450D might attract disappointed Nikon fans........

[NowHearThis]

.....looks like the newly announced D60 is nothing more than a D40
with a new tag.... After reading the preview and many threads in
their forum a lot of disappointed Nikonians are aware of the
excellent features of the 450D and seem like many will be crossing
that bridge.
Kudos to Canon for progress.......
--
Regards,
Hank

Unless Canon pulls out a miracle in terms of image quality, I wouldn't switch from any brand just to pick up a 450D. If in fact the image quality is stellar, then the only thing it will really do, is hurt 40D sales (too many measurebaters stuck on megapixel counting). That said I don't see the D60 having a very long future before it get a serious upgrade. Nikonians, wait and see what else Nikon pulls out of its hat at PMA (and the next couple of months - remember the D40x was announced about 2 months after the D40). Canonites, you'll probably be better off with the 40D, compare carefully.

 

[packy]

.....looks like the newly announced D60 is nothing more than a D40
with a new tag.... After reading the preview and many threads in
their forum a lot of disappointed Nikonians are aware of the
excellent features of the 450D and seem like many will be crossing
that bridge.
Kudos to Canon for progress.......

Progress? Excellent features? Maybe for Canon users but not so much for other brand users. Most of the stuff on the 450D have been around a while on other older brands like spot metering and dust removal. The 3 point AF is good enough for most applications while the liveview is not perfected yet and is excruiatingly slow to the point of being useless unless you are shooting static objects or maybe for focusing in macro. It works nowhere like on a P&S.

The only two things that I see as a clear advantage for the 450D would be the ability to AF with primes and the higher pixel count. And what will win it for Canon would be the higher pixel count more so than the internal motor issue if the price comes in near the same. The reality is that most joe bloggs won't probably be even interested in going any further than the kit lens or will use a prime. But what you will find if the price are nearly the same is when joe bloggs askes the sales rep what is the difference between the two cams and when the sales rep says one is 10mp and the other is 12mp......well that should seal it for Canon. Nikon got it wrong again just like with the D40 at 6mp which they were quick to address.

But looking at it from a different angle and for the more serious user, what will be interesting to know is how will both cameras hold up where it matters at the end of the day....in image quality.

The D40X was already excellent at all ISOs as was the 400D, but it seems like the D60 will be at least still be the same or if not better in IQ in keeping the same pixel count but adding the D300's excellent processor, while the 450D is pushing things a little further to 12mp and maybe could lose it's advantage as a lowlight king at entry level too as already seen in the semi-pro catergory (40D/D300).

--
*****************************************
Packy

 

[Taikonaut]

Many things side the most dissappointing is the D60 has no 14 bits RAW.

Are you joking?

That may actually be a bonus. I don't like how the 450D has 14 bits
(of very dubious value) which makes the raw files larger and fills the
buffer already after 6 shots (down from 400d on the predecessor).
They should at the very least give the users a choice.

The most disappointing thing in my view is the lack of AF motor.
No nice fast primes for low light shooting, poor 3rds party choices.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Who is joking? 40D has 14 bits so has D300 and D3 is using it, so is the rest of the Canon higher end cameras. There is a reason for bigger files. Unless you only shoot jpeg and dont shoot RAW you are missing out on better DR. The reason why the 40D is matching the 5D in IQ is attributed to the 14 bit AD converter.

Amazing how some people would disregard important things and rave about useless features.

 

[Taikonaut]

Unless Canon pulls out a miracle in terms of image quality, I
wouldn't switch from any brand just to pick up a 450D. If in fact
the image quality is stellar, then the only thing it will really do,
is hurt 40D sales (too many measurebaters stuck on megapixel
counting). That said I don't see the D60 having a very long future
before it get a serious upgrade. Nikonians, wait and see what else
Nikon pulls out of its hat at PMA (and the next couple of months -
remember the D40x was announced about 2 months after the D40).
Canonites, you'll probably be better off with the 40D, compare
carefully.

D40x annouce 10 months after the D40 not 2 months. It may also hurt the D300 sales along with the D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D80 and D200 if going by your theory.

 

[Taikonaut]

Progress? Excellent features? Maybe for Canon users but not so much
for other brand users. Most of the stuff on the 450D have been around
a while on other older brands like spot metering and dust removal.
The 3 point AF is good enough for most applications while the
liveview is not perfected yet and is excruiatingly slow to the point
of being useless unless you are shooting static objects or maybe for
focusing in macro. It works nowhere like on a P&S.

Unlike the D300, the 40D live view is much better than Nikon and I find it very useful as I am sure the 450D will be.

 

[gail]

But for people looking for their 1st system.

I may be one of them. Have owned lots of digital cameras, including three advanced, but haven't paid a whole lot to the dslr market.

Now to decide which, the new Canon or the new Nikon??

Does anyone know which has the better lens kit? Or should I forget about a lens kit altogether?

