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

[hifisiao]

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

 

[billpepsi]

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

Why not test both cams yourself at the the shop and arrive your own conclusion. Both are good cam, but some photog prefer 350D bcos of smaller hand grip.

 

[thw]

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

I have the 350D, but if I have to choose between the Nikon D50 and Canon 350XT now, I may very well go for the Nikon. I don't think the D50 has any edge over the XT, as far as image quality is concerned. The contrary is probably true: XT has far more accurate colors and also provides a nice cropping advantage too. BUT it has one weakness: unreliable focusing in low light, especially when a fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) is used. The Nikon D50 + 18-200 VR makes a fantastic combo IMHO.

Since I've already got myself a bunch of good Canon lenses, I probably won't switch esepcially when I start to think about the cost advantage.

 

[yyD70S]

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

A little OT here but, assuming you are starting from scratch, important thing is what feels good to you... what your heart really desires... there's this funny human behaviour in us that (usually) no matter what people says / comments, once you make up your mind on a certain thing, no one can change your mind.

Both are good starters in my opinion.

 

[hifisiao]

Bros,

It appears in reviews that Nikon D50 has less noise, slightly ... than the 350D. Some time ago, someone told me:

1. Canon stuffs are overpriced
2. Nikon makes better stuff at the same price point

Ok, we are not going to dispute it here but the price diff does seems very attractive.

I read somewhere that a beginner may even consider a used 300D instead because it is cheap as used item and it is very close to the new 350D performance. Is it true? I see that a used 300D in the marketplace sells for about $800 .... and again seems pretty close to a new Nikon D50 camera.

I have the 350D, but if I have to choose between the Nikon D50 and Canon 350XT now, I may very well go for the Nikon. I don't think the D50 has any edge over the XT, as far as image quality is concerned. The contrary is probably true: XT has far more accurate colors and also provides a nice cropping advantage too. BUT it has one weakness: unreliable focusing in low light, especially when a fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) is used. The Nikon D50 + 18-200 VR makes a fantastic combo IMHO.

Since I've already got myself a bunch of good Canon lenses, I probably won't switch esepcially when I start to think about the cost advantage.

 

[fWord]

Bros,

It appears in reviews that Nikon D50 has less noise, slightly ... than the 350D. Some time ago, someone told me:

1. Canon stuffs are overpriced
2. Nikon makes better stuff at the same price point

Ok, we are not going to dispute it here but the price diff does seems very attractive.

I read somewhere that a beginner may even consider a used 300D instead because it is cheap as used item and it is very close to the new 350D performance. Is it true? I see that a used 300D in the marketplace sells for about $800 .... and again seems pretty close to a new Nikon D50 camera.

To be honest, I can't say for sure since I haven't studied both of these models in detail. The difference in price is certainly attractive, and as thw, the Nikon D50 and 18-200mm VR must be a beauty.

However, I am already stuck with a Canon, so it's going to remain this way. At this time I am even saving up to upgrade one of my Canon lenses. So far it hasn't become apparent to me that going Canon was a mistake, but again, I could be ill-informed.

Beginners could certainly consider a used 300D, and I'd venture so far to say that a lot of today's DSLRs have a heap of advanced features that not every photographer will use. Hence, for a person who's just starting off, I reckon that a 300D is more than enough. Not to mention that there's a WASIA hack floating around that actually restores some of the more elusive features on the 300D, such as mirror-lockup.

When buying into a brand of cameras, also look at their lens lineup and compare the differences in prices between them. Make sure that a great range is available and at different prices and quality so that you have a chance to explore other areas of photography in the future.

Although people say that a photographer is much more important than their equipment, on the equipment side of things, the lens probably matters more than the DSLR itself.

For example, the very old D30 and D60 are still used by many photographers, and they've instead chosen to buy better lenses to allow them to gain the reach/ wideangle that they desire.

Try asking at the Nikon forums to see what they think. It's best to ask at both Canon and Nikon forums to hear both sides of the issue. Also, regardless of what some reviewers think about which brand is better value for money, you should independently read the reviews at:

www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com

They are very detailed, and I feel, quite impartial. Take a look and see what you really like and want before you decide to commit. It's not a cheap thing to get into.

 

[Hoky]

To be honest, I can't say for sure since I haven't studied both of these models in detail. The difference in price is certainly attractive, and as thw, the Nikon D50 and 18-200mm VR must be a beauty.

However, I am already stuck with a Canon, so it's going to remain this way. At this time I am even saving up to upgrade one of my Canon lenses. So far it hasn't become apparent to me that going Canon was a mistake, but again, I could be ill-informed.

Beginners could certainly consider a used 300D, and I'd venture so far to say that a lot of today's DSLRs have a heap of advanced features that not every photographer will use. Hence, for a person who's just starting off, I reckon that a 300D is more than enough. Not to mention that there's a WASIA hack floating around that actually restores some of the more elusive features on the 300D, such as mirror-lockup.

When buying into a brand of cameras, also look at their lens lineup and compare the differences in prices between them. Make sure that a great range is available and at different prices and quality so that you have a chance to explore other areas of photography in the future.

Although people say that a photographer is much more important than their equipment, on the equipment side of things, the lens probably matters more than the DSLR itself.

For example, the very old D30 and D60 are still used by many photographers, and they've instead chosen to buy better lenses to allow them to gain the reach/ wideangle that they desire.

Try asking at the Nikon forums to see what they think. It's best to ask at both Canon and Nikon forums to hear both sides of the issue. Also, regardless of what some reviewers think about which brand is better value for money, you should independently read the reviews at:

www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com

They are very detailed, and I feel, quite impartial. Take a look and see what you really like and want before you decide to commit. It's not a cheap thing to get into.

