[davesimondotcom]

I am going to be taking a road trip in about six weeks, driving my mother from Montana down to visit my grandparents in California (and back, of course.)

We're planning a visit to the Grand Canyon on the way down and possibly Yosemite on the way back, plus whatever in between.

So I'm looking into a new digital SLR for the trip. My budget is going to be $1000-$1200, give or take. I'd like to get a good body and possibly two lenses. Other things I'd work into that budget are an extra memory card, a bag and a decent tripod.

I wish my budget could be harder so I could put the new Canon EOS 30D and the 20D as well as the Nikon D70 into consideration, but right now I'm between the Canon EOS Rebel XT (350) and the Nikon D50.

The D50 runs about $300 cheaper, so it would free up some budget for an extra lens, etc. But I'd still like to get some feedback from those who have experience with these cameras and others like them (Olympus E300.)

Once I take this plunge, I'm bound to stick with this brand for a long time so I can move my glass to my next camera...

Mainly what I take photos of are:

Outdoors - landscapes, wildlife, some sports, architecture
Indoors - my pets, my wife's handmade jewelry

Other than the jewelry, not much would be set up studio-type shots. I've read the reviews on dpreview.com and still am split, so I'm leaning D50, but could be swung in any direction yet.

[RAILhead]

Panasonic FZ30.

[RAILhead]

Panasonic.

[d4nth3m4n]

i don't really know why, but i'm a canon loyalist. i have little experience in the market segment you're talking about, but i've never had a problem with any of the canons i've owned starting with the AE-1 i learned to shoot on.

i've never used their software, but i've also never had any compatibility issues with apples built in software.

[jersey]

nikon. better build quality. lenses are less $ than canon and tack sharp. i bang my d70 around constantly with no problems. everyone i know with a canon has bumped hard or droped theirs exactly 1 time.

[Dr Reducto]

I would go with Nikon simply because for your price range, you can get a good lens with the camera (Nikon 18-70 DX is a lot better than the Canon 18-55 Kit Lens). Canon has good lenses too, but mostly, they are "L" series, and the consumer line leaves a lot to be desired.

And +1 for Nikon reliability and build. I use my D70 fo just about everything, and it's great.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Panasonic FZ30.

That's not a true SLR though, is it?

[davesimondotcom]

Still leaning Nikon D50...

[davesimondotcom]

Still double posting...

Something about the black of the Nikon is nice. Silver plastic looks cheap to me...

[d4nth3m4n]

are there any DSLRs that you can compose a shot using the lcd? the whole SLR design seems to me to just be nostalgia... there's no longer a reason for it to have the classic T shape. seems weird that there isn't some other form-factor to put a big ccd in (maybe it's a conversion tactic for the film holdouts, but as people are getting to the point of their second or third digital camera, you think there'd be a little innovation). i'd love to see a new form factor, especially if you're not stuck composing with the viewfinder.

sorry to be off topic a little, but i really just don't get it.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

are there any DSLRs that you can compose a shot using the lcd? the whole SLR design seems to me to just be nostalgia... there's no longer a reason for it to have the classic T shape. seems weird that there isn't some other form-factor to put a big ccd in (maybe it's a conversion tactic for the film holdouts, but as people are getting to the point of their second or third digital camera, you think there'd be a little innovation). i'd love to see a new form factor, especially if you're not stuck composing with the viewfinder.

sorry to be off topic a little, but i really just don't get it.

Actually, I read about one... I think it was an Olympus.

Basically, the optics require some tricks in order to use the LCD as a viewfinder like in a point-and-shoot. As I understand it.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Actually, I read about one... I think it was an Olympus.

Basically, the optics require some tricks in order to use the LCD as a viewfinder like in a point-and-shoot. As I understand it.

well yeah, the mirror is in the way. the original benefit of an SLR was that it was WYSIWYG photography while non SLR cameras had a viewfinder that wasn't always WYSIWYG. now any point and shoot digicam has that going on. as far as i can tell, the only benefit of a DSLR at the moment is that you have a larger CCD. i don't know, it just seems like a lcd to compose a picture is a nice feature. and hell, aren't we creative enough to find a way to get all the DSLR goodies into something other than the classic "T" shape? i guess i'm looking for something like the powershot G*'s that would take the DSLR lenses as a start.

