Nikon D 50 Vs Nikon D 70 SLRs

[jgrnot]

Hello all,

My wife and I are taking a trip to New Zealand and we are debating the benefits of getting a digital SLR camera. Due to the price, we are thinking about the Nikon D50. Does anyone own a digital SLR, and can they give me any advice as to whether or not the camera would be worth buying? We are interested in the camera so we can take wildlife and landscape photos, but are just unsure if the price is worth it just yet.

Also, does anyone have an opinion on Nikon vs Canon and whether or not the D70 is worth the extra price?

Thanks,
Jgrnot

[JohnMTB]

Hi

See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/camera_recommendations_2005.htm

Ken discusses holiday cameras including the D50

He likes it, so do I. Check also backing up your pictures also covered on the site.

Regards

John

[Leif]

Hello all,

My wife and I are taking a trip to New Zealand and we are debating the benefits of getting a digital SLR camera. Due to the price, we are thinking about the Nikon D50. Does anyone own a digital SLR, and can they give me any advice as to whether or not the camera would be worth buying? We are interested in the camera so we can take wildlife and landscape photos, but are just unsure if the price is worth it just yet.

Also, does anyone have an opinion on Nikon vs Canon and whether or not the D70 is worth the extra price?

Thanks,
Jgrnot

The D50 is a first rate camera and incredible value at the moment. The 18070 kit lens is also very good. The Olympus E500 is currently selling in a kit with a couple of lenses for a bargain price. It's a well reviewed camera, and small and light too.

If you want to take landscape pictures, then you will really need a tripod. It's worth it, but it has to be carried. If you don't use a tripod, you might as well take a compact digicam. And a tripod adds weight.

You might also want to check out the new Sony digicam with a 10MP APS sensor.

But you might not have much luck with birds and other wildlife without a large lens.

Leif

[jgrnot]

Leif and John,

Thank you for your help. I was wavering, but after reading what you and the reviewer wrote, I am back into the mindset of buying one.

Since I am fiscally constrained (due to our vacation and taxes), do you know of stores/websites that have great prices. I have found this website, but I don't know anything about the organization. They do have the best prices for brand new cameras, but I am a little cautious. Any thoughts, ideas, or experiences?

Jgrnot

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=227514&start=1

[Leif]

Leif and John,

Thank you for your help. I was wavering, but after reading what you and the reviewer wrote, I am back into the mindset of buying one.

Since I am fiscally constrained (due to our vacation and taxes), do you know of stores/websites that have great prices. I have found this website, but I don't know anything about the organization. They do have the best prices for brand new cameras, but I am a little cautious. Any thoughts, ideas, or experiences?

Jgrnot

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=227514&start=1

Hi. Jgrnot.

I would be a bit wary. The US seems to have more than a few rogue shops/stores who will rip you off. Also there are some fraudulent online shops that take your credit card details then disappear without a trace. I'd check out Photo Net shop recommendations.

Leif

[Leif]

Mmm. Having just looked at that site, I would say that it is without any doubt fraudulent. The prices are far too low to be real. Leif

[jgrnot]

Leif,

Thanks for the tips. I will look at the website you mentioned, and since I am not the most educated on these cameras I wasn't sure how low was too low, but my gut was telling me that it was.

I have found on Amazon.com the D50 with a 28-70 mm lens and a 70-300 mm lens for around US $760. I thought that was pretty good.

Jgrnot

[Leif]

I have found on Amazon.com the D50 with a 28-70 mm lens and a 70-300 mm lens for around US $760. I thought that was pretty good.

Jgrnot

28mm sounds not very wide to me. I would have thought that 24mm was the maximum at the short end. Check out:

www.bythom.com
Bjorn Rorslett's lens tests.
www.nikonlinks.com

That lot should confuse you!!!!

I would take care with Rockwell's web site. There is a lot there, some is useful, but it's highly personal and subjective.

You might want to consider a used Nikon 200mm F4 AIS lens: cheap, small, light and decent optics, likely far better than a cheap zoom. I own the Nikon 75-150mm zoom: small, light, dirt cheap and excellent optics. But those two lenses are manual focus.

Leif

[jgrnot]

Leif,

Thanks for the latest tip, I will have to look into it. It may take some time, but I do appreciate your help.

Jeremy

Either way, I'll let you know what we decide.

