Nikon D200 anyone?

[Mini D]

I still haven't seen any claims of image quality on the 1D being better than the 5D nuke. Not a single one. Pixels don't mean much when you're using a 4:1 CCD like some of the 8 Mpixel cameras where 70% of the image is calculated, but they do mean something if they are actually getting true resolution. You can see a physical difference in pictures that are cropped between the 6 Mp Nikon and the 8 Mp D20. My friend (with the D70s) and I have done several comparisons where we've taken pictures from pretty much identical locations and then gone home and cropped them severely (as is the case with birdy pics) only to find that mine get the edge on detail.

I've heard the same is true of the 5D vs the 20D and have not heard a whisper about the 1D getting better clarity than the 5D. Frame strength, frame rate, and maybe a few other things... but nothing revolving around image quality at all. The 5D rules the roost below $5k.

Though... between the D50, D70 and 20D we're looking $700, $900, $1500 (though I've seen the 20D on sale once for $1099). The real question is if it's worth the $200 to go with the D70 over the D50. IMO it is. The idea of buying a "starter camera" is great, but it equates to a $500 write off within a couple of years.

Though, once again, the D50 will do anything that pocket cameras can do (except fit in your pocket) and it will do it better.

[BUG_EAF322]

I got the camera for 599 euros.
it seems when u look very deep in the pic the D70 got a slight edge in crispness
but the D50 beats it in noise, there seems less noise when shooting nightshots.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Mini D
I still haven't seen any claims of image quality on the 1D being better than the 5D nuke. Not a single one. Pixels don't mean much when you're using a 4:1 CCD like some of the 8 Mpixel cameras where 70% of the image is calculated, but they do mean something if they are actually getting true resolution. You can see a physical difference in pictures that are cropped between the 6 Mp Nikon and the 8 Mp D20. My friend (with the D70s) and I have done several comparisons where we've taken pictures from pretty much identical locations and then gone home and cropped them severely (as is the case with birdy pics) only to find that mine get the edge on detail.

I've heard the same is true of the 5D vs the 20D and have not heard a whisper about the 1D getting better clarity than the 5D. Frame strength, frame rate, and maybe a few other things... but nothing revolving around image quality at all. The 5D rules the roost below $5k.

Though... between the D50, D70 and 20D we're looking $700, $900, $1500 (though I've seen the 20D on sale once for $1099). The real question is if it's worth the $200 to go with the D70 over the D50. IMO it is. The idea of buying a "starter camera" is great, but it equates to a $500 write off within a couple of years.

Though, once again, the D50 will do anything that pocket cameras can do (except fit in your pocket) and it will do it better.

I'm not trying to be anal about it....  what you are saying is true. I have not seen how the 1D has any better image quality than the 5D either. That's one reason why I would go with the 1D. The 1D is weather sealed, the 5D is not. The 1D also accepts more Canon lenses, has a much higher burst rate and more. The 1D is just a better camera.

I have been reading some Canon forums. The people who have 1D's pretty much will not "upgrade" to the 5D, for many reasons.

Actually, since I have a pretty good camera and some great lenses, I will probably wait to see what Canon comes up with this year before upgrading. I'm not a pro, but I print large format images of my company's work. I need to shoot wide angle shots more often than not, so a 1:1 is of interest.

Also, you can order a 20D without the lens for 999.00. I bought mine with the lens and that was stupid, since the lens that comes with it is worth about $50.00 and is pretty much just a throw away.

What camera do you have? I seem to remember a Nikon.

Like someone said, post processing is a factor too. I shoot in RAW and have Photoshop CS. There is a lot of control over the image.

[Mini D]

I have a 20D and a 300D.

I don't know of anyone that would trade a 1D in on a 5D either... but in converse, I don't know of anyone that wishes they'd bought a 1D instead of a 5D. There are tradeoffs... 1:1 and 12mpixel means you're getting better images with the 20D. This is fundamental and not subjective. The non-image edge definately goes to the 1D.

I'm not eyeballing the 5D nor 1D right now. They just aren't enough of a bump over my 20D. I'm interested in seeing what the 30D has to offer, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up with a 1:1 sensor if I'm going to upgrade.

[eagl]

The comparison shouldn't be between the D50/D70 and 20D anymore...  The D200 is the Nikon to compare to the Canon 20D and whatever replaces the 20D in the next few months.

I'm eager to see a good matchup especially after nikon figures out the banding problem with the D200s.

For most people though, the fact that you can get a D50 plus a very good lense and flash for the price of just the 20D or D200 body, makes the D50 a better option.

[Mini D]

I think comparing the 20D to the D200 is like comparing the D70 to the 20D. Canon does have a better camera out there, but the D200 does an excellent job of filling the gap at a relatively excellent price.

[NUKE]

I am just a Canon guy. In highschool, I had a Canon AE-1 and a my own dark room (black &white) at home.

I am biased towards Canon, but for good reasons. Nikon seems like they are always second.

[BUG_EAF322]

That depends on what sites u read about it nikon is a pure camera builder no commercials.

I gues both are top notch.
But im very statisfied with nikon well im just a green guy.
But i like to go out and play with my new baby.

I went out at dark in the middle of the woods.
This time i got a camera mount with me got it on P with iso 400
standard lens.