[Dr Reducto]

the only benefit of a DSLR at the moment is that you have a larger CCD.

Huge benefit.

Noise, image quality, and bokeh (Bigger chip = less depth of field).

For example, this picture from a recent portrait shoot for my paper:


Notice how the background is very blurred out and the subject "pops". This is really only possible with a larger CCD. Point and shoots have too much depth of field and noise for my uses.

[Teronzhul]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Actually, I read about one... I think it was an Olympus.

Basically, the optics require some tricks in order to use the LCD as a viewfinder like in a point-and-shoot. As I understand it.

Olympus E-Volt E330

[ASIMO]

Have you held them in your hands and fondled their controls? I was in the same situation almost two years ago, then between the Canon Digital Rebel (300) and the more expensive Nikon D70. Immediately after holding the two and playing around with the controls and menus at a local shop, the D70 was easily superior in these areas and worth the difference in cost. Had the Canon 20D been available by then, it would have certainly been competitive at least the area build quality and feel. But that is neither here nor there. Suffice to say that I am satisfied with the D70 and am looking to get the D200 this year. In your particular case, I would say get the D50 and the 18-70mm kit lens.

I like both camps and prefer Nikon just a bit more. I shoot portraits, landscape, artsy-fartsy stuff, and still objects. I do not shoot sports nor studio (yet).

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Huge benefit.

Noise, image quality, and bokeh (Bigger chip = less depth of field).

For example, this picture from a recent portrait shoot for my paper:
[IMG]http://markperdomo.smugmug.com/photos/58845077-M.jpg[IMG]

Notice how the background is very blurred out and the subject "pops". This is really only possible with a larger CCD. Point and shoots have too much depth of field and noise for my uses.

no i agree completely, but the mirror system in an SLR seems archaic, why can't there be a top end product that doesn't fall into the SLR form-factor?

[CMYKid]

there are huge differences between a DSLR and the sorts of LCD viewfinder composition cameras you're talking about. iits just not something that a real photographer is going to be happy about switching over to. you're looking at it, admittedly, from the perspective of a consumer but it just wouldnt work in more serious applications. that aside from the general myriad physical and mechanical differences.

the ccd in the DSLRs isnt really designed for continuous exposure and subsequent image capture, the mechanics of thoe whole thing would cause all sorts of shutter lag problems at the very least. the olympus camera mentioned above, or it may have been a fuji, had a VERY limited preview option, with a second pickup and it was only black and white and only lasted for about 15 seconds.

[dale]

I watched a programme earlier today, and they reviewd all three! Here is the web link...

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=110&description=Jon% 20Bentley%20Shoots%20Lion!&show=s4e8&section=Featu res

[dale]

link was bad. try again:

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/

chose the "Betley shoots lion" from the middle column for the review.

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

are there any DSLRs that you can compose a shot using the lcd? the whole SLR design seems to me to just be nostalgia... there's no longer a reason for it to have the classic T shape. seems weird that there isn't some other form-factor to put a big ccd in (maybe it's a conversion tactic for the film holdouts, but as people are getting to the point of their second or third digital camera, you think there'd be a little innovation). i'd love to see a new form factor, especially if you're not stuck composing with the viewfinder.

sorry to be off topic a little, but i really just don't get it.

Frankly, I'd rather use the viewfinder to compose a shot. I take a lot of skiing pictures and the snow and sun pretty much render every lcd completely useless. Sure it would be nice to have both work, but if I have to choose I'd take the viewfinder any day. Also, the lcd robs the camera of a lot of its processing power in order to display each image. When I turn the lcd off, my rapid fire capability increases 10 fold.

Granted, not everyone shoots the same subject matter as I do; but for me a viewfinder is much better. Also, I'm just using an A95. One of these days I'll pony up for a DSLR. Still I don't see how the lcd's shortcomings will be any better on a DSLR.