[The Devil Bird]

Hi, I have d50 and i think it is a great camera for begginners and holidays and I highly recommend it. :hi:

[jgrnot]

Crazy birder,

Thanks for the tip. I am not the thriftiest person out there, but $700 for a camera makes me a little hesitant, and everyone here is definitely shifting me toward getting it.

Jgrnot

[baillieswells]

Hello all,

My wife and I are taking a trip to New Zealand and we are debating the benefits of getting a digital SLR camera. Due to the price, we are thinking about the Nikon D50. Does anyone own a digital SLR, and can they give me any advice as to whether or not the camera would be worth buying? We are interested in the camera so we can take wildlife and landscape photos, but are just unsure if the price is worth it just yet.

Also, does anyone have an opinion on Nikon vs Canon and whether or not the D70 is worth the extra price?

Thanks,
Jgrnot

My main concern about the Nikon D50 and D70 is that they are both only 6.1 Megapixels. Rather old fashioned these days compared with the Canon 350D or 30D, or the Nikon D200

[Keith Reeder]

The megapixel fixation is getting pretty old.

Comparing like for like, there's very little real difference between 6.1 and 8mp - it's only a 16.5% difference in linear DPI (D50/D70 images are 3,008 pixels wide, 350D/20D/30D images are 3,504 pixels wide).

For any realistically achievable print size (without software interpolation), the difference in resolution would be invisible to the naked eye.

For example: assuming 300 DPI as the standard for a quality print, you need (300 x 8.2) x (300 x 11.2) for an A4 print.

That's 8.2mp or thereabouts, or just what you get from the Canons, which I doubt is coincidence.

To get the same sized print from a D50 or D70(s), you'd have to use about 270 DPI: but the difference in detail on the print would take a magnifying glass (or your nose pressed up against the print) to see - at normal viewing distance, you'd be hard pushed to identify any difference in the prints as coming from the DPI used.

And for many users, printing at A4 isn't important anyway.

Certainly I don't envy 350D/20D owners over my D70 (or the D50) their extra 2mp at all, and I'd honestly say that it is the least compelling reason for choosing one camera over another.

[Kite]

I upgraded to a 20D from the 10D and the extra 2mp has been brilliant. Pity the D70 doesn't go below ISO200 as well. In good light 8mp at ISO100 or 6mp at ISO200.... I know which I'd rather have.

[jgrnot]

Keith and Kite,

I appreciate the feedback. I don't know how detailed of printing I will be doing, but my main concern is being able to quickly and accurately take a pic of a moving object from a moderate distance. If you believe that the D50 will provide what I am looking for, I think I will be happy. As far as printing, I would like the capability of an 8.5" X 11" or close to an A4 size pic, and again if the D50 would provide that, I'd be happy.

Overall, if you are going to do some world class game viewing, would you be happy with the D50?

Thanks,
Jgrnot

[baillieswells]

The megapixel fixation is getting pretty old.

Comparing like for like, there's very little real difference between 6.1 and 8mp - it's only a 16.5% difference in linear DPI (D50/D70 images are 3,008 pixels wide, 350D/20D/30D images are 3,504 pixels wide).

For any realistically achievable print size (without software interpolation), the difference in resolution would be invisible to the naked eye.

For example: assuming 300 DPI as the standard for a quality print, you need (300 x 8.2) x (300 x 11.2) for an A4 print.

That's 8.2mp or thereabouts, or just what you get from the Canons, which I doubt is coincidence.

To get the same sized print from a D50 or D70(s), you'd have to use about 270 DPI: but the difference in detail on the print would take a magnifying glass (or your nose pressed up against the print) to see - at normal viewing distance, you'd be hard pushed to identify any difference in the prints as coming from the DPI used.

And for many users, printing at A4 isn't important anyway.

Certainly I don't envy 350D/20D owners over my D70 (or the D50) their extra 2mp at all, and I'd honestly say that it is the least compelling reason for choosing one camera over another.

Being a scientist, and therefore knowing no maths, I calculate that 8.3 megapixels is 36% more pixels than 6.1, so where have I gained the extra 19.5%?

www.baillieswellsborderterriers.co.uk

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Jgrnot,

have a search in the Gallery pages for Greypoint's gallery: she uses the D50, and her pictures are great - including "moving objects" (birds in flight). If they match your aspirations, you've got your answer, I think.

Hi Kit,

I don't miss ISO 100 on the D70. ISO 200 images are squeaky clean if properly exposed, so no ISO 100 isn't a miss, really (always going to be different to Canons of course, but fine in themselves).

