Canon 350 or Nikon D50

larrytucaz said:

drejc said:

And just handleing and working with D50 is much easier than
with 350D.

Click to expand...

Durn right it is. The D50 WAY outdoes the 350D ergonomically and
feel-wise. The DcResource.Com guy said so himself.

Click to expand...

When it comes to camera size this becomes as personal as trying on a pair of shoes. The 350D way outdoes the D50 ergonomically and feel wise for me. The DcResource.Com guy is but another photographer who likes larger cameras. In Phil's initial review of the 350D he said the camera felt very good and solid in his hands.

So who cares?? There is no right or wrong answer, buy a camera that feels good in your hands, not some other guy's hands. The 350D wouldn't be selling in the hundreds of thousands per month if it didn't feel good to those who are buying it.

Sal

thaks guys
I've just seen the new review of the D50, but still think ill go for the 350
the pentax MZ50 i have has a sigma 28-80 lens

regards
telf

could you please explain how exactly you set the custom white balance for the night shots? what did you do / what was your trial and error...?

i assume that improper white balance leads to the orange/yellow-ish cast on images taken at night with, say, iso1600?

thanks!

It is fairly well know that the only way to get acceptable results from the D70 is to shoot RAW (in which case the results are very good). From what I've seen, the JPG performance of the D50 is even worse than the D70.

The D50 images that i've seen (JPGs from camera, full size) are over saturated and lack fine detail. But, as I said before, its a matter of taste.

If you have a significant investment in Pentax glass, this may be the best option.

The biggest difference between the 2 cameras is feel and size. Hold bothe for a while and use them. whichever one feels better to you - buy it.

I happened to like the size of the Canopn and it felt very comfortable in my hand. My buddy who was with me at te time, bought the Nikon D70 because he liked the feel of it.

Our photos are not any different in quality that either of us can measure. We are both very happy with our choices.

One factor that helped me decide was that the Canon uses Compact Flash media as does the Nikon D70. The Nikon D50 uses Secure Digital. I already had a significant investmet is CF cards so this made a difference to me.

ohyva said:

Backdoctor said:

clearly shows it has the best noise response of the cameras tested.
Better take a close look if noise is an issue for you and you plan
to use high iso a lot.

Click to expand...

True, but only with JPEG images. With RAW D50 falls into the same
class as D70. See
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=14348424

But if you plan to shoot JPEG only AND do not much post processing,
then IMHO D50 wins the noise battle. Also the color handling I have
seen in D50 pics seem to be OK. Probably the best dSLR as today for
P&S type of use. But if you want to grow in photography and
evetually start to use RAW and/or more demanding picture post
processing, I'd prefer 350D instead.

Click to expand...

Also, Phil mentions that right out of the camera, the 350D is extracting noticeably more detail from the scene and at the same time exhibiting better per-pixel sharpness than the D50. Phil's resolution tests confirm this:

D50

Horiz LPH: Absolute resolution: 1600 Extinction resolution: 1850
Vertical LPH: Absolute resolution: 1400 Extinction resolution: 1850

350D

Horiz LPH: Absolute resolution: 1850 Extinction resolution: +2000
Vertical LPH: Absolute resolution: 1650 Extinction resolution: +2000

• = Moire is visible

+ = Chart Maximum

The D50 produces clean images, with Phil noting that noise between the cameras is now "fractional." But these test measurements should put to rest the myth that Canon eliminates moire through the use of strong AA filters. The 350D has higher resolution (off the chart), better per-pixel sharpness, yet no measured moire. The D50 has lower resolution and detail, yet exhibits visible moire in the tests.

None of this would make a huge difference in real world images, but it is nice to see the record set straight.

Sal

KT_at_SF said:

Phil’s D50 review:
“the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) is only $100 more than the D50 and
hence must be considered competition. The difference is more marked
than it was between the EOS 300D and EOS 350D, here the 350D is
extracting noticeably more detail from the scene and at the same
time exhibiting better per-pixel sharpness.”

Click to expand...

here you go..that is to be expected because of the 8mp. yes it makes a difference.

KT_at_SF said:

KT

Daniella said:

larrytucaz said:

You don't seem to have any lenses from Canon/Nikon up already. So
you're open to them--or to Pentax, Konica/Minolta, Olympus as well
for that matter.

