Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Selection Dilemma: D-70 or 20D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:15 PM

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

I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
This is my first venture into digital.

Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
me a few pointers on making my selection?

My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
Your thoughts please.............

Thank you very much for your time and courtesy.

John

More about : selection dilemma 20d

Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

"TORENGI" <torengi@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050106081915.09690.00001896@mb-m20.aol.com...
>
> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
> This is my first venture into digital.
>
> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>
> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
> Your thoughts please.............
>
> Thank you very much for your time and courtesy.
>
> John
>

They are both excellent mid skill level dSLR cameras, but the 20D has
required more firmware upgrades to fix some bugs that never should have made
it to market...with Canon it has become money first, consumer ease second...

You mention you've been a photographer for over 40 years so I'm assuming
you're not referring to instamatic cameras. What lenses do you have already?
Are any compatible with either the D70 or 20D? If the answer is yes than go
with the model camera that allows you to use all or some of your old lenses.
If the answer is no, Canon offers more choice for lenses, and more can be
found on the second hand market if budget is a consideration.

The 20D is a newer camera, and is the answer to Nikon's release of the D70.
As such the D20 has some offerings the D70 does not have, but don't let that
be your deciding factor because the D70 is cheaper, enough so that an extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.

It is not likely that a replacement for the 20D will be out in the next 1.5
years, but the D70 replacement is 'likely' on the horizon to be released in
August, announced sooner.

Canon puts out more rebates on dSLR and lenses than Nikon does on average
which in the long run can get your those lenses which normally would be cost
prohibitive.

Linda
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Linda_N wrote:
> The 20D is a newer camera, and is the answer to Nikon's release of
the D70.
> As such the D20 has some offerings the D70 does not have, but don't
let that
> be your deciding factor because the D70 is cheaper, enough so that an
extra
> lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
offer
> more than most hobby photographers will ever use.

Replace 20D with D70 and D70 with 300D in the text above and the logic
still stands ;-)

It would be:
The D70 is a newer camera, and is the answer to Canon's release of the
300D.
As such the D70 has some offerings the 300D does not have, but don't
let that
be your deciding factor because the 300D is cheaper, enough so that an
extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.
Now, throw in the Wasia hack!!! :) )

- Siddhartha
Related resources
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Willem wrote:
> Try this link:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm

Isn't this the guy who has a magical ability to review cameras without
ever touching them?

Quote from the link:
http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm
"Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
played with one." - Mr.Rockwell.

More interesting stuff from this guy's review

--snip----
If you have $8,000 it's got 16MP. As you can read here it's only
marginally different from 8MP. For anyone who's loaded this is a great
digital camera for shooting still lifes, real estate and landscapes,
although as you know I far prefer film for even better quality, broader
color range (especially deep reds), resolution and lower cost.

As it better be for eight grand, it's a killer camera today. Get one if
you have jobs to shoot now. In a year or two it will be tossed out on
the pile of obsolete cameras just like it's predecessors. I know many
of you find it hard to believe, but this is a disposable camera as I
explain here.
--snip----

Heyy Mr.Rockwell, let me know where you dump your two year old
disposable obsolete >8MP digital SLR cameras!!


- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

torengi@aol.com (TORENGI) writes:

> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
> This is my first venture into digital.
>
> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>
> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
> Your thoughts please.............

IMHO, a silly thing to be your primary worry. Hard drive space is
cheap. DVD burners are cheap. DVD media is even getting decently
cheap.

A 250GB drive that costs around $150 can store a LOT of photos, even
at 8 megapixels.

(I haven't used either the D70 or the 20D myself, so I'm not
commenting on the actual relative merits of the cameras. My lens
collection is Nikon, so I'm currently using a Fuji S2 Pro.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Linda_N wrote:
> I gather you are joking since the Canon 300D doesn't even touch the
Nikon
> D70. The Nikon D70 put the beginner level Canon 300D to shame in
every
> aspect including body quality.
I will give you faster response, faster shooting speed, better flash
modes, and a spot meter.