[Demonhood]

i have the 350D (rebel XT) and like it quite a bit. it's smaller than the 300D, so if you have larger hands you might hate it. i chose the XT over the D70 based on several reviews, even though i have a Nikon SLR. the Nikon treated me well, but Canon was leaping ahead in technology and i wanted the most bang for my buck.

test them both out if you can. as for the glass, Nikon is a bit cheaper. but Tamron and Sigma make lenses for both Nikon and Canon. so if you're looking to get a few low-midrange lenses on the cheap, you might consider those. at the moment i have a 50mm 1.8, 70-300 4-5.6, and an 18-125 3.5-5.6. the telephoto was super cheap and it often shows. think i'll grab a 70-200 2.8 to replace it sometime next month.

[OreoCookie]

Nikon. The built-quality of the D70 is easily superior to the Rebel XT/350D which feels plasticky. I (personally) don't like Canon's user interface, Nikon's policy of using one button for one function is much easier to use (for me). Hey, but this is just me

If you don't really know that much about slr cameras, I would suggest you to start easy, the 20D/30D are overkill for you. Rather invest in good lenses.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by CMYKid

there are huge differences between a DSLR and the sorts of LCD viewfinder composition cameras you're talking about. iits just not something that a real photographer is going to be happy about switching over to. you're looking at it, admittedly, from the perspective of a consumer but it just wouldnt work in more serious applications. that aside from the general myriad physical and mechanical differences.

the ccd in the DSLRs isnt really designed for continuous exposure and subsequent image capture, the mechanics of thoe whole thing would cause all sorts of shutter lag problems at the very least. the olympus camera mentioned above, or it may have been a fuji, had a VERY limited preview option, with a second pickup and it was only black and white and only lasted for about 15 seconds.

thanks, that's the best answer i've yet heard. i've also thought that maybe the batter constraints for an always on lcd probably isn't something that a PRO who's more than likely to be taking an assload of pictures would want to deal with.

no matter, i would love to have a camera with the control that an SLR offers and the range of lenses and i don't think i'm alone on the LCD, my dad, who has pretty bad eyesight loves his G5, but hates how limited he is with the lenses.

question: so then should i infer that a consumer point and shoot with an active LCD has a separate image sensor for the LCD on top of one for the image capturing?

[Spook E]

Sony R1

I was tossing up between that and a Canon Rebel XT and couldn't be happier with the R1. A couple of issues with slower focusing at lower light levels, but as i keep it on manual focus it doesn't worry me.

Give it a look

[wallinbl]

Have a D50 and love it. I think they're generally equal cameras, but the $300 price difference did it for me. Got a telephoto lens with the extra cash.

[tooki]

Nikon. The D70 and D50 both have build quality and ergonomics superior to that of the 350D. In terms of picture quality and shooting performance, they are all very similar. But the even the cheapest Nikon has a better feel than the 350D; you have to move up to the EOS 20D or 30D to get that feel from a Canon. What people have said who have used both Canon and Nikon DSLRs is that the Nikons hide fewer critical controls (namely the digital aspects, i.e. ISO, file setting, and white balance) behind menus, making them more practical in the field.

FYI, I have a D70s with the 18-70 kit lens, plus a used 60mm f/2.8 macro, an SB-800 flash (and color filter set), the wireless remote control, and regular UV/protective filters for the lenses. I also have a polarizer and step-up rings so i can use it on both lenses. I use an old-version Manfrotto 055B/3221 tripod with 3047 head -- kinda heavy, but wonderful.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to get a separate flash unit. Being able to bounce the flash off the ceiling makes a day-and-night difference in how your flash pictures turn out. The SB-600 would be a great fit for your budget.

Note that the 18-55mm lens included with the D50 is not in the same class as the 18-70mm one included with the D70. The former is a pretty typical light, plastickey kit lens. I'm sure it's fine optically, but it's nothing to write home about. The 18-70 is a serious lens, with better glass and the fast, quiet ultrasonic motors that allow instant manual focus override (and no rotating front glass, so you can use a polarizer).