Well said.
My take on this:

1. The photographer takes the looking. (Composition, depend on you.)
2. The lens do the focusing. (The type of lenses you have to allow good shots under different conditions.)
3. The camera solely do the capturing. (Changes rapidly with technology)

So don't solely compare prices and think long term what are possibilities you can achieve with your system.

 

[yanyewkay]

take what the review site says with a pinch of salt. Not many (if any) provides a neutral and honest review of any product. There will surely be some reluctance to expose some important flaws until the public exposes it first. Then comes the author, he might have a slight (or even more than just 'slight') bias for a certain brand than others.

Read the specs, look at sample pictures, go down to the shop to try it out. Know the gimicks from true features.

eg: Brand X can say it sports a 'wildlife mode' that allows you to shoot those difficult moving wildlife pictures.

Now, ask yourself, is that 'wildlife mode' not replicable on Av/Tv or Manual mode? :dunno: To me, this extra feature is a gimmick more than a feature.

 

[clie]

Not from what I've just read from DPreview. The 350D definitely looks better compared to the D50. Just look at clarity, sharpness and colour, no comparision.

Then again, there isn't anything much said about the lens that were being used in the test.

 

[user111]

do not trust reviews too much

 

[CYRN]

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.

 

[megamonster]

First thing is that 350D does not cost 1700 in my knowledge. You can get it for as much as 1500 (in fact I got a quote of 1490 a few months back). So the price difference boils down to only 200 !!
The obvious main difference between the two camera is the resolution itself. See the comparison on dpreview.com and witness urself how much better the 350D is able to resolve the details.
Dont' be too concerened about the noise issue, I sometimes take photos at 400 ISO and end up with virtually noiseless clean images with 350D. The noise difference in my opinion is a marginal one. Besides, an important point to note is that the ISO levels listed on Canon are actually higher than the standard in real. For instance look at the studio comparison charts at dpreview where they compare canon ISO 100 shots with Nikon's ISO 200 shots and there is hardly any difference in the exposure !! This effectively means that the noise levels are even less than indicated on the chart coz in effect canon's ISO 100 is almost equivalent to Nikon's ISO 200.
Somebody pointed out the focus problem .. I don't think focussing is of any issue when u are using a good lens. My 17-40 lens is able to focus in a fraction of a second 99% of the time.
Personally, for me the price difference between the two was more than justified.

 

[CYRN]

Somebody pointed out the focus problem .. I don't think focussing is of any issue when u are using a good lens. My 17-40 lens is able to focus in a fraction of a second 99% of the time.
Personally, for me the price difference between the two was more than justified.

yeah... but on tight budget... canon kit lens really C-M-I. compared to Nikon's kit lens.

Your 17-40L already S$1.2K thereabouts... can but a D50+kit lens liao.

 

[solarii]

To hifisiao: Its consensus not "consensure" I don't usually correct english but I find the mistake very glaring...

Asking a qn like this in a canon forum is bound to get you answers favouring canon in general. Most users here chose the system for various reasons because we feel canon gives us a better deal. Ask this in a nikon forum and you'll get nikon supporters telling you nikon's better. Its a no-brainer.

My point is, you be the judge. Reviews are written be individuals who are themseleves brand biased to some extent. For every review that says the D50 is better, I can show you at least 10 that argue otherwise. Who do you believe? Yourself of course.

 

[CYRN]

Asking a qn like this in a canon forum is bound to get you answers favouring canon in general. Most users here chose the system for various reasons because we feel canon gives us a better deal. Ask this in a nikon forum and you'll get nikon supporters telling you nikon's better. Its a no-brainer.

Hahaha... very correct.... that's why I throw in some "fun". :bigeyes:

Else, sure get all standard answers. :flush:

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

350D's ISO1600 is amazing. i printed 6R shots before at 1600 ISO and it was very very fine.

the kit lens is ok. not that bad. but slowly you'll realise it isnt up to par for people shots. for landscapes its ok.

 

[megamonster]

I was talking about this comparison: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.asp
Notice the ISO settings of the 2 camera and yet the produce almost identical expsoure.

 

[fWord]

I go for quality, and I'm addicted to quality. In general, DSLRs are for people who want quality and responsiveness and are willing to pay substantially more than a P&S in order to get it.

So in that sense, I shall buy anything that is of good quality, as long as it's within my budget and suitable for my uses. If 'L' in Canon is associated with quality, and the lens actually proves it's worth through sample pictures, build quality e.t.c I'd take it without question. Same thing...if it's called the Canon 'crap' series, but the quality, build and value for money is awesome, I'd still go for it.

I'd definitely agree that the Canon 350D kit lens is inferior to the Nikon D70 kit lens, but I think it'd be quite similar to the D50 kit lens.

Speaking of lenses, it's often hit me that they are terribly expensive toys. They may cost more than the DSLR itself and perhaps many times more than a standard P&S. Let's see...a lens costing $2.6K could get me two PowerShot S2IS and still leave me with 1K left over to save.

So this point is apparent once again: DSLRs are geared to those who want quality and want to pay for it. It is advised that all buyers consider carefully IF and WHY they want a DSLR over a prosumer or superzoom camera. Don't just buy something because it looks good, or everyone else is using it, or because people say it makes you look 'pro', or because you've got a lot of money to burn. :bsmilie:

And when you've decided to go for a DSLR it is imperative that you read as many reviews as possible. No-one is completely impartial, though they may be quite fair.

 

[fWord]

I was talking about this comparison: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.asp
Notice the ISO settings of the 2 camera and yet the produce almost identical expsoure.

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.

 

[user12343]

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