Body quality: So a black painted plastic body is better than a silver
painted plastic body?

Image quality, hell no. Find me one respectable reviewer who puts the
D70's image quality way over the 300D or vice versa.

And as you pointed out, with the price difference I can buy an
additional lens.

So am I ashamed to carry a 300D with a D70 owner around. NO!!
- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
> Personally, I've yet to try a P&S that doesn't suffer significant
> shutter-lag - a bloody annoying feature which alone, would (and did)
> prevent me from purchasing one - even for the wife.

I had an Olympus C-750UZ and I am no digital P&S fan either. But
interesting things seem to be happening in the P&S arena.

Check the Ricoh R1V's specs:
"Incredibly, it takes only less than 0.8 seconds for the Caplio R1V to
be ready to shoot photos after it is turned on. Moreover, the release
time is almost instantaneous-as short as 0.05 to 0.1 seconds,
calculated from the time the user presses the shutter button, and a
miraculous 0.003 seconds or less from the time the focus is locked.
This assures that the Caplio R1V will be ready when an exquisite
picture-perfect moment presents itself. A hybrid auto focusing system
also ensures the camera to capture quality images of fast-moving
objects. Furthermore, with a shooting interval of 0.9 seconds or less,
continuous shooting is smooth and stress-free."

> ..and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
> available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost
as
> much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
> on any future kit is something close to zero.

This is a Leica lens thats at a constant aperture of 2.8 throughout the
zoom range and IS. How much would a similar 35mm SLR lens, say 28-300mm
IS f/2.8, cost?

However, my choice would probably be the FZ3. Less MP but then smaller
too with a similar lens.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
> ..I am looking at part number DMW-LTZ10, looks like it's made by
> Panasonic, not Leica, and doesn't have any electronic connections for
> IS function. f/2.8 is, as you mention available across the zoom
range.
>
> Here:
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=detai...

You are looking at the wrong product :) 

Here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

Its Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. A review here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Abhinav Modi wrote:
> The other issue, 3MP FZ3 instead of 4/5 MP for FZ15/20 respectively,
is
> something which I am hoping will not dissappoint me, as newarly all
> pictures will be for online sharing and not printing.
>
> I hope I am making the right decision in going with the FZ3, which
will
> be around $100 less than FZ15 (The max I really could spend - after
> stretching a lot ) and $200 or so less than (FZ20) ?

I would choose the FZ3 over the FZ15/20 only if the bulk of the camera
was an issue for me. It won't be an issue for me but definitely for my
wife. So for her, I would get the FZ3.

As you mention using the camera for mostly online photo sharing, I
doubt 3MP vs 4/5MP will matter much for you. For web sharing, even 2MP
cameras produce nice pics. So if you are on a tight budget, go ahead
and get the FZ3.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
> Thread confusion. I was looking at *addons* for the FZ20, to see how
> it compares if you wanted to retain some of the flexibility of an
SLR.
> They *do* offer lenses that can be added to the FZ20, both a wide and
> a tele-zoom. My comments are just that these lenses are *damn*
> expensive for what they are, and it would seem they are not made by
> Leica either.

Put some Panasonic/3rd-party glass in front of Leica? Never!!

And then, I guess the 12x zoom ought to be enough for most P&S
shooters.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:16 PM

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

Abhinav Modi wrote:
> Thanks ! Sorry for pestering you a bit more, but will the lack of
manual
> controls (found on FZ15/20) be a major stumbling block for my
learning
> ? I just want to make sure that it will "last" for a decent amount of

> time. ( I realize that there will be some loss - everything comes for
a
> price :) ..but I would want to be able to learn with it for a coupls
of
> years at least )

No problemo :) 
Can you be more specific as to what's lacking in the FZ3 in terms of
manual control? I just skimped thru its review on dpreview.com and
couldn't find anything lacking for a P&S.