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

no i agree completely, but the mirror system in an SLR seems archaic, why can't there be a top end product that doesn't fall into the SLR form-factor?

In theory, but nobody's done it. Sony's come close with the R1 camera, which uses an APS-size sensor (similar to most DSLRs). Unfortunately, despite the large sensor, the R1 has much more noise than a DSLR, and its performance is that of a point and shoot, not an SLR. It's a shame that Sony didn't put any effort into shooting performance, because the optics are outstanding. Its RAW performance is so bad as to be unusable, which is a shame since the R1 has point-and-shoot level in-camera processing. Too bad, because its RAW pictures look great when processed in the computer instead.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

question: so then should i infer that a consumer point and shoot with an active LCD has a separate image sensor for the LCD on top of one for the image capturing?

Nope. Having the CCD running all the time merely contributes to increased noise. (The colder a CCD is, the less noise it creates. CCDs heat up during use, so constant live preview warms them up and increases noise.)

tooki

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by tooki

Nope. Having the CCD running all the time merely contributes to increased noise. (The colder a CCD is, the less noise it creates. CCDs heat up during use, so constant live preview warms them up and increases noise.)

tooki

huh, cool.

[pathogen]

Just wanted to recommend Pentax, too. Particularly, the DS or DS2. The kit lens is sharper and lighter than the kit lenses with either the Rebel or D50. It has a great prism that is really bright, and the viewfinder has a larger focusing screen than either the Canon or Nikons, which is great for manual focusing. You have to see it with your own eyes and compare it in a store to see the dramatic difference. It's also got a solid metal chassis underneath its hard plastic exterior, unlike the Nikons or Canons which are mostly composite aluminum pieces held together with plastic. Then next biggest plus is that Pentax lenses are good and sharp, and cost less than Canon or Nikon on average. Pentax has also been doing SLR's for over 50 years. Finally, it takes NIMH or lithium AA's instead of a proprietary battery and charger. I bought a DS and I'm a pretty happy and faithful Canon fan. I was *this* close to getting a Rebel XT when I really wanted the D20. I found the Pentax DS was the closest approximation in feature value to the Canon D20 for about $500 less.

Mind you, the Nikon D50 is also a good value, but the kit lens is terrible.

[ironknee]

ah canon/nikon...i was there...but at the time, canon came out with the canon AE-1, and i was in love...went canon...have several A-1s and at one time had a F-1

anyways, nikon is great too...but if i were to buy a camera now, what's wrong with a 5mega pixel digital camera for less $ and great quality...

[Tuoder]

I like Pentax

[buffalolee]

Best Bang for your Buck:
Olympus E500 or E330 Digital SLR

Good Value SLR with features:
Minolta 5D.

All of your lenses have anti-shake capabilities. A $400 18-200mm zoom lens for the Minolta will act the same as the Nikon 18-200mm with VRII (= to anti-shake) is $800.

Sony has bought out Minolta so its products will last for quite a while. You will love the anit-shake once you get it. It's $300+ premium on any lens for Canon/Nikon where as with Minolta you can have it with all the lens.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ironknee

what's wrong with a 5mega pixel digital camera for less $ and great quality...

Let's see...

-much higher image noise, especially at high ISO
-no choice of lenses -- what's in the camera is all you get (add-on adapter lenses do not count!)
-too deep depth-of-field
-crappy shooting performance (long shutter lag, slow continuous shooting [if any], slow buffer purging, generally not shooting-priority, little multitasking)
-usually bad ergonomics
-integrated lenses seldom have manually-linked zoom and focus rings
-limited off-board flash capability (if any!)
-manual controls usually hidden in menus
-bad battery life*
-few advanced features

So yeah, there are just a few downsides compared to an SLR.

tooki

*A typical point-and-shoot lasts a couple of hundred shots, tops, with no flash on. The Nikon D70s SLR, for example, can shoot over 2000 pictures on one charge!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by tooki

Note that the 18-55mm lens included with the D50 is not in the same class as the 18-70mm one included with the D70. The former is a pretty typical light, plastickey kit lens. I'm sure it's fine optically, but it's nothing to write home about. The 18-70 is a serious lens, with better glass and the fast, quiet ultrasonic motors that allow instant manual focus override (and no rotating front glass, so you can use a polarizer).

