Please help me solve this discussion

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

On our forum we have a discussion at the moment.

Someone is in the market for a new camera.
He wants to have control over the settings (so a manual option).

He can buy a 1D from Nikon or a new 300D both are priced equal (the 1D being second hand).

According to me he would be better of with the 300D or pay a bit more for a 10D.

According to someone else he should buy the 1D direct without thought because it's a professional camera which will beat even the 10D.

Sorry but I can't convince him, he claims his professional photograph friends all say the 1D is the one to buy because it's a professional camer and the 300 D a plaything.

I emulated the difference between a 6.5MP shot and a 2.66MP shot to show him that there is a huge difference, according to him however it can print to A4 without difference of a shot of the 10D, because...... it's a professional camera (broken record guy).

This is my picture which I used to convince him of the difference.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~itc/fotos/vergelijk.jpg

Am I missing something and should I sell my 10D to buy this wonder camera ?

Greetings,
Frank

[Scottes]

There's a lot more to a camera than just the number of pixels. There's a lot of things the 300D can't do. While I'd hate to lose the pixels, I'd get the 1D for the features it has. That's me - I'd be happier with complete control vs a bigger image.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

It's a NIKKON D1 meaning 2.66 MP's.
Not a Canon 1D.

What more features does it have for normal pro-sumer use. I use a 10D and must say it does everything and more than I would ever need.

The 300D is less sophisticated but loosing 3x the resolution man that's a lot, I would never print on A3 or A4 again ??

What I understand he won't be buying big flashes etc. he wants just total control over the process.
Meaning that the Manual option for the 300D would do that, or am I wrong.....

I'm confused at the moment to be honest, the 1D of Canon (:D) would be a doubt case for me because 4MP's is enough for A4 but 2.66 that's really back to basics resolution wise....

I would however only be tempted by buildquality for that matter.

Greetings,
Frank

[IndyJeff]

I would say one thing to consider is what he plans on doing with it. I am not all that familiar with the Nikon but I would imagine it does have a larger burst rate than the 300D. If he is shooting sports that may be a big factor to consider.

If he is not shooting sports or fast action then based on the eye lashes alone in your sample I would definately choose the Canon.

In short tho, you have done what you could to win him over to the Canon side. If he gets the Nikon then is unhappy with it, you'll look like a genius....LOL

[Scottes]

You said "1D from Nikon" and I immediately thought "1D from Canon."

I don't know anything about the Nikon D1, but things I'd want in a camera are mirror lockup and 2nd curtain flash and flash sync at any speed. I know the 300D doesn't do the first two and I'd guess that it can't flash sync at 1/1000. I'd assume that the D1 can do these things.

I don't print A4, so that's not so important to me. But more pixels is a nice feature, and newer technology means a lot to me.

If he's beginning photography but doesn't know what he wants to do, I'd go with the 300D - newer technology, more pixels, and my reasons above are probably meaningless to him. But if he's the type that wants to do or try everything, we're back to the D1. But I would never buy an old used digital camera, so back to the 300D.

Yep, tough call.

As to the "plaything" argument - all digital cameras today are playthings in my opinion, especially the first one we buy. Were will it be in 2 years, let alone 3? The D1 is 3.5 years old! Argh, you couldn't get me to buy a 3.5 year old digital camera!

[defordphoto]

I wouldn't touch a Nikon D1H over a Canon anything. It'd ONLY be good if you were shooting for the web only. Sure it's got an impressive buffer and one or two other features, but after that it dies (very) quickly with child-like resolution compared to the big boys.

Now a Canon 1D? There you're talking. That is a pro camera.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's NOT A D1H either,.

the D1 was Nikon's old workhorse DSLR,. it was released in 1999 and predates the both the D1X (which replaced it with its 5 MP sensor) and the D1H (which was the high speed offering released at the same time as the D1X)

The D1 did use the same 2.66 MP sensor that Nikon eventually put into the D1H

It's burst rate is NOT very fast for a pro DSLR of only 2.7 MP,... it hovers around 4 FPS in both raw and jpeg...

This camera WAS Nikon's pro body DSLR, so yes like the 1D it is a much more professional body than the Drebel..

BUT.. think of all the advancements in image quality,. noiuse reduction ISO noise.. etc.. made since 1999 digital.. there is no way the images will look better.. that is not what is being offered in a pro body.

The Drebel can offer better images than a Canon 1D.. but you'd still want the 1D for all its pro bell's and whistles...

Taht said,. the Nikon D1 is no Canon 1D. It is olsder, slower, lower res,. etc..
Personally I think any one would be a fool to get this tired old workhorse.. it was rendered obsolete many years ago.

[defordphoto]

D1, D1H, D2H, who cares? :) Nikon's playing catch up anyway and Canon's getting ready to make another quantum leap in February.

Bye, bye Nikon...

[Longwatcher]

While I would normally go with Nikon D1 over the 300D because of the better control of the D1. 2.66MP is just not enough. I would consider it marginal for an 8x10. 3MP is the minimum I consider acceptable for an 8x10 and this allows for no cropping. The 300D will allow for a 16x24.

A secondary consideration is the Glass to go with it. While Nikon's used to be the best, I am of the opinion (biased of course) that Canon's line is currently the best overall and will remain so for several years.

Because of the lens issue and since Canon's technology is far ahead of Nikon (by at least 18 months at this time), I would rather have a camera I will buy Canon glass for since Canon is likely to have even better cameras in the near future (next 2-3 years), staying well ahead of Nikon during that period. After that no predictions.

If you could upgrade to the 10D there would be no question what so ever, the 10D dusts the Nikon D1 in terms of overall capability.

As always if you already have Nikon glass go with what you have, there is not enough difference to replace your outlay in glass, but if startng out, go Canon at this time.

One last note, recently (early November) I was with a group of other photographers and some of them had Nikon D1s (various models), they were kind of jealous at the capabilities of the two people with 10Ds. Although to be honest they wouldn't trade because of the glass, but they were tempted :p One man had just gotten the 300D and in comarison it is a great camera for a beginner, but has it's limitation.

So if you could get a newer/better Nikon it would be a toss, but the one you are talking about I would rather spend my money on a 300D.

Just my slightly biased opinion,

[Belmondo]

Good reasoning, Tim.
If you strip away brand loyalty and prejudice, this is how a pragmatic no-nonsense photographer should think.

Barring economic considerations (i.e. massive investment in lenses), a pro is going to buy the best gear for the job at hand, whether it says Canon, Nikon, or Brand X.

Tom