I shoot the 300D, the precedessor of the 350. I shot Nikon in the
past, got the 300D because of a big price break I enjoyed getting
it (vs the D70).

I concur with the guy at DcResource.Com who prefers the D50 to the
350D. (Yes, I am posting here in the 300/350 and dare to say this.)
I find its "feel" to be of MUCH higher quality, I prefer its lower
level of dependence of the LCD menu system (even if via "shortcut"
buttons), its size is better to me (I think the 350D is too small
personally--the D50 is not huge but is "just right") and its
control layout in general is better to me.

That said, of course, you are asking here in the 300/350D forum
where many 350D owners exist and praise their camera. Phil Askey
did give it "Highly Recommended" for a reason, and you will
(understandably) hear lots of praise about it, so obviously it is a
camera with much to offer. I will admit--I like that it uses a
wired remote instead of a wireless. (Actually I think it will
accept a wireless too if that's your preference, it isn't mine.) I
do, also, like that its base ISO value is 100 vs the D50's 200.

The 6 vs 8 megapixel difference? Meaningless really. Either will
easily make poppin' 10x15s or 11x14s.

Click to expand...

only meaningless to those who are stuck at 6mp. I am glad to use
8mp vs 6mp because the difference in detail is visible and there is
more room for cropping. yes I see the difference in prints at 8 x
10.

KT_at_SF said:

Ultimately--of course--the "system" is what counts. Check out what
lenses and accessories Canon/Nikon and others (Sigma, Tamron et al)
sell for each unit. Remember--a D-SLR is more than just about its
own body, but what you can add to it in a "system" as well.

--



LRH
http://www.pbase.com/larrytucaz

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

larrytucaz said:

drejc said:

And just handleing and working with D50 is much easier than
with 350D.

Click to expand...

Durn right it is. The D50 WAY outdoes the 350D ergonomically and
feel-wise. The DcResource.Com guy said so himself.

Click to expand...

I'm a "small type size" kind of person. My hands and fingers are small. For me, if I was the "DcResource.Com girl", I would have said probably the opposite. In fact, when I was trying to figure out which DSLR I should buy between the D70s and the 350D, it was a big + for the 350D. I could have it in my hands without feeling tired. The D70s was way to large for me. It was not a question of weight, but of size. It was not the principal reason why I went for the 350D, but one thing I could not ignore either.

So, it bother me a bit when I see this kind of comment in an evaluation. Especially, when the reviewer don't say it is subjective and depend of your own hands. It's like if they say "it's a fact, 350D is too small". It makes me feel "grrrrrrrrrr!" :-D

Claire

And, in fact, so is the 350D.

So--in other words--they're BOTH good cameras OK?

Again--I shoot with the 300D, have since November, so I'm not hostile towards Canon products. I do have a "spot" for Nikon, sure--I shot with them (as a hobbyist, not as a pro or even amatuer) for over 20 years before getting the 300D last year. You can't help but have a "spot" with that much time invested.

But yes--BOTH cameras, 350D and D50, are highly recommended. You can nitpick the sections you like which paint the 350D as being better, or nitpick the sections of the D50 which paint it as being better.

Regardless--they're BOTH great cameras. If the 350D was so much better image-quality wise--not a bit better, but HUGELY better--and it only costs $100 more, do you think Phil would've not said something like "no reason to consider D50 since superior 350D is only $100 more?"

It got highly recommended for a REASON, just like the 350D.

So really, it comes to "feel." And "feel" does count--I know, image quality is the ultimate, but if you enjoy your camera's "feel" you're more apt to shoot with it in the 1st place.

If the OP (original poster) is reading, THAT is the main thing. See which one has the "system" you prefer--both have great systems, if one has something you want that the other doesn't, there you go--and see which SLR feels better in your hands and works the best functionally for you.