Great post Tooki -

I've actually considered buying just the body and adding the 18-70 lens instead of the 18-55 that comes in the kit.

Still come in right about on budget...

[Montanan]

Another vote for the Nikon, Dave. I'm very pleased with my D70 ... very ergonomic and, I think, far superior in build quality to the equivalent Canon. And at the consumer level, at least, the Nikon glass is definitely much better.

I think your idea of buying the D50 body and the D70 kit lens is an excellent one. Another thought -- if you'd like more telephoto capabilities -- would be to stick with the D50 lens and then take your extra cash to the camera repair shop here in town to pick up a good used autofocus tele zoom.

[KeriVit]

Canon

[cla214]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I am going to be taking a road trip in about six weeks, driving my mother from Montana down to visit my grandparents in California (and back, of course.)

We're planning a visit to the Grand Canyon on the way down and possibly Yosemite on the way back, plus whatever in between.

So I'm looking into a new digital SLR for the trip. My budget is going to be $1000-$1200, give or take. I'd like to get a good body and possibly two lenses. Other things I'd work into that budget are an extra memory card, a bag and a decent tripod.

I wish my budget could be harder so I could put the new Canon EOS 30D and the 20D as well as the Nikon D70 into consideration, but right now I'm between the Canon EOS Rebel XT (350) and the Nikon D50.

The D50 runs about $300 cheaper, so it would free up some budget for an extra lens, etc. But I'd still like to get some feedback from those who have experience with these cameras and others like them (Olympus E300.)

Once I take this plunge, I'm bound to stick with this brand for a long time so I can move my glass to my next camera...

Mainly what I take photos of are:

Outdoors - landscapes, wildlife, some sports, architecture
Indoors - my pets, my wife's handmade jewelry

Other than the jewelry, not much would be set up studio-type shots. I've read the reviews on dpreview.com and still am split, so I'm leaning D50, but could be swung in any direction yet.

Recently made the decision to move from film to digital (for my SLR - I've had a pocket digital for years)...

Having always had great experience with Canon, most recently with the A2e, I was biased from the beginning. After reading many reviews of both the Canon 350D (XT) and the Nikon D50, and upon giving both of them a try (which you should certainly do), I stuck with Canon. For me, it was more a question of ease of use - and familiarity with Canon controls certainly played into this.

I bought a body only, and would echo the sentiment that you should spend more on a quality lens than anything else.

c

[MrForgetable]

between Canon and Nikon at $1200 dollars, I would choose the Nikon D50 body only[$509]+18-70mm (D70 kit lens)[$340], Nikon SB800 Flash [$315]+a decent bag.

[MacMan4000]

I cast my vote for Nikon. I had been using my Dad's Nikon D70 for the past 2 years and couldn't be happier, but I just got my own D200 with the 18-200 VR lens and it is amazing. I love it. With the VR lens I can hand hold a 1/13 shutter speed and still get great results. If the D200 was in your price range I'd recommend it... but sine its not I'd say go with the D50. I have also had a lot of experience with the D50 and Rebel XT (I work in a camera store... I'v seen em all) and I would chose the D50 over a Rebel XT any day. Be sure to go to a store and play with both before you make your decision. On paper the Rebel XT sounds good, but in your hand it feels cheep and I think the controls on the D50 are better laid out.

That said, a lot of the decision come down to personal preference. Pick the camera you like, not the one that sounds good on paper.

And buy from a local independently owned camera store

[shameless plug]
If your in Kentucky or southern Indiana I recommend Murphy's Camera.
[/shameless plug]

[ChrisF]

Would it be useful to know that I work for a place that sells high end digital photo equipment, and we are a Canon, but not Nikon, dealer? The Canon 5D is really the bottom of the line of cameras we normally sell.
I bought a Nikon D70. In spite of any discounts I might have gotten from Canon as a dealer, I found that the D70 just seemed like a better camera than the Rebel XT/350D- image quality differences between the Canon and Nikon are negligible in spite of the additional resolution of the Canon. Nikon's 18-70 lens was also a big factor in that decision too.
Ultimately, neither camera is a bad choice.