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb

My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

 

[Clear Blue Sky]

I think that the issue for a lot of people is:

Should they get D60 + VR lens or

D80 with more basic kit lens? I think the price will not be too different but the D80 does offer AEB

Or:
D80 vs 450D vs K200

 

[NowHearThis]

Unless Canon pulls out a miracle in terms of image quality, I
wouldn't switch from any brand just to pick up a 450D. If in fact
the image quality is stellar, then the only thing it will really do,
is hurt 40D sales (too many measurebaters stuck on megapixel
counting). That said I don't see the D60 having a very long future
before it get a serious upgrade. Nikonians, wait and see what else
Nikon pulls out of its hat at PMA (and the next couple of months -
remember the D40x was announced about 2 months after the D40).
Canonites, you'll probably be better off with the 40D, compare
carefully.

D40x annouce 10 months after the D40 not 2 months. It may also hurt
the D300 sales along with the D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D80 and D200
if going by your theory.

I'd blame the bad 10-key punch on time line but I won't.... as to the other thing, I concede the point that if the 450D's image quality sets new standards for all others to be judged... everyone and every model is in trouble. But.... I wasn't offering a theory, I call it an amusing statement of a highly unlikey event.

P.S. You left off some models (D70s, D100...)

 

[NowHearThis]

But for people looking for their 1st system.

I may be one of them. Have owned lots of digital cameras, including
three advanced, but haven't paid a whole lot to the dslr market.

Now to decide which, the new Canon or the new Nikon??

Does anyone know which has the better lens kit? Or should I forget
about a lens kit altogether?

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 &
A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

So far, Nikons have had better kit lenses (in the under $400 category) than Canon, specifically the Nikon 18-55, 18-70, 18-135, (and the Nikon 18-200VR not a kit lens, but one that's extremely popular to pair up with everything in Nikon's line.). The best advice will be to not take any one opinion on the Canon vs Nikon debate, but instead, read all the reviews, go to your local camera shop with some SD cards, and shoot them for a bit and try them out to see which YOU like best. One last recommendation... buy the most camera you can after deciding which lenses will do what you want. Good glass matters.

 

[gail]

The best
advice will be to not take any one opinion on the Canon vs Nikon
debate, but instead, read all the reviews, go to your local camera
shop with some SD cards, and shoot them for a bit and try them out to
see which YOU like best. One last recommendation... buy the most
camera you can after deciding which lenses will do what you want.
Good glass matters.

Thanks for the advice. What is a bit confusing for someone like me at this point is all the different model numbers.

I think one of the first things I need to decide is if I want a camera with built in Image Stabilization or not.

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb

My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

 

[Ehrik]

Many things side the most dissappointing is the D60 has no 14 bits RAW.

Are you joking?

That may actually be a bonus. I don't like how the 450D has 14 bits
(of very dubious value) which makes the raw files larger and fills the
buffer already after 6 shots (down from [10] on the predecessor).
They should at the very least give the users a choice. ...

Who is joking? 40D has 14 bits so has D300 and D3 is using it, so is
the rest of the Canon higher end cameras. There is a reason for
bigger files.

Yes, for cameras like the 450D it is clearly marketing, to fool people who
are impressed by numbers (be it megapixels, LCD sizes, zoom ratios,
ISO numbers) that here's a magic number that will define the IQ,
the higher, the better.

Unless you only shoot jpeg and dont shoot RAW you are
missing out on better DR.

Better DR originates from the sensor. If the sensor is good for 12 bits
(which btw makes a great improvement over 8-bit JPG), there
is no compelling reason for the camera to use 14 bits.

The reason why the 40D is matching the 5D
in IQ is attributed to the 14 bit AD converter.

By whom and after what kind of rigorous analysis?

Amazing how some people would disregard important things and rave
about useless features.

Indeed.

You need to read this post:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=26494190

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

 

[headofdestiny]

I would agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that the 12 bit Sony A700 has more dynamic range than all of the 14 bit DSLR cameras.

http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result.epl

 

[NowHearThis]

Thanks for the advice. What is a bit confusing for someone like me at
this point is all the different model numbers.

I think one of the first things I need to decide is if I want a
camera with built in Image Stabilization or not.

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 &
A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

As much as having "every lens stabilized", which is what Sony/Pentax tout, a stabilization system in the body, is not as effective as having stabilization in a lens. The reason for this is this: a lens based stabilization system allows you to instanlty see the effect, it also helps you to frame/compose your shot better (especially when using telephoto lenses). Both Nikon and Canon make very good stabilized lenses, I shoot Nikon, a good friend of mine shoots Canon, we both agree, that it would be very hard to go back to a non-IS/VR telephoto lens.

