectly adequate, especially if you are moving up from a point and shoot with only a center zone.
You can get the D40 with the 18-55 kit lens at B&H Photo available through Yahoo! Shopping or at 1-800-622-4987) for $475 (December 2007).
And yet... clearly these are both very good cameras. What it all comes down to is which one YOU feel better about. Go to a camera shop and pick them up and see.
Nikon D40 vs. Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT)
I have never used a Canon EOS 350D, so I can't actually compare the cameras, but I favor the D40 because it has a spotmeter and the 350D doesn't. Although the D40 seems small, it is practically the exact same size as the 350D.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos350d%2Cnikon_d40&show=all
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page17.asp
tells us that the Canon 350D meter calibration is off by about 1/3 of a stop. This would not really present any problems, except that it suggests "something" to me about the quality, since the Nikon and Pentax are dead on.
Scroll on down the page for image comparisons. The D40 is clearly sharper and shows less noise at all ISO settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page18.asp shows us that both handle shadows equally, but the D40 clips the highlights by about 1/3 of a stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page21.asp shows a side-by-side of studio images. The 8 MP of the Canon 350D at least put the camera on equal footing with the Nikon D40 for image quality, but you have to take note that the Rebel XT is shot at ISO 100 and the Nikon is shot at it lowest setting of ISO 200. I think the Canon images may look a little better, but we know from the prior page that under equal lighting levels, the Canon will start to break up before the Nikon.
The reviewer says, "While it is possible to pick areas of the image which lend some credence to the EOS 350D's 34% pixel count advantage it's clear that the average observer would not notice these differences and that you would need a very large output size for any of them to become visible."
Check this out...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/canoneos350d_samples1/originals/img_4068-raw-dpp.jpg is taken by the Canon 350D with a 17 mm focal length at f/6.3, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using RAW.
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/nikond40_samples/originals/dsc_1206.jpg is taken with the Nikon D40 with an 18 mm focal length at f/4.5, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using jpeg.
The point of focus for the Canon photo is a bit deeper than it is for the Nikon, but even having 8MP and using RAW and a smaller aperture, I think the Canon image breaks up a lot more than the Nikon. You can barely make out the features on the face of the gentleman in the background. Is this the camera or the superiority of the Nikon 17-55 lens, which so many of us here praise???
Okay, I've made my stance clear. I like the Nikon D40 better than the Canon EOS 350D, so here's my general review of the D40.
The Nikon D40 is a great little camera, very easy to use and quite reasonably priced. It has a few "consumer friendly" totally automatic modes that make it very easy to use, but still offers total photographic control when you are ready to take charge. It will get you in the Nikon family which is a great place to be. If you buy accessories and lenses, you will be able to use everything on any Nikon that you might upgrade to later on.
Check out Nikon's "Picturetown" promotion, where they handed out 200 D40's in Georgetown, SC. http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown/
Here are a few reviews, in case you have not read them yet. Be sure to note that they are several pages long and some of the reviews also have some sample images that you can look at.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/nikon_d40.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3756/camera-test-nikon-d40.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40-recommendations.htm
I hate to see people slam the camera because it can't autofocus with older Nikon lenses. It is true that there is a "slight problem" with older Nikon lenses not autofocusing on the D40, but if you do not own a bag full of older lenses, it is not going to be a problem. It is barely a problem anyhow. If you check www.nikonusa.com for "AF-S" lenses, which are ALL 100% compatible with the D40, you will find 23 lenses, including 7 "VR" (vibration Reduction) lenses and one true macro lens with "VR". There are another 25-plus lenses in the current catalog that provide all functions except autofocus as well as many (possibly dozens) "out of print" lenses that will work just as well. In addition, although these lens will not autofocus, most of them will still give focus confirmation. From the D40 manual: "If the lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of faster, the viewfinder focus indicator can be used to confirm whether the portion of the subject in the selected focus area is in focus. After positioning the subject in the active focus area, press the shutter release button halfway and rotate the lens focusing ring until the in-focus indicator is displayed." (See http://www.members.aol.com/swf08302/nikonafs.txt for a list of AF-S lenses.)
The D40 only has 3 autofocus zones arranged horizontally at the center, 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions. This might be considered a limitation, but realistically, most people will find this perfectly adequate, especially if you are moving up from a point and shoot with only a center zone.
You can get the D40 with the 18-55 kit lens at B&H Photo available through Yahoo! Shopping or at 1-800-622-4987) for $475 (December 2007).
And yet... clearly these are both very good cameras. What it all comes down to is which one YOU feel better about. Go to a camera shop and pick them up and see.
Which Digital Camera "SLR" should I advice my friend to buy (New Canon 350D or Old Canon 20D)?
AshOsaki
My friends asked my to choose from two digital camera models (New Canon 350D or Old Canon 20D) and tell him to buy one of them. I suggest that he can buy Canon Rebel XT 350D because it is cheaper and lighter than Canon 20D. I am not sure if I told him the truth depending on only two factors. The price and the weight. If you would be in my shoes, which one would you advice your friend and why?
Answer
The 20D has been replaced by the 30D, but even the most ardent Canonites agree that the changes didn't justify a new model number. The 30D has a slightly larger back screen and 1 or 2 other minute changes. It's not faster or better in any way however, and nothing has changed with regard to the sensor or image quality.
The 20D was, and still is a major step up from the 350D.
If your friend is a serious photographer, he'll appreciate the extra features of the 20D. The 20D also has a much better build quality, and the shutter is rated to last twice as long as that of the 350D. The extra price is entirely justified.
Also, I don't believe that the extra weight is a point against the 20D. I personally feel that the 350D is too small and light!
I personally shoot a Nikon D200, so I guess I'm biased towards the more advanced of the 2 models you're considering.
The 20D has been replaced by the 30D, but even the most ardent Canonites agree that the changes didn't justify a new model number. The 30D has a slightly larger back screen and 1 or 2 other minute changes. It's not faster or better in any way however, and nothing has changed with regard to the sensor or image quality.
The 20D was, and still is a major step up from the 350D.
If your friend is a serious photographer, he'll appreciate the extra features of the 20D. The 20D also has a much better build quality, and the shutter is rated to last twice as long as that of the 350D. The extra price is entirely justified.
Also, I don't believe that the extra weight is a point against the 20D. I personally feel that the 350D is too small and light!
I personally shoot a Nikon D200, so I guess I'm biased towards the more advanced of the 2 models you're considering.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