[MrForgetable]

my second piece of advice would be to make a decision quickly. six weeks is not that much time to learn a new camera, esp. a dSLR.

i found that even though i knew what was going on with the camera, i was not getting results i wanted until much later. it takes time and the more time you have to prepare the better pictures you will take, no matter which camera you choose.

[fhoubi]

Having an analog Rebel, the first digital Rebel 300D and now almost for a year a Nikon D50 I would say definitively Nikon D50.

My 300D was a POS, it makes beautifully pictures when the metering was ok. When, occasionaly it was way off, and using flash it was 33% off all the time. Because of this camera I gave up almost my hobby. I felt in love again with the D50.

Yeah consider a D70, Tooki has. But for me the D50 serves me right, D50 is better in some way, D70 in others. Yes the D50 kit lense is maybe primitive, but takes good pictures (mine does). I know what a good/nice lense does, I keep shooting slides with a Canon 28-105 USM for the analog Canon. And the D50 kit lense is quite silent and fast when focussing.

I knew the 300D in less than a day, the D50 will keep you almost weeks in training mode (this is not a bad thing).

For me, it is you how much smarter Nikon/D50 feels. It remembers in what menu you were last, which option, which picture you displayed last, in which mode you displayed that picture etc., even when you turn the camera off. I cannot describe it. You get (semi) auto iso mode only with Nikon on a DSLR. And (at least with a decent fast memory card) this thing is blazing fast. The day Nikon drops the D50 from the market, I buy me a backup although I will probably never use it. D50 has great battery life btw.

Oh, 6 vs. 8 megapix does not mean a thing. In the same resolution printed it is only 15% less wide and high. Yes as others already noticed you get beautifully noise free picture and some great Depth of Field only with a DSLR.

[mdc]

I've had a SLR-like digital for two years and have been looking to move up to a DSLR. I sold my camera to a friend a few weeks ago and I am going to be getting the D50 with the 18-200 VR lens.

You can find the D50 body for around $550 and if you hunt hard enough you can find the 18-200 VR lens for anywhere from $650 to $800+. Originally I planned on getting the 18-70 (D70) lens and then another lens for up to 200, but I would prefer to have just one lens and I have read good things about the 18 - 200 VR.

I played with the D50 and D70 in a shop and I am really impressed with the D50. The D70 is great, but the price difference is something I'd rather put towards 3 SD cards or a flash.

[faragbre967]

I didn't read any of the posts so sorry if I missed something important, but my brother just bought the Canon S2 IS and he loves it. Shoots quick enough between shots and is high quality (5.something megapixels).

[MovieCutter]

Having owned and used both the RebelXT and the D50 I can offer some advice. If you have large hands, the Rebel is uncomfortable. The Nikon is beautifully formed to large hands. But what I find the most interesting is that, even though the RebelXT has 8MP, the Nikon takes nicer pictures right out of the box. Sure you can go to Photoshop or Aperture and make adjustments, but I just don't have time. I returned the RebelXT and kept the Nikon D50 because of several reasons:

1) Build quality is better on the Nikon by far
2) Nicer out-of-the-box pics on the Nikon
3) Nikon has a better feel in your hands
4) It was $200 less, and took nicer pics
5) Noise levels at high ISOs are significantly less than the Rebel.

[angelmb]

I guess both are good enough, but just for the sake of doing good with mother nature… Canon.

[demibob]

I use canon but its the only make of camera ive tried.

[jebjeb]

For full disclosure, I'm a Canon user.
- Canon EOS 10D (soon to replaced with ???) with vertical grip
- Canon 17-40 F4 L
- Canon 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS
- Canon 50 F1.4
- Canon 70-200 F4 L
- Tamron 90 F2.8 Macro
- Canon 550EX Flash
- Plus all the other stuff…

I agree that the D50 is slightly more robust than the 350D but there are a few fundamental things that would stop me from getting the Nikon, even if I had no allegiance to a particular brand.