From the cameras you have listed (Panasonic FZ18 & TZ3) you might want to scrap the kit lenses get one that could give you kind of what your used to in your Panasonics in terms of focal range. If that's the case, only Sigma and Nikon make "all-in-one" (18-200mm) stabilized lenses. Both are very good, Sigma makes mounts for both Nikon and Canon. Nikon's own 18-200mm is built better than the Sigma, and the Vibration Reduction in it is better than Sigma's stabilizer as well. But both brands are very good optically.

One last thing, get an external flash too, it makes all the difference taking nice people shots outdoors. You can minimize shadows, fill-in what's known as "racoon eyes", or the shadows in the eyes.

Either brand you get (Canon or Nikon) will offer huge improvements in image quality & exposure over all the point-n-shoots you've had. Best of luck in your research/decision making.

FYI:

I shoot a Nikon D40 (only 6MP) and have 2 lenses, the 18-55mm & 55-200mm VR, I plan on upgrading the lenses and get the Nikon 18-200mm VR eventually. My friend I mentioned earlier shoots the Canon XTi and has several lenses most noteably the Canon 17-85mm IS and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.

 

[headofdestiny]

Marketing hype. Both systems have benefits and weaknesses. Personally, I would rather have every lens stabilized than have the viewfinder stabilized. In fact, I am able to gauge my holding motion, because the in-body stabilization has a little graph showing how much I'm moving, therefore causing me to correct it and become more stable. Nikon and Canon make too much money on IS lenses to suddenly turn around and start doing in-body IS. It would 'cause an uproar if they did.

 

[gail]

Wow, thanks for all the helpful advice!!!

gail wrote:
As much as having "every lens stabilized", which is what Sony/Pentax
tout, a stabilization system in the body, is not as effective as
having stabilization in a lens. The reason for this is this: a lens
based stabilization system allows you to instantly see the effect, it
also helps you to frame/compose your shot better (especially when
using telephoto lenses).

That makes a lot of sense!

From the cameras you have listed (Panasonic FZ18 & TZ3) you might
want to scrap the kit lenses get one that could give you kind of what
your used to in your Panasonics in terms of focal range.

I sold my TZ3 for it's lack of viewfinder and no AE/AF lock (I can live without manual controls in a small camera byt not AE/AF Lock as on my beloved SD700).

I am crazy about the FZ18 but the low light performance sucks, imho, partricularly with the yellow splotches!

One of the main reasons I'm considering a DSLR is because of the superior low light/high ISO performance.

If that's

the case, only Sigma and Nikon make "all-in-one" (18-200mm)
stabilized lenses.

I will check out the prices differences. If I buy a lens I think I should invest in a good one what will retain it's value if I ever think of selling it.

One last thing, get an external flash too,

I had a Oly OM2n system with an external flash. Do you recommend I get one made by the manufacturer?

Either brand you get (Canon or Nikon) will offer huge improvements in
image quality & exposure over all the point-n-shoots you've had.

Yes, I know. I'm still struggling with the weight and bulk issues of a dslr. Yet, admittedly, every time I see a good photo taken with a DSLR, the image quality jumps out at me and I get a-drooling.

Which brand, though, is going to be a tough decision. For it's time, my Nikon 5400 was a terrific camera. I still have it but it's just too darn slow. I've loved every Canon camera I've ever owned. So maybe I'll just flip a coin. lol

Best of luck in your research/decision making.

Thank you. Again, I appreciate your very informative reply!

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb

My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

 

[gail]

Marketing hype. Both systems have benefits and weaknesses.
Personally, I would rather have every lens stabilized than have the
viewfinder stabilized.

This is an interesting point too. This is NOT going to be an easy decision.

May I ask which dslr you are using?
--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb

My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

 

[headofdestiny]

Wait a few days. Sony is announcing two more cameras below $1000, giving them three at that price point. The A200 is already a much better camera than the Nikon D60. Go read about Pentax's K200D too. It looks good.

 

[ohyva]

But for people looking for their 1st system.

I may be one of them. Have owned lots of digital cameras, including
three advanced, but haven't paid a whole lot to the dslr market.

Now to decide which, the new Canon or the new Nikon??

Does anyone know which has the better lens kit? Or should I forget
about a lens kit altogether?

Canon new kit lens with IS has got some nice reviews. So I strongly recommend that if you do not have immediate plans to get samething better.

Havent's yet seen any review with measurements of the new Nikon kit lens with VR.

 

[headofdestiny]

I use a Sony A700 and a Sony A100. I had no brand loyalty before choosing Sony, although I shot Canon, Olympus, and Hasselblad film cameras. All of the cameras seem great in your price range, so I'm just reminding you to give the other brands a look. I'm happy with my decision.

 

[Hocus Pocus]

BTW, for your research, just be aware that Phil is planning on releasing a pile of reviews for various cameras AFTER PMA ends.

PMA '08 starts on Thursday and ends on Saturday (relative to Mountain timezone).