>
> (The fact that the cameras are not available here in India readily,
and
> I have to make a decision and ask someone in the US to buy it for me,
is
> one reason for me having to cross check so much :)  I will not be
able
> to look at the camera before actually purchasing it..)

Ohh!! I see. I had to do the same for my Canon 300D. Great deal you get
in the US compared to even the grey market in India. Remember to get
enough SD/MMC cards and extra batteries. All that costs a lot too in
India. I'd also buy a Hoya or B+W UV/Skylight Filter and a C-PL. You
don't get Hoya or B+W in India.

And you are welcome to join "The Bombay Amateur Photographer's Club"
here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tbapc/

Even if you are not in Bombay, you can join in. If you are in Bombay
and your camera makes it to India before the 14th, you can join us for
the Mumbai festival, Kala Ghoda festival and 16th's marathon shoots.
- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:19:17 PM

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

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1105023200.307774.99410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Linda_N wrote:
>> The 20D is a newer camera, and is the answer to Nikon's release of
> the D70.
>> As such the D20 has some offerings the D70 does not have, but don't
> let that
>> be your deciding factor because the D70 is cheaper, enough so that an
> extra
>> lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
> offer
>> more than most hobby photographers will ever use.
>
> Replace 20D with D70 and D70 with 300D in the text above and the logic
> still stands ;-)
>
> It would be:
> The D70 is a newer camera, and is the answer to Canon's release of the
> 300D.
> As such the D70 has some offerings the 300D does not have, but don't
> let that
> be your deciding factor because the 300D is cheaper, enough so that an
> extra
> lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
> offer
> more than most hobby photographers will ever use.
> Now, throw in the Wasia hack!!! :) )
>
> - Siddhartha
>
I gather you are joking since the Canon 300D doesn't even touch the Nikon
D70. The Nikon D70 put the beginner level Canon 300D to shame in every
aspect including body quality. The D70 even put the intermediate level Canan
10D to shame, and some argue Nikon put its own intermediate D100 to shame
with the D70 too. The D70 is also considerably more expensive than the Canon
300D, less so now that Nikon dropped the price points by 2 since the 20D
came out. Your logic might work if you compaired the Canon 10D with the
Nikon D70 though, but the D70 would likely come out on top since the 10D is
so old (older than the 300D) and does not support EF-S which Canon is moving
towards for new digital lens development, and the 10D lacks in some
performance areas that the D70 excels in.

The D70 is older than the 20D, and the original poster has decided he will
get either the D70 or the 20D.

Linda
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 4:26:05 PM

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

i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:01:56 PM

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

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:26:05 GMT, "Abheet Gidwani via PhotoKB.com"
<forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote:

>i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was
>about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d
>and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the
>canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

I don't doubt you are correct, given just the price difference - The
street price of the 20D is 45% more expensive than the D70.

...and that's a significant price hike when you consider the D70 isn't
cheap to begin with.

But, you get what you pay for, and probably save money in the long run
because Canon lenses are cheaper.

...but again, even with the lenses..
...you get what you pay for :-p

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:27:15 PM

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

TORENGI wrote:
> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
> This is my first venture into digital.
>
> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>
> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
> Your thoughts please.............

John, there is another choice - break out of the SLR rut and go for a
higher-end point and shoot. Unless you have an existing lens investment,
why pay for not only a DSLR body, but for all the lenses to go with it?
Bulky, and with problems of dust getting on the sensor each time you
change the lens.

Yes, DSLRs do produce a better quality image because of their larger
sensitive area, but you can get some remarkable cameras in point and
shoot. For example, the Panasonic FZ20 has an f/2.8 Leica lens covering
36 - 432mm focal length (35mm equivalent) with image stabilisation, and
yet it weighs far less and costs far less than the equivalent DSLR
combination.

