350D lose out to the cheaper Nikon D50???

[megamonster]

To be fair, it is mentioned somewhere in DPReview that the 350D sensor is 1/3 stop more sensitive than is specified.

Can u provide me the link ? I also remember coming across the whole table where they had compared the canon ISO ratings to the actuall ISO ratings, but I could not seem to find it again.

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

To be fair, it is mentioned somewhere in DPReview that the 350D sensor is 1/3 stop more sensitive than is specified. Hence, ISO 100 is really ISO 125. To a certain extent, that's great value for money in itself. It means lower noise considering even higher light sensitivity. But this has its implications for people who want to try slow-shutter speeds in broad daylight...eg. silky water shots of waterfalls.

However, not all is lost. If the lens is stopped down to f/22, ISO set to lowest possible, and a neutral density filter placed over the lens, slower shutter speeds can definitely be achieved.

There was once this argument that ISO 100 on the 350D was better than the minimum ISO 200 on D70 because it made it easier to achieve silky water pictures. Truth be told, adding a neutral grad or polarizer to both would probably do the trick. So this is no excuse.

if you do that, then you have to factor in diffraction

 

[Tetrode]

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again.

Placing specifications aside, IMO the 350D has a very crappy User Interface in comparison to the D50/70s. I'd prefer using the Nikons over the 350D anyday.

If you want a Canon dSLR, skip the 350D and buy the 20D. The 350D isn't worth the money IMO.

 

[fWord]

Can u provide me the link ? I also remember coming across the whole table where they had compared the canon ISO ratings to the actuall ISO ratings, but I could not seem to find it again.

This is the closest thing I could find:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

It doesn't appear to implicate the 350D directly, though it seems to suggest it. I clearly recall seeing the 350D specifically mentioned, but cannot find that link at this time. Funnily enough, if you were to view the 350D review at DPReview, it actually shows the samples from the 350D to be brighter than those on the 20D, even at the same exposure settings. So it leaves me to wonder what the actual sensitivity of the 350D really is. If the 20D is already 1/3 stop more sensitive than usual, and the 350D is even more sensitive than that, then...do we really have an ISO 200 setting labeled at ISO 100 after all?

Still, to me, this 'improved sensitivity' is a significant advantage. If I really had to push it and take photos in dim conditions, the ISO 1600 is very helpful.

 

[fWord]

if you do that, then you have to factor in diffraction

Good point. Therefore, it might actually be better for people to consider using a filter to reduce light entering the lens, rather than to stop all the way down to f/22 or even f/36. With the kit lens, I shoot mostly at f/8 in daylight. Only rarely would I close down beyond f/11.

While I haven't done any phototests to find the sweet f/stop for the kit lens (and won't be bothered to do so), the tests on photozone.de seem to suggest that the sweet spot is between f/8 and f/11. Stopping down too much more also increases CA, which is itself already quite an issue on the kit lens.

 

[fWord]

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again.

Placing specifications aside, IMO the 350D has a very crappy User Interface in comparison to the D50/70s. I'd prefer using the Nikons over the 350D anyday.

If you want a Canon dSLR, skip the 350D and buy the 20D. The 350D isn't worth the money IMO.

There are obvious differences between the 350D and 20D, and this has proved more significant for some users than others. Personally, I decided to save the thousand or so dollars and pull it over to buy a good lens.

If anyone is interested in buying into Canon's entry-level DSLRs, it might be good to compare them side-by-side and decide if they really need the added features. Besides those, they both have excellent sensors that produce very similar results and at good resolution. If all you're after is plain and simple image quality, it may be a good idea to go for a 350D + 17-40mm f/4L or 17-85mm f/4-5.6. If you're really adventurous, you could even try the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.

I don't know what the price difference between them now really is. However, during the days when I bought mine, the difference was certainly enough for a new lens.

 

[fWord]

relax bro, it's just choosing a camera, not choosing a lifetime pardner... not happy with brand A, can always switch to another brand

True...and in choosing a 'lifetime partner', it's still possible to switch to another if not happy with the current one. :bsmilie:

Anyway, bad joke aside. Yes...whenever you wish to purchase something, do ask for advice, opinions, and read lots. But at the end of the day, the decision is yours. Weigh out pros and cons. Don't be embarassed to pay a little more for quality. Most of all, be happy with your choice and try to get the best one for you. No one can tell you what's best for you...that's where the challenges come in.

Even now, I struggle with the decision between two lenses. People can only give me their user opinions. But ultimately I, as a buyer, need to sleep over it, eat over it, and work over it. Even then, the decision isn't all that clear.

Perhaps when two choices are so hard to differentiate, we could simply pick either one and be happy? :dunno: That's yet another rhetorical life question.

 

[JediForce4ever]

Actually, I feel that the 350D's menu is easier to use than Nikon's....As is the 20D to the D70.