Out of interest, how did you quantify the benefit of the extra 2mp on the 20D? Was everything else the same? I've seen your gallery and it's wonderful, but your 10D shots - like http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/50968/sort/1/cat/500/page/2 and http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/54153/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/2 - are fantastic too.

I ask, because nobody's mentioned that lens choice is probably the biggest influence on image quality (ignoring the need for a stable platform of course, which is another discussion), and I see that you're using afantastic too.

[tonyaltn]

It is an amazing camera for the money, I got mine with the Nikon DX 18-55mm ED, and I also got the Tamron AF 70-300mm Zoom/macro and a Tamron 1.4 XTC. This is one camera I would say BUY!

My bird images are to large to upload....so here is one I shot at the zoo a few days ago. Shot with the Tamron 70-300mm and 1.4 XTC at full zoom.

[Keith Reeder]

Being a scientist, and therefore knowing no maths, I calculate that 8.3 megapixels is 36% more pixels than 6.1, so where have I gained the extra 19.5%?

Yep, 8.3 is 36% bigger than 6.1, but (can't resist this! ;)) being a scientist, you should have noticed that I specifically referred to linear DPI: it's only a 16.5% difference in linear DPI (D50/D70 images are 3,008 pixels wide, 350D/20D/30D images are 3,504 pixels wide).

“DPI” is a linear value too.

When we’re talking about printing or image size, we don’t talk in terms of wanting the image to have “a 20% bigger surface area ...” or to be “1.25 megapixels bigger...”: we say “I want a 4 x 6 print...”

We aim to put as many pixels as we need into each linear inch of the picture in order to get the required resolution at the required image size, so it makes sense that the linear dimensions of an image are the ones to consider when thinking about the impact of a 2mp difference in camera sensors.

It is therefore percentage differences in those linear dimensions that are relevant when discussing megapixel difference.

Respected camera reviewer Phil Askey of www.dpreview.com says this about the difference between the Nikon D200 and the Canon 20D:

Next we'll talk megapixels, or I guess the marketeers would like that, but to be frank there's really little to gain or lose in two megapixels either way, hence in a neutral comparison (as we did here, shooting RAW and using the same converter) you really can't see any significant advantage or disadvantage going either way (8 to 10 or 10 to 12). You really wouldn't be able to see a difference in print even at very large sizes.

And this about the 2mp upgrade between the Canon 300D and the 350D:

The upgrade decision for existing EOS 300D owners is definitely more difficult, the increase in resolution from six to eight megapixels really isn't that significant but some of the new features, improved performance and reduction size and weight are.

Makes sense to me...

[jgrnot]

Tony,

Very nice picture, it definitely seems that everyone is suggesting the camera. I guess I will just have to pull the trigger and buy it. Hopefully after New Zealand I'll be able to upload a couple of the pics.

Jgrnot

[jgrnot]

Hello all,

Well we decided to buy the Nikon D50 and it is arriving today. Thank you all for your help. We also purchased the 70-300mm lens, and hopefully I will be able to post some pics after we return from NZ.

Jgrnot

[BenBirding]

Look foward to seeing your results.

[Leif]

It is therefore percentage differences in those linear dimensions that are relevant when discussing megapixel difference.

Respected camera reviewer Phil Askey of www.dpreview.com says this about the difference between the Nikon D200 and the Canon 20D:

"Next we'll talk megapixels, or I guess the marketeers would like that, but to be frank there's really little to gain or lose in two megapixels either way, hence in a neutral comparison (as we did here, shooting RAW and using the same converter) you really can't see any significant advantage or disadvantage going either way (8 to 10 or 10 to 12). You really wouldn't be able to see a difference in print even at very large sizes."

Makes sense to me...

Well it does not make sense to me. You could use that argument to say that there is little difference between 10MP and 6MP. Having owned both, I can say that there is a big difference, easily noticed in an A3 print. So I disagree with Askey. But I suspect that once you get beyond maybe 12 MP on an APS sensor you are pushing lenses to their limits anyway.

Of course it might depend on the style of photography as well. For example, landscape will be more demanding than portraiture, where absolute sharpness is less important.

[jgrnot]

Leif and John,

Thanks for your help again with your advice about the D50. We returned from NZ complete with 300+ pics, and we got some great pics of the birds, whales, and dolphins. It really is a great camera.

Jgrnot