Well as the saying goes, there is no replacement for displacement. Same holds true in photography, the bigger the sensor and/or more MP it packs, the bigger you can go with less loss of detail and increased noise. But more impotantly and often overlooked, the lens makes a bigger difference than the MP rating of the camera. If your lens can't resolve the image with enough clarity, then the image will suffer no matter how high the resolution of the sensor may be. Also, do you have any pre-existing cameras from either Nikon or Canon that you can use the lenses from. Both the D70 and 20D can use auto focus lenses from certain film cameras. This could help with your decision. As for price, both cameras have been replaced in recent years by newer models. So you can pick up a new in the box D70 for around 3-400 and a Canon 20D for around a hundred bucks more. Me, for a hundred bucks more I would go with the canon and then save up for some nice L series lenses. Just my 2¢
Not enough difference in the mp wars to worry about. It will be more important to see which camera feels better to you. Which one fits your way of changing settings? Can you see through the viewfinder better with one or the other? Which features appeal to you more or seem most important and are they easy to use? Do you already have a bunch of lenses that would fit one or the other or do you have ready access to some? Lots of things are more important than the mp count. I've made some huge images with my 6.2mp Canon 10D.
Pentax just came out with a real good digital SLR...I snapped one up because all my old equip was pentax...so all i needed was the body. If you are learning for the first time I say go digital....the thing about 35mm is that to learn it takes at least day to get feedback (via-developing) and costs about $.50 every mistake. With digital the feedback is immediate....you know if you ficked it up and can adjust....the learning curve is very sharp. And each mistake cost vitually nothing. And if you have never used film you won't miss it. Hell I haven't picked up my 35mm in 3 years and I swore that I would never switch completly but I am close. Digital.....get at least 6megs.....and unless you are planning on doing posters that should serve you well.
In the film times we used larger negative sizes when we needed larg prints due to what was called film grain. Grain was caused by the silver moecules being depositied on the film that reacted with the light to make the negative. With digital you don't have film grain. The problem most people get into is they try to resize the image file on their home computer. It's like making a copy of a copy on a copy machine. Take the biggest file your camera will take and then let a lab resize it. The digital enlargers have software that is better at resizing than what your computer can do. Either of those camers should be fine to do what you want. Here's something I often do when looking at a new camera. I take my compact flash card to the camera store and ask to try the specific camera. I take several images under different lighting and using different lens combinations for each of the cameras. Then I take all the files on my flash card and go to WalMart and have them printed so I can see which ones I like the best. To see how it will look at large size, use you photo editing software to crop just a small section and have that printed in 4x6 size. It only costs pennies and you will see the result. I also check out the reviews on this site http://www.dpreview.com/
On this I've heard that Nikon is better, true? No, I don't have any lenses, this is my first slr camera.
Well both make good gl*** and you might be hard pressed to tell any difence between an image taken by either of the 2 unless you really knew what you where looking for. Just stay away from their kit lenses, they **** for both Nikon and Canon. But Canon does have a wider selection of lenses.
I shoot cars for a living and I started out with a Canon 10D with stock lense (note: company owned) and then picked up a wide and telephoto. The 10D was a little lite on the MPs so we upgraded to the 20D and love it. I've got a lot of bucks between body and lenses in my bag for work. But if I were going to spend my hard earned cash, I would buy the 10mp Canon Rebal. The only real difference between the Rebal and the Ds is the Rebals don't have conections for studio lighting. And I ***ume you won't need those. The internals are the same. Also check your local camera store for used equipment. Lastly the days of film are over. The Magazine that I work for we rarely get film in from outside photographers. You also should invest in some UV and density filters too.
I took a pic with an old Canon Power Shot S230.................or 230S. They ran it full bleed double truck in Rodder's Journal. It's only 3.2 mp. You don't need all that expensive ****. Neither do I, but I can always "borrow" my brothers in a pinch. Sweet!!!!!!! Hurry up and take some pretty pictures and post em up. I'm dying for some eye candy.