 

[jeryltan]

I think ultimately, the reason why 350D is more ex. than D50 is because 350D is made in Japan.. Whereas D50 / D70s is made in Thailand.. Someone correct me if I'm wrong..

 

[megamonster]

This is the closest thing I could find:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

It doesn't appear to implicate the 350D directly, though it seems to suggest it. I clearly recall seeing the 350D specifically mentioned, but cannot find that link at this time. Funnily enough, if you were to view the 350D review at DPReview, it actually shows the samples from the 350D to be brighter than those on the 20D, even at the same exposure settings. So it leaves me to wonder what the actual sensitivity of the 350D really is. If the 20D is already 1/3 stop more sensitive than usual, and the 350D is even more sensitive than that, then...do we really have an ISO 200 setting labeled at ISO 100 after all?

Still, to me, this 'improved sensitivity' is a significant advantage. If I really had to push it and take photos in dim conditions, the ISO 1600 is very helpful.

Yes u are right .. after seeing the D50 / 350D comparison the difference seems to be more than 1/3 stop .. probably 2/3 or even more.

 

[fWord]

I think ultimately, the reason why 350D is more ex. than D50 is because 350D is made in Japan.. Whereas D50 / D70s is made in Thailand.. Someone correct me if I'm wrong..

Maybe. But in the future, perhaps everything will be made in China anyway. I'm beginning to get worried that my command of the Chinese language is very poor.

 

[d7t3]

there are a lot of issues and i wouldn't simply agree that the d50 is "better" than the 350d.

1st, what are your priorities? cost? noise? colour? AF speed? megapixels? battery life? software? different people value different things.

2nd, are u comparing images on auto using kit lens, or those taken with the best lenses, shooting raw, etc.? the results may vary.

3rd, if i had to choose between these 2 camera bodies only, not considering price, i'd take the 350d. but i wouldn't take the kit lens!

 

[CYRN]

I think ultimately, the reason why 350D is more ex. than D50 is because 350D is made in Japan.. Whereas D50 / D70s is made in Thailand.. Someone correct me if I'm wrong..

not realli.... why canon 350D more Ex than D50 is cuz canon can sell at higher price and people are willing to pay for it.... carrot heads :bsmilie: (mi inclusive )

 

[CYRN]

there are a lot of issues and i wouldn't simply agree that the d50 is "better" than the 350d.

1st, what are your priorities? cost? noise? colour? AF speed? megapixels? battery life? software? different people value different things.

2nd, are u comparing images on auto using kit lens, or those taken with the best lenses, shooting raw, etc.? the results may vary.

3rd, if i had to choose between these 2 camera bodies only, not considering price, i'd take the 350d. but i wouldn't take the kit lens!

aiyo... when this type of question is asked.. of course ppl wan to compare price first lah.. up front already say why more ex liao.

second is the his/her inclination is towards 350D... else ask for what? straight away buy the D50 liao loh.

it has nothing to do wif specs.

 

[fWord]

not realli.... why canon 350D more Ex than D50 is cuz canon can sell at higher price and people are willing to pay for it.... carrot heads :bsmilie: (mi inclusive )

:think: Maybe. No point dropping the prices too much if people are still willing to pay right? :bsmilie:

 

[lightning]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Advice for those who are sittin on the fence... dun buy canon.

Why... cuz firstly, you asked for it.


secondly, canon got L virus. :sweat:

initially that for 2.8L trinity... now they for f4L trinity.

You'll be addicted

my experience is that if you are tight on budget, get a canon P&S. Most of canon's non L lens are juz not worth paring with a DSLR they manufacture.

Damn... I think I am going to be infected! Especially the 2.8 virus! Deadly strend!

 

[CYRN]

Damn... I think I am going to be infected! Especially the 2.8 virus! Deadly strend!

hahaha... those who want's to buy canon's cam... beware :devil: dun say you have not been warned:bsmilie:

 

[fWord]

Damn... I think I am going to be infected! Especially the 2.8 virus! Deadly strend!

The L strain is already quite serious...don't touch the 2.8. Now I only infected by 4.0, thankfully.

 

[judeseah]

the reasons why i m in canon's camp,

-the interface is more to my liking.
being shooting w/o refering to the manual, its that simple.
might miss out some features,
but if i don't feel lacking, i don't need.

-the preview LCD's is closer to the real thing.
always find that nikon has a green tint.
me being lazy, try not to PP too much,
so prefer WYSIWYG.

only thing that i think D50 has an edge over 350D,...
is the SD card thing.
hahaha!!!

jude

 

[ConnorMcLeod]

In many review site such as Dpreview, the consensure is that the Nikon D50 has a slightly better winning edge over the Canon 350D. Can this be true? Furthermore, the Nikon is only $1288 brand new!! Why are we paying more for a Canon 350D at around $1700? If especially the Nikon is a better performer???

Kindly advise

Price is not a good indicator for performance.

D50 is a bit newer than 350D, which to me translated into time to implement a few more features or improvements using newer technologies.