Really aching to buy a Digital SLR ASAP, But Which? HELP

[chadaw]

I love Canon, have a EOS ELAN IIE QD that I need to get rid of. I am a very slow shopper because I want to be careful with my money, because I am a student and don't have much to spare, but I want a camera that will take great quality, and good enough to sell stock photography online. Will the Digital Rebel be worth it? Everyone outside of Canon Loyalists cry that the nikon d70 is the best, how do they compare? Is it worth spending extra money for the canon's dslr that is slightly above the rebel? I am willing to spend up to $1,400, maybe a little more, but I want to be sure I can take great closeup shots as I need to take bunches of closeups of flowers and stuff for our greenhouses.

Thanks.
Chad.

[PhotosGuy]

If you're not shooting sports, you can probably use the 300D & put your extra money into lenses. I'm an ex film Nikon user, & like the 300D for my type of pictures.
People in the forum have said that the 300D pics are better quality than the d70.

Now 4,327 guys will tell you something different! :wink:

[dwc]

I got the D70 with the kit lens. 1400 with tax! But I need a different lens to do macro. I think PhotosGuy is right. The quality is about the same, but since you are used to Canon, go with the drebel. You'll save some cash!

Scott W.

[Lincoln_Mennuti]

Go to DPreview.com and use their Buying Guide>Side-by-Side comparison chart so you can see the differences between the Canon and Nikon.

My suggestion...Watch for a good deal on the Canon 300D (I've seen prices come in at the low to mid 800s, including lens) and pick it up. The price you save can be put towards a quality lens.

...IMO, If you buy quality lenses, then the only thing you'll be wanting to upgrade in the future is the camera body.

[robertwgross]

I'll bet a quarter that you could buy a Nikon and make a go of it. I would also bet a quarter that you could buy a Canon and make a go of it. Equipment is important, but your eyeball is more important, at least if it is hooked up to anything.

Find some old photographer in your home town and ask if you can carry his tripod for him. You might learn a couple of things. Besides, it is good exercise.

---Bob Gross---

[RichardtheSane]

Tge camera's are both good (Never thought I'd hear myself saying a nikon was good) but the images that come out of the Rebel are generally better. Nikon make up for this by puting more features on the D70.

Really you are going to be using the system for a while (by system I mean lenses etc.) so invest in the camera that gives you the better glass to use.

To me that shouts Canon

[Jesper]

The Nikon D70 and Canon 300D / Digital Rebel are both fine cameras. I'm sure you'll like either of them. When you're choosing between Nikon and Canon, you should not only consider the camera itself, but the whole system - the lenses and other accessories that are available. In that respect, I like Canon better than Nikon - Canon has a better selection of lenses, and you can be sure all EF lenses are compatible with all EOS bodies*. With Nikon, there are all kinds of gotchas with certain lenses that are not compatible with certain bodies, etc. Also, Canon stuff is generally just a little bit cheaper than Nikon stuff.

If you already have one or more Canon lenses and accessories, you could continue to use them on your 300D.

*: with just one exception: the 300D kit lens (EF-S 18-55) only works on the 300D and not on other EOS bodies.

[Cadenza]

As a new owner of a 10D for all of 48 hours, I'd
say you might want to consider getting one of
these also. You might find a good deal in the used
market, since there are so many former 10D
owners upgrading to MkIIs. And even though it
is not a MkII, this is a camera that tell others
you mean business!

This afternoon, I parked at a mini mall, and of
course, didn't want to leave the camera in the
car, so I took it with me. I walked into a
Walgreens to buy some milk, and the milk shelf
had both fluorescent lights and some colorful
neon signs nearby.

I thought I'd take a couple shots to try out the
10D's WB behavior under tricky conditions. A
store guy saw me and immediately had the
manager flag me down! I thought I had stolen
something again, but it turns out the manager
wanted to know why I was taking pictures of
their milk. He asked nervously, "is there anything
wrong?" So there: you could ever intimidate a
Walgreen's manager with a 300D.

Regards, Cadenza

[ron chappel]

I'm with the general concensus-
-the nikon has more features and is definitely better for sports/fast action (but lenses are expensive for what you get)
-the canon has slightly better image quality and is great value (but won't be as nice to hold and use as the nikon)
:D
So the winner on value for money is definitely the 300D

[chadaw]

:arrow: Guys, I love you! I just posted it last night and now feel like I found a club I could hang out in. Thanks for all your help. I have one more queston. On ebay, alot of rebels are being sold with sigma lenses how do they compare with canon's own? I am looking at the canon 75-300mm 4/5.6 are they fairly good? So I guess I had two more questions :)

[Canuck]

Chad,
Well, I have a Canon EOS 50E (Elan IIE in the US) and jumped straight into the 10D. It has taken some time to get used to it, but end of the day, I am able to control what I get in pics, something I had not been able to control as much. I have also found that cheap lenses play into it. You might want to check out http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html for EOS lens info and mopre. Just don't go too cheap in your lens selection, or it will show!

Failing that, check out the reviews on the cameras...
www.imaging-resource.com
www.stevesdigicams.com
www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com

That will give you a much better idea as to what each can do. Coming from an SLR, this ought to be what you need.

[ron chappel]

Definitely don't go too cheap with lenses :shock:

The cheapest sigmas are crap,sorry to say.The cheapest canons are very little better :? The point at which lenses are generally considered 'good enough' is VERY vague depending on who you ask-and watch out,most in this forum seem to insist on the hideously expensive canon 'L' lenses! :D :D

Im abit tight with money i must admit so i'm allways looking for a bargain in lenses.That said, there is a limit even for me :P
In telezooms i consider the canon 75-300 the bare minimum for getting nice looking shots.In spite of the slight softness of the shots it has enough good points (or the bad points aren't so bad) to make it ok.

The canon 90-300 i just didn't like.Contrast was very good but sharpenss and general 'look' of the pics were not good.

The canon 100-300 is a good lens.Not much sharper than the 75-300 but has a very good look to the pics.Just the right amount of contrast,lovely smooth background blur....and for some reason i was able to get nice pics at silly low shutter speeds.

The sigma 100-300DL is just abit too soft to ever be usefull
Sigma also have a 70-300 DL macro-a middle lens that i know little about but no one ever raves about it.
The best sigma consumer telezoom-the 70-300 APO macro super II *is* a good lens.Many people say good things about that one.It may be slightly better than canon's 100-300

Tamron has several models of 70-300 and i have yet to see good results from any so far-the best ones may be good but no proof yet...