Other factors:

350D pluses

• Mirror lockup
• Wired release vs wireless (helps if you're behind the camera a lot with tripod-work vs beside it)
• Compact Flash vs SD (really depends on which storage you already have accumulated lots of cards for--if neither, then it doesn't matter--but I will admit I'm partial to CF, I think SD is too madly rushed-to by camera makers in general)
• 8 vs 6 (again, not a really large difference per se)
• Backlit display (remember, though, you have to see how to push the buttons, you might need a flashlight anyway)
• Easier zooming in during playback (my opinion)

D50 Pluses

• Better build & feel according to reviewers--and my personal taste (but you may disagree--subjective)
• Nice "Nintendo" control for changing active AF-point
• Less menu dependence (except for single vs servo/continuous AF-modes)
• Even lower noise levels (but only at fractional level)
• Lots of control over image processing
• Custom curves options (see above)

Ignore those who say "350D is way better, resolves more detail" and ALSO ignore "D50 is better, 350D is too toy-like." YOU, YOU decide. Rest comfortably knowing Phil Askey gave BOTH "highly recommended" as did DcResource.Com. Rest comfortably knowing both are backed by HUGE systems, they BOTH easily eclipse anything anyone else has out there. So it really is up to YOU in the end.

--



LRH
http://www.pbase.com/larrytucaz

telfer said:

Im looking to get a new Digital camera. At the moment I have an
older analogue (Film) Pentax MZ50 which has been great in the past.
the only thing is you never know what you,ve shot untill you get
them developed.

So Am interested in Digital camera with similar or better quality
than the MZ50. the two im looking at are the CAnon 350 and the
Nikon D50. what lenses aswell

Any feedback would be appreciated
Telfer

Click to expand...

You have a LOT more options with the 350D, like more resolution to work with, mirror lock up, vertical grip/battery pack option, adding an eyepiece extender, adding a split-prism focusing screen to aid in manually focusing, and the ability to use Nikon F, Leica R, Leica Visoflex, Contax/Yashica (RTS), Pentax 42mm Screw Mount, and Olympus OM manual lenses when you use the appropriate adapter! You can't do any of this with the D50. Plus, Canon has the huge advantage of making their own sensors, which gives them a lot more control of their destiny. Nikon almost exclusively relies on Sony for their DSLR sensors, and now Sony has joined Konica-Minolta to develop DSLRs, so that's probably going to leave Nikon out in the cold. Long term, Canon is a much smarter choice than Nikon.

larrytucaz said:

So really, it comes to "feel." And "feel" does count--I know, image
quality is the ultimate, but if you enjoy your camera's "feel"
you're more apt to shoot with it in the 1st place.

Click to expand...

I agree. I was first drawn to the XT by the feel. I tried talking myself into the 20D, but I didn't like the size and weight. The XT felt great, and when I found that image quality was the same as the 20D (yes, I know, the XT has fewer features) I was hooked. four months later, I have taken the XT with me to places that the 20D, which is about the size of my old film SLR, would have never gone.

Now it's all about lens lust!!

Sal

In a nutshell, I think I'm choosing the Canon 350D because of 1) lower weight (I'm fine with the size of the 350D); and 2) the lens selection available to Canon. Image quality are just about identical between the two so i'm not choosing based on that.

I was initially very hard-pressed to decide between the D70s (with the 24-120 VR and kit lens for a wide angle auxiliary lens) and the 350D (with the 17-85 IS).

My use for this camera will be a general-purpose walkaround camera (I have a prosumer Olympus 5060WZ and am getting a dSLR primarily for the low-light capability), hence, low total weight is important.

I think I've finally decided to get the 350D because with the 17-85 IS, the total weight slots in at 1015 grams (and just 730 grams with the kit lens), while the D70s + the 24-120 VR is at 1255 grams. For my reference, my old film Nikon F90X + 60 mm Micro Nikkor 2.8 weighs almost 1300 grams, and already, I find it a little too hefty for carrying around a long time.

I was attracted to the D70s for the features, primarily 1/500 flash sync and wireless flash. With the D50, it's smaller and lighter but not as light as the 350D, and it loses the wireless flash capability. Image quality is just about the same, so I'm going for the lighter camera. I think I can live with the 1/200 flash sync, and I get mirror lockup in its place.

And finally, I'm really attracted to the 17-85 IS because its perfect for my needs. The 24--120 VR on the D50 has comparable image quality but has a less useful range for me.

Look at the Nikon D50 review just posted.
NO COMPARISON, the price of D50 will drop for sure,
since it is stupid to introduce something like this
in the first place.