You have probably read lot of reviews so you know the good points but these are the bad ones (either in general or compared to the Canon) that mostly never made clear enough. Just so you know, my views on digital SLR's are from practical use rather than "pixel peeping" and I will put practicality over a gimmick any day.

- D50 takes SD cards. It really doesn't look like D-SLRs are moving away from Compact flash (although some have both CF and SD- Canon 1D derivatives). That means that whatever cards you invest in for a D50 will probably not be useable in your next step up body.
- No mirror lockup. I use it lots (even though Canon buries the setting in the custom functions which is annoying). Without it, one is just asking for non-pin sharp longer exposures or telephotos shots.
- Lowest ISO of 200. Not a big issue but I find I am always trying to get the ISO lower when I am using fast lenses. When I am going for low depth-of-field but still trying to keep the shutter speed low to get a bit of motion blur, having ISO 100 (or even 50 on the high end bodies) is useful without having to pull out the ND filter.
- No option of vertical grip. My 10D has lived 95% of its life with the extra vertical grip on it. I do so much portrait stuff that having the additional shutter and dial makes life so much better plus the extra battery capacity is good too. Does make the setup a lot heavier though!
- The 350D does resolve a bit more detail as well.

Depending on how much you see yourself getting into photography, the decision you make now on which platform to go with is an important one as it will affect your future expandability. I have made a significant investment in Canon glass now and am, to a point, committed. Sometimes this is hard, take the new Nikon D200. Great body, fantastic price. Canon 5D is better but twice the price! But of course, Nikon and Canon play leapfrog. We will see a big price drop in the 5D soon or a body to match the price and function of the D200. Canon had Nikon whipped in the high end for quite a while but now Nikon is coming back (but still not there). Nikon at the moment is maybe a bit better in the low-to-mid end of the market but that will swing back to Canon soon and then back to Nikon etc.

The best thing is that both platforms are very good. If you have friends using a particular platform, that can always be a good reason to follow them as you can maybe use each others glass.

Good luck and I am sure you will be happy with whatever you go for!

[CMYKid]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

thanks, that's the best answer i've yet heard. i've also thought that maybe the batter constraints for an always on lcd probably isn't something that a PRO who's more than likely to be taking an assload of pictures would want to deal with.

no matter, i would love to have a camera with the control that an SLR offers and the range of lenses and i don't think i'm alone on the LCD, my dad, who has pretty bad eyesight loves his G5, but hates how limited he is with the lenses.

question: so then should i infer that a consumer point and shoot with an active LCD has a separate image sensor for the LCD on top of one for the image capturing?

well, at the risk of aping WDLove I'm glad it was useful. I didnt mean at all to be snarky, I meant from a practical standpoint that if you were a photographer then you'd likely already know the answer. Sounds like you're well on your way already. I love my D200, and the D70 and D100 I had prior...I had completely forgotten about the SD card on the D50, of that I'm not as much a fan. I have a 4 Gig Microdrive in the D200, tho frankly its rarely approaching full.

Used D70's are fairly easy to find, especially in the wake of the D200 release. Tooki seems to have had good luck with his. www.nikonians.org is a MacNNish board for Nikon users/power users, usually a few good deals on for sales there, let alone valuable info.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by mdc

I've had a SLR-like digital for two years and have been looking to move up to a DSLR. I sold my camera to a friend a few weeks ago and I am going to be getting the D50 with the 18-200 VR lens.

You can find the D50 body for around $550 and if you hunt hard enough you can find the 18-200 VR lens for anywhere from $650 to $800+. Originally I planned on getting the 18-70 (D70) lens and then another lens for up to 200, but I would prefer to have just one lens and I have read good things about the 18 - 200 VR.

I played with the D50 and D70 in a shop and I am really impressed with the D50. The D70 is great, but the price difference is something I'd rather put towards 3 SD cards or a flash.

I've read goood things about the 18-200VR as well, but for now, it's going to be out of my range.