This camera sees far more stars than i did and more after downloading the photos i retouched em with D-Lighting and the results are amazing(to me).
Here some of the JPEGS i made

Im very statisfied with my low entry dslr the low entry canons just look to plastic to me and they are a bit to small in ur hands i also like that lcd display on top better.
And of course the black colour.






only with the city shot i didnt do D-lighting
the star shots where much darker the d- lighting gives it a bit dough.

hell last shot from raw to jpeg and no d- lighting just original

[eagl]

Those pics are pretty nice.  Looks like you're off and running

[eskimo2]

I have a degree in photography but have not been able to afford a digital SLR.  I did a lot of research before I bought my second digital pocket camera (Canon S400).  It’s been a great camera and still works, but I really miss the control that I had with my Minolta 35mm equipment.  I always considered Nikon top notch and Canon a slight step down and Minolta and Olympus a step down from Canon.  With digital I’ve got the impression that Canon has slightly surpassed Nikon in quality, but that’s just based on hunch from reading.  I’m not loyal to any brand, but would like a basic level digital SLR.  I’ve only been looking a Canon stuff and just can’t bring myself to pay more for a camera and lens than I did for my car.  Does Nikon or any other brands offer a decent basic SLR that is closer to $600 than the Rebel XT?  

Also, what is RAW?  I know that it basically has not been processed by the camera, but is it a JPEG or BMP or?

Lastly, I think that I’ll probably end up getting a Canon S80.  $440 is still stretching my means and it has some awesome movie modes to boot.  Anyone ever had or used the S80?  

I was looking at MiniDV camcorders and came to the conclusion that their 320 x 480 resolutions suck too much when you consider that for the same price you can get a pocket camera that can take 640 x 480 (and some even 1024 x 768) resolution clips.  They fill up cards pretty quickly but I wouldn’t shoot more than a couple of minutes at a time anyway.  Any believers on this theory?

[midnight Target]

Cool how that bottom pic in bug's post shows Betelgeuse in a different color. Very nice.

[eagl]

eskimo,

Bug's D50 looks pretty sweet.  Might want to see if you can fit that into your budget.  Get the kit with lense now, and buy a better lense when you can afford it.

As for camcorders, I'd wait.  There are already a couple HD camcorders on the market but they cost over $1500.  That should drop in the next year or so, and they should just keep getting better and better.

RAW formats are proprietary formats that have zero compression and extra information in the image format, such as camera settings.  Each manufacturer deliberately makes their formats incompatible from the others so you are forced to use their software or software made by companies that pay royalty fees so they can use the format.

For example, Nikon cameras come with image editing software that works with their RAW image formats, but the software is somewhat limited and not super easy to use.  Of course, Nikon will happily sell you their improved image editing software for more money.  Or you can buy something like adobe photoshop for hundreds of dollars, because adobe pays nikon a fee for the rights to use nikon's RAW format.  Adobe pays pretty much every camera manufacturer a fee so photoshop can work with almost any image type taken from any camera.  That's one reason why photoshop costs so much.

Yea, it's a conspiracy but from what I've seen, professional photographers are too defensive and proud of the gear they use, so they'll never band together and force the camera companies to come up with a single standard RAW format.  The companies make more money that way and if the customers don't make it worth it to set a standard, they'll keep gouging the customers with the proprietary formats.  Of course, they market their own incompatible (and copyrighted/patented) standards as "features", but it's really just a way to get more money out of us.

Heck, it seems like the pro photographers WANT to get gouged, because it makes them feel like they're getting the best.  All the non-pros use the standard software that comes with the camera, but a REAL PRO spends the money for the premium software.  Seems stupid to me, but then my life doesn't depend on me selling photos on the basis that they're better than everyone elses so I don't have to try to convince anyone that I'm some 1337 camera-dude by spending money for no reason other than the camera manufacturer tweaked the RAW format again and my older perfectly good software, doesn't work anymore.

[NUKE]

RAW format contains a lot of the camera's settings. For example, Canon's RAW information contains exposure, white balance, saturation, curves, contrast, temperature, sharpness, luminance, chromatic abberation, vignetting, camera profiles, and  more.

It's  compatible with Photoshop CS.

Basically, you can adjust most of the camera's original shot settings after the fact in post production.

[Mini D]

Close on the RAWs eagl... but not quite.

They are uncompressed images broken down in 3 colors (on the canons at least). They also contain a bit of historisis in that you can adjust the exposure within reason after the image is taken. They are about 17meg files for a 6mpixel camera.

On the Canon, at least, all of the images are saved with the photo conditions.

Save this photo and click on properties/summary/advanced for an example

Of course, the editor you use might strip them, but photoshop does not. Also, with Canon, the RAWS are importable into photoshop (Need CS2 for the D5 though).

[wasq]

Also, there are specialized RAW conversion/editing software available, such as RawShooter Essentials and Premium. I've been using the Premium for a couple of months and it does the basic image manipulation (white balance, exposure comp, curves, noise reduction and sharpening) pretty well. Also, the Essentials is free.

With RAW you can get most out of the camera, since it is possible to recover many shots that would have been underexposed or way off the white balance if shot with JPG. Downside is, that for example the newest Canon RAWs (350D, 5D) are supported only by a few applications.

I was looking at MiniDV camcorders and came to the conclusion that their 320 x 480 resolutions suck too much when you consider that for the same price you can get a pocket camera that can take 640 x 480 (and some even 1024 x 768) resolution clips. They fill up cards pretty quickly but I wouldn’t shoot more than a couple of minutes at a time anyway. Any believers on this theory?

Sanyo is bringing out HD1, which records 1280x720 video and has 5.1 mpix still camera. That seems to be an interesting combined device, price was quoted to be $799.