P&S people who dont care about noise and higher ISO,
wont go for a DSLR anyway,

and

DSLR people are all focusing on image quality, and
no noise in high ISO and the more detail a camera
can deliver is the camera they will get, since
budget is not even an issue for them ....

the conclusion is, so the MARKET is the DSLR people,
and DSLR people prefer higher quality pics,
thus .... always the 350D win ....

alien

BOTH cameras get this rating. BOTH. If the 350D's edge image-quality wise was so humongous--as opposed to noticeable--do you not see Phil would've said something like "why bother with D50, 350D has MUCH better image quality and is only $100 more, well worth it." No, he said the D50 "has to be seriously considered" (approximate quote). It's there, in the summary.

He gave BOTH highly recommended. EACH has many traits to warrant consideration. Me, I shoot the 300D, but if I were starting out, I'd take the D50 in a heartbeat. Simply enough:

The 350D is too small. I'm sorry, but I'm going to be a bit opiniated here. You have the right to your tastes, but I still say--if you want a small camera, get a Powershot SD500. Like Phil said, at some point, you make a D-SLR too small, you cramp the controls in too tightly. The 350D clearly does this to my feel. (The Pentax *ist Ds and DL flirt with this also.) Yes, I could get used to it--but if I don't have to, why should I?

Controls. What in the world Canon was thinking with making WB, ISO, QUAL etc operate via the color LCD is beyond me. Too point & shoot-ish. Yes there are dedicated buttons--and to be fair, Pentax does this too, and the D50 to a much smaller extent with setting AF-S vs AF-C (or AI vs Servo). Only the absolutely top-line D-SLRs like the EOS-1D series or the Nikon D2x do a really ideal job here, it's a matter of degree.

It wouldn't seem so ridiculous if that's how the "old" 300D did it as well, but it's not; Canon regressed backwards here. Terrible move. Again--if you want this, get a Powershot SD500. This is a D-SLR, not a Pentax Optio S.

The 350D does trump the D50 with its wired remote, Compact Flash instead of SD (though if you have SD-cards I guess you like Nikon's SD usage), mirror lockup, and slight (not dramatic, but present) 8 mp vs 6 mp edge. But they really ticked me off going with the color LCD for image shooting parameters, if you do it right with the "old" 300D why regress? Between that, the excessive smallness, and the usage of the Powershot's battery instead of the BP-511 like the 20D or 300D, it feels too much like it's a D-SLR aimed at p/s shooters, rather than being a full-blown D-SLR uncompromisingly. (Yes the D50 does make some concessions--like the "child" scene modes and the way it's marketed--but not as much so.)

Really, though, the MAIN thing is--BOTH models received "Highly Recommended" so both are great models. Get which one you like best, rest comfortable knowing you didn't buy an inferior model either way. I like a camera that works like an SLR not a point & shoot trapped in an SLR's body, that isn't so small as to be trying to "straddle" both worlds, so I would opt for D50 if shopping new. (As my 300D also achieves this somewhat, I'm happy with it overall though as a former Nikonian the D50 tempts me.)

--



LRH
http://www.pbase.com/larrytucaz

Phil pretty much verifies the opinion that the Canon research dollars have put them a year or more ahead in the AA filter/sensor/noise/sharpness and moire' balancing act. Dcrp's review of D70 clearly shows moire' on his house gutter and the building panels. These are everyday shots. The gutter looks like a barber pole. D50 shows much less apparently, but at the expense of? It's not a Nikon/Canon war it is just the way it is. It is really all about money, why do we care who wins, we get none of it. We only give it. The Sony Minolta joint effort is going to change this I suspect in a year or two, Sony has the R&D and the determination.

I don't doubt Phil's finding at all. I'm speaking from my own experiences with my D70 and my fiance 350D. When taking night shots, there is no comparison, the 350D is clearly cleaner and produce absolutely no banding even push for 1 stop or less at high iso. I put this down to the superiority of the Canon CMOS sensor to the Nikon CCD. I don't know if the D50 ccd is better than the D70 ccd in term of handling night shot. With my D70, I can clearly see banding in many night shots at iso400+ without even pushing the EV. You can actually see the banding from dcresource.com night shots (in his review page) as well.