I used to brag that my film camera had a greater dynamic range than digital. Then I bought Fred Miranda's tools for my Canon D30. Basically you take one normal exposure, and then an underexposed and an over exposed. Photoshop does the rest. I use this technique a lot. I always shoot 3 shots of pictures I want to be a money shot (just snap on all the other ****). One thing to note, is you have to use the aperture priority mode to do this, otherwise the depth of field changes and the software technique doesn't work out right. Also, you have to have a static scene, as it doesn't work well if something moves in each shot (although you can save many shots if something does move). Alas, my D30 got stolen, but State Farm bought me a new 20D when they first came out. This is the cats *** as far as what I need. My lens cost as much as the body though, so expect to spend about $4k for hardware and photoshop.
if you know how to properly use a good SLR manually, there is no need for all this high tech fancy schmancy digital, automatic type stuff. it does have its place, but on a more abstract level in my opinion. i am a traditionalist in this though, i'll take a good roll of B&W and a bathroom darkroom any day over some overly pixellated digital facsimile.
Abe's of Maine is where i got my digi cam. No tax to buy when I bought it but someone told me recently that out of state taxes now applies..true? I dont know.. well I did not pay tax when I bought my Canon and used what I would have paid for tax in overnight shipping. ended up saving bout $200+.. B&H is very good as well.
But in digital you sure don't have to work around all that FILM GRAIN. I get 35mm slides in on good film and when blown up to sizes that I need, it all goes to hell because of all the grain. Large Format only. Note: I work in CMYK world not RGB, Lab or the billions of colors you can see with the eye. And the only way to shot a digital SLR is all manual
film grain is relative to the brand and speed used. it also depends on the setting, outdoor/indoor etc. i have different preferences for film brand/speed/type based on the subject matter and setting.
Yike - I just looked and my photo server has close to 26,000 photos . . . at 24 roll exposure and $5 Wal-Mart photo processing fee that would be over $5416 just in those photos. Gaaak! Digital can be pretty cheap. I've got a lot of BS and other messed up shots, but I've also got a lot of great shots in that number. Not feeling tied to the exposure counter gives you a little la***ude to snap photos that you might not try otherwise. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Jump in there with both feet and see what works and worry about upgrades later.
No, but you do have to deal with DIGITAL NOISE, RAW file conversion, image correction less la***ude and highlights the blow out without very careful exposure. Not saying that you don't have to deal with those and other things as well with film. Digital is just another tool in photography and to say that it is the best and that all other technologies are dead is silly. I know that if I were limited to a 35mm camera to do all my work, I would feel VERY limited indeed. When ever I submit files to clients, wether they be a corparate client or a magazine, I always give them the file on disk, even if I shot the job on film. The only time a client will get the film is if they buyout. Allot of fellow fashion photogs and ADs that I work with are actually moving BACK to film when time is not working against us. Film ain't dead and it's not the best and niether is digital. They are just tools to do a job. Use wich one best suits your need.
I agree with Link, it's all about what YOU need and what fills that need. All the cool bells & whistles & astronomical price tag wont make a bit of difference when it's just too much machine for what you wanted to do. I would LOVE to buy a H***elblad with a digital back & all the t*******s, but aside from the fact I dont have about $40K to blow out my ****, I dont NEED it. I shoot people & landscapes primarily, so I've messed about with larger prints. What I have found that if you want to make poster size prints, it's a combination of the file size the camera records along with the pixels, the software and image compression you use when processing the images, and most importantly the capabilities of the printer you use to get the best color range & detail. With good software and components making poster sized prints is no big thing. As for smaller images used online & normal sized prints, it's not so important to get the huge megapixel levels because the fine detail in your end product is simply less apparent with the smaller images. No reason to blow your tax return on a camera that does all this fun **** only to find you'll never need any of it. I do agree if you're gonna drop the $$ on a SLR, you should learn to shoot it like a manual film camera. Idiot mode is nice for quick candid shots, but I have taken MUCH better shots operating my Canon Rebel in manual. The difference for me is I learned how to shoot my film camera in manual so doing it with my new camera has been a cinch. Personaly, I would seriously reccomend taking a basic photography cl***, you'd be amazed what you'll learn and it makes it much easier to pick up any camera & get a good shot with it. I took the basic photo course the Navy offers as a correspondence course and learnd a load more than I thought I would. Every bit of info can help!
Well, I just bit the bullet and bought a Canon 20D, now I can't wait until it gets here to start using it.
The Jalopy Journal
