400d Or D80?
Posted 26 December 2006 - 02:45 PM
Posted 26 December 2006 - 04:51 PM
Posted 26 December 2006 - 11:15 PM
So what's the big concern about that? In a word, dust. The XTi (400D) has dust prevention that's supposed to work; not a single review has denied its success. I changed my lenses on my Rebel XT (350D) a total of about 5 times, mortally afraid of dust. Wouldn't I be in this same situation with the Nikon? Darn them, if they'd just knuckle under and develope this technology on their cameras, I wouldn't have such angst!
About the black & white, I shoot RAW color, convert on photoshop, and therefore have the option of either monochrome or color on every shot, so I don't think that is a big issue with either camera.
Well, I wouldn't be all in turmoil if all that was troubling me was the lens issue, so still not at a final decision. I eagerly await the next bit of input.
Posted 27 December 2006 - 12:16 AM
Good luck deciding which one to get! Its a tough decision. And get some sleep! Don't stay up all night over this!
Posted 27 December 2006 - 01:03 AM
Posted 27 December 2006 - 12:21 PM
altphotos - a forum for creative photography
Posted 27 December 2006 - 03:17 PM
Posted 27 December 2006 - 04:35 PM
altphotos - a forum for creative photography
Posted 28 December 2006 - 09:54 AM
I can not say which way to jump Chris as I do not have much knowledge of the 400d.
I have owned a D70S and also have used Steves D200, and I now own a D80, I have found the D80 to be excellent giving good results straight from camera.
The controls and menus are easy to use and well laid out.
The D80 is smaller than the D70S and a lot smaller than the D200, and I believe the 400d is smaller again than the D80, so if you have large hands this may be a problem.
If you have not already seen them, the reviews on www.dpreview.com are very helpful.
Good luck Chris, and I am sure which ever you choose you will have a great deal of fun with it!
Posted 28 December 2006 - 02:56 PM
About the size and feel of holding the camera. Yes, it's true, the Canon is small for big hands, which I have. But perhaps because I got here through two other, much smaller, cameras, I didn't notice it was small until I started reading about other people griping about it. Tell you the truth, I still don't notice it when I pull it out and start shooting. I think part of my final search will be in the shop trying it with the accessory battery grip. Lots of people have said that improves things, and it would still be cheaper than the Nikon.
While reading about the 400d, I read about their RAW conversion software, which dpreview shows does better than Adobe Camera Raw. It came to me that I had some of that software for my 350d, so I got it back out and actually tried it. I had tried it early on and became frustrated because at that time I simply didn't understand what I needed to do. Now that I know more, I found the adjustments easier to understand than Adobe, and easier to reach my final result with less mucking in photoshop. The pic currently posted called "Remembering Autumn" (or it might be simply Remember Autumn) was converted with the Canon software, and then a simple smart sharpening in photoshop. I think it worked very nicely. Nikon's got such software, too, but I have to hand over yet another two hundred clams to pick it up.
This thread has helped me solidify some priorities, so that I am finally coming to the conclusion that what I will most likely do is try the battery grip on the camera, then trade in my 350d for a 400d, and for hundreds less than the Nikon I'll have 10 megapixels, software, good image quality, 3 lenses (including image stabilization), a good dust prevention system, and cash to spare to finally get a good flash (thinking the 430EZ).
But there's still time to sway my opinion, y'all, with a great sales pitch.
Posted 01 January 2007 - 02:34 AM
I went with Nikon largely by default. I already had a couple Nikon-compatible lenses. When it came time to buy a DSLR, I couldn't afford new lenses and a new DSLR, so I stuck with Nikon.
Having said all that, I stick with Nikon partly out of investment in lenses and partly because they just "feel" more natural to me. The important part of that last sentence is "to me." I've played with Canons from time to time; I just prefer the Nikons. That may be as much an issue of familiarity as anything else. Or, it may be that the layout of the controls on the Nikons better suit the way I happen to think and work. They certainly feel more intuitive to me, but as I said, that may be (hell, probably is) influenced greatly by my familiarity with Nikon gear.
As for the in-camera enhancements, I don't use them. I shoot RAW, and I rely on post-processing for any enhancements (other than on-lens filters, which I do use). I do occasionally "shoot" in B&W, but as you know, when shooting RAW, that mode basically just causes the camera to display the LCD preview in grayscale; all the color data is still present in the RAW file. I occasionally shoot that way when I'm shooting photos I'm pretty sure I'll want to convert to B&W; seeing a rough B&W estimate on the LCD is occasionally helpful. But, again, I shoot RAW, so the ultimate enhancement decisions come when I fire up Photoshop.
I agree strongly with Stewart Bywater: The cameras are so close in performance and quality that the technical differences are largely a matter of splitting hairs; what matters most here is which one feels more natural and intuitive to you. I, too, would love it if Nikon would give in and provide dust reduction in their DSLRs; however, quite frankly, dust on the sensor hasn't been a big problem for me, so the lack of that feature wasn't enough to sway my decision. Even though I prefer the Nikon, I always tell anyone who asks that you're very likely to be pleased as hell with either one. They do have different feels, though, and I think that, as much as anything, contributes to people's rabid preferences for one over the other.
In your case--and speaking solely for myself--if I had been using Canons as long as you have, and I had an investment in Canon lenses such as yours, I'd be highly biased toward the Canon. The onus would be on a Nikon enthusiast to sway me from my entrenched position. And, frankly, I'm not the Nikon enthusiast you're looking for. I mean, I am a Nikon enthusiast, but I like to think of myself as a rational Nikon enthusiast. Rationality dictates that you take your current investment and current comfort level into account when making this decision. Rationality also dictates that you do as Stewart suggests, and go with the camera that feels more "right" to you--or at least consider that element highly when making your decision.
Good luck with your decision. And, Happy New Year.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 10:13 AM
I have just purchased my first digital SLR and gone for the Canon 400d based on two things - recommendation from my course tutor (who has previously always used Nikon but has made the switch to Canon based on her opinion of this particular model) and the dust cleaning system. I just feel that if the technology is available now then I may as well take advantage of it.
I suspect the overall results would be pretty similar for each camera - they both seem to have wide spread good reviews and I do tend to agree with the comment that going with what 'feels right' is probably good advice. As it's the first digital SLR I've had I was fortunate in a way not to be swayed by previous experience or loyalty. My decision was based on fairly simple criteria.
However if you do decide to go for the Canon I would be delighted for selfish reasons - as someone who is still trying to plough my way through the instruction manual and figure out the basic instructions I need all the help I can get, and as one of the most helpful contributors on this site it would be great to be able to pick your brains occasionally!!
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users