And based on Phil's review, 350D produce more details and more crisp (better sharpness per pixel) than the D50. So I think Nikon put more noise reduction into the JPG algorithm in the D50 to make it look cleaner. Think of it as a more consumer orient camera than the D70/D70s which produce probably more faithful results and let the users determine how to handle the post-processing themself. Just my opinion.

MM

Well, Harris, he also said that they are so close on noise that it is pretty academic.

Let's not get involved in one-upmanship - theyh are two good cameras - as a camera I would marginally prefer the D50, but really the old adage of choosing the system not the camera applies in spades to these two cameras, with the proviso that you should check if the 350D is comfortable to use, as it is fairly small.

I would buy the 350D with a grip though, which obviously increases the price, but makes it very comfortable for a long shoot whilst still very portable without it.

In reality, check out the lenses you want, and also overall cost of ownership - these factors are most certainly more important than tiny differences in noise levels - although it is good to see Nikon getting their act together in this respect.

Backdoctor said:

clearly shows it has the best noise response of the cameras tested.
Better take a close look if noise is an issue for you and you plan
to use high iso a lot.

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

I wind up agreeing with a previous poster: that all low-end DSLRs should have nearly goof-proof automatic modes, and the 350D doesn't have that. It would be pretty nice, for instance, to have Auto ISO, but be able to set the preferred aperture and shutter speed in advance. I also really like the D70's fractional ISO settings, which go along with Auto ISO nicely.

About size: my dream is a mini-SLR system, with tiny little high-quality switchable lenses to match.

I also am just waiting to see which of Nikon or Canon first implements in-camera IS. If the Konica-Minolta system gains a lot more steam, I might just switch to that; it would require something super in terms of megapixels etc. though. Right now, I'm trying to keep my lens purchases to a minimum just in case I want to switch. It's an exciting time.

I still think that the 350D gives the best bang-for-the-buck when it comes to image quality alone, of all cameras in this price/quality range: 20D, *ist D, D70, D50, etc.

For indoor shots: If you want to capture the mood of a room, AWB will probably give you the best results in depicting the scene as it actually was. Depending on the lighting, it might just turn out a bit to warm.

If however, you want a neutral depiction of a room where whites are actually displayed as pure white, then custom balance is the way to go. The quickest way is to simply take a picture of a white wall and use that for your custom WB. You're scene will now probably look colder then it actually was, but you can always warm it up a bit by using white balance shift and shifting the colors to either magenta, orange or both.

Outdoor shots are a lot more tricky, probably because you have different light sources illuminating your scene at different temperetures. Chances are, everything will look more reddish then it should with what ever WB preset you choose; even white balance shift set to its maximum.

There are three methods to counter this. The quickest method is simply to look for anything white, like a white vehicle that is bathing under the prevailing light. Shoot it and use that as your custom white balance.

The second trick may take a bit more trial and error to get right. Set your lens to manual focus. Point your camera at the prevailing light sources. Defocus so that everything becomes a blur. Take the picture and use that as your custom WB. Then take a picture of your overal scene and see what results you get. I believe the expodisk works in the same way, but is a bit more refined for the task.

Last method takes a lot more trial and error but does allow you more room for fine tuning.You will need a card reader for this and a photoshop type application with a minimum of basic functions.

Open a new image. Choose any shade of color that is somewhere between yellow, orange and/or red. Fill the entire image with that color and save it as a jpeg. Use your card reader to save it to a CF card and then load it into the camera. Then select it as your custom white balance and take some shots to see the results.

Best is to create several jpegs, each with a different shade from yellow to read and try them until you find one that comes closest to what you are looking for. Once you've found the right shade, you can fine tune it even further.

The advantage of this method is that you don't need to use white balance shift and therefore it won't effect you're images if you choose another preset like auto white balance.

I do shoot raw. But by getting the white balance right when I take a picture does save me time in PP later on.

tontsdot said:

could you please explain how exactly you set the custom white
balance for the night shots? what did you do / what was your trial
and error...?

i assume that improper white balance leads to the orange/yellow-ish
cast on images taken at night with, say, iso1600?

thanks!

Click to expand...