Nikon D1x or Canon EOS300D

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2 lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you're going to spend that type of $$$, why not look at a new D70 w/kit
lens. Then sell the Canon glass/remote and invest in more Nikon gear. You
may even get a few hundred from the 300D, as a parts cam... even with its
problems. BTW, why do you need a D1x?

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com
Sony F717 / TRV70
Nikon FM2, SB22 Speed-Light Flash
Nikon MF 50mm 1.4 -- AF 24-50mm 3.3-4.5
Nikon AF 60mm 2.8 -- AF 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm 4
remove "REMOVE" to reply directly


"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.net> wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
> Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
> last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
> failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
> has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
> kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
> Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.
>
> Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
> level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.
>
> Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this
vs
> that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
> top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
> and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
> with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
> all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
> question, right?
>
> Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
> more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
> I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
> EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
> megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
> toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
> there you go.
>
> The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
> the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
> overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
> being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
> quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed
of
> the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
> D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
> wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
> the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
> is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
> to the trenches.
>
> In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
> other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
> fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
> bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
> cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.
>
> And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
> could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
> route to go? That complicates the question even more.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> LRH
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi, I am in the US and I am wondering if you can send me a link to any
reputable Canadian sites selling the 10d for $1550 CDN.
Thanks

Darrell wrote:
> For CDN $1550 you can buy a new 10D, for CDN $1170 a D70 body (($1500
with
> 18~70) any of these would be a better choice than the older D1X (The
D1X is
> a tank of a camera and will accept AI-S MF lenses). Simple answer is
a new
> camera has a warranty.
>
> "Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.net> wrote in message
> news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
> > Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it
used
> > last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex
mirror
> > failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in
town--so
> that
> > has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
> lenses--the
> > kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired
remote.
> > Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the
$1500
> > level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.
> >
> > Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or
"this vs
> > that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x
is a
> > top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
> features
> > and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line
D-SLR
> > with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of
some--but not
> > all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be
a
> > question, right?
> >
> > Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc
experience
> MUCH
> > more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that
most
> people
> > I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over
even
> the
> > EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs
the 6
> > megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take
the
> > toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or
EOS300D. So
> > there you go.
> >
> > The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the
6MP of
> > the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
> > overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical
resolution
> > being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me,
as
> photo
> > quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the
speed of
> > the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's
speed (or
> > D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course
I
> > wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails
body
> like
> > the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
> EOS300D's
> > is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I
don't take
> it
> > to the trenches.
> >
> > In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But
having
> the
> > other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness,
and the
> > fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a
nice
> > bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for
these
> > cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.
> >
> > And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
> far--you
> > could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a
preferred
> > route to go? That complicates the question even more.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > LRH
> >
> >

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr <noone@noone.net> wrote:
> Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it
> used last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary
> reflex mirror failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair
> shop in town--so that has made me look around at what else is out
> there. I only have 2 lenses--the kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid
> $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote. Not much committed. No
> dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

> Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the
> $1500 level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

> Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or
> "this vs that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because
> the D1x is a top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to
> the hilt with features and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D
> is a basic bottom-line D-SLR with crippled features (though the
> Wasia hack takes care of some--but not all--of that) and a plasticky
> type of body. So it shouldn't even be a question, right?

Right.

The trouble is that we don't know what condition a pre-owned D1x is
in. If it's been dropped, the sensor plane may be misaligned. You
may not be able to see it immediately, but the results won't be good.

The D1x is *still* a very nice camera. Given the choice between a D1x
and a D70, I'd take the D1x in a blink. But you don't know where a
pre-owned D1x has been.

> The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the
> 6MP of the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older
> technology overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its
> vertical resolution being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous
> D1. That concerns me, as photo quality is by far the main factor for
> me.

That's not a problem in general use. The algorithms Nikon use to
generate the 3000x2000 output resolution work well.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I "resemble that comment"...seriously I have been in the same place and decided
accordingly to buy a used D1x and subsequently a D70. I have owned Canon D30,
10D and DRebel cameras. I had always bought new until the D1x. Why??? Thought
you would never ask.... I make large prints 24x.... for fine art. While I have
liked my Canon prints in smaller form, I have not liked the artificial look
many have, they are known for smoothness, what I see is absence, some other
photographers have called this a plastic feeling to these images from Canon. It
would have been too easy to just buy a 20D, why not, more resolution, same
lenses, L lenses, batteries. I tested the 20D and decided it just wasn't for
me. I had a friend with a D1x which he has had for 3 years and loved. His
images always had a more filmlike feeling to them. When printed at larger sizes
the images just look more like my old MF and LF images but without all the
scanning issues. So far I have kept my beloved Canon L lenses, but as time goes
by and the nearness of the D2x approached, this may change.
As Far as a used D1x, it is possible to get them for a steal. I saw cheaper
deals but eventually bought from a very reputable dealer KEH.COm for about
$2100. This way got a 90 day warranty if anything major turned up. So far it
has been flawless and used almost daily for hundreds of images. Some prints
have been made up to 40in long. I only hope that Nikon doesn't blow it with the
D2x and give it the smoothness that other CMOS cameras from Canon have. That
said I also like the body interface better and build quality and image tonality
I get. Just got the D70 so haven't had it long enough to judge many things.
Others have said they prefer it to the D1x for image quality. I don't know
about that yet, but I do like the lightness of the body and bought it as a back
up to the D1x not a replacement and for those times its form factor is needed.
Hope this helps and explains another's madness......