I used SLRs forty years from 1968, but after getting my first Nikon
Coolpix digital camera in 1998 I haven't taken a single 35mm frame since.
OK, point-and shoot may not be for you, but don't discount the possibility
without considering it.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:56:15 PM

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

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:27:15 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>TORENGI wrote:
>> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
>> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
>> This is my first venture into digital.
>>
>> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
>> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>>
>> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
>> Your thoughts please.............
>
>John, there is another choice - break out of the SLR rut and go for a
>higher-end point and shoot. Unless you have an existing lens investment,
>why pay for not only a DSLR body, but for all the lenses to go with it?
>Bulky, and with problems of dust getting on the sensor each time you
>change the lens.
>
>Yes, DSLRs do produce a better quality image because of their larger
>sensitive area, but you can get some remarkable cameras in point and
>shoot. For example, the Panasonic FZ20 has an f/2.8 Leica lens covering
>36 - 432mm focal length (35mm equivalent) with image stabilisation, and
>yet it weighs far less and costs far less than the equivalent DSLR
>combination.
>
>I used SLRs forty years from 1968, but after getting my first Nikon
>Coolpix digital camera in 1998 I haven't taken a single 35mm frame since.
>OK, point-and shoot may not be for you, but don't discount the possibility
>without considering it.

The SLR rut?

Changing lenses = flexibility. A P&S is far more rut-like.

Way back in 1998, I too would have purchased the Coolpix. But since
2004, the D70 has been a far superior choice.

Dust does not get onto the sensor 'each time' you change the lens on a
DSLR. One must be aware of this problem, inverting the camera during
lens changes is one way to help as do regular baths, but if it does
happen to you, just clean it. Flexibility comes at a price.

Personally, I've yet to try a P&S that doesn't suffer significant
shutter-lag - a bloody annoying feature which alone, would (and did)
prevent me from purchasing one - even for the wife.

...and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost as
much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
on any future kit is something close to zero.

--
Owamanga!
January 6, 2005 6:11:54 PM

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

Try this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm

Willem

"TORENGI" <torengi@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20050106081915.09690.00001896@mb-m20.aol.com...
>
> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
> This is my first venture into digital.
>
> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>
> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
> Your thoughts please.............
>
> Thank you very much for your time and courtesy.
>
> John
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 6:11:55 PM

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

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:11:54 +0100, "Willem" <wil.mar@tiscali.nl>
wrote:

>"TORENGI" <torengi@aol.com> schreef in bericht
>news:20050106081915.09690.00001896@mb-m20.aol.com...
>>
>> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
>> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
>> This is my first venture into digital.
>>
>> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
>> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>>
>> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
>> Your thoughts please.............
>>
>> Thank you very much for your time and courtesy.
>>
>> John
>
>Try this link:
>
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
>
>Willem

Excellent article, if a bit ranty where he suggests the D70 is better
than the 20D because it has *two* places to change saturation instead
of one. Its like saying my amp volume goes up to 11 which is superior
to those that stop at 10.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 6:11:55 PM

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

Willem wrote:
>
> Try this link:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
>
> Willem

Having read the above site I'd not recommend it to anyone seeking
comparison information about those cameras. Ken Rockwell bases many of
comparisons between the two cameras on things that make no difference
when you shoot RAW mode - and he does not undestand RAW at all.

He also gives the D70 bonus points for faster flash X-sync at 1/500 but
discounts the 20D's ability to shoot at lower ISO 100 (they're a
wash-out unless you want to shoot outdoor action shots with flash).

-Dave
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 6:13:00 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
[]
> The SLR rut?

Call it habit of a lifetime, then.

> Changing lenses = flexibility. A P&S is far more rut-like.

Of course the DSLR is different, the point-and-shoot offers a different
way of working.

> Way back in 1998, I too would have purchased the Coolpix. But since
> 2004, the D70 has been a far superior choice.

Not superior, just different. It may well be that a DSLR will suit the OP
better, but it's not a given.

[]
> Personally, I've yet to try a P&S that doesn't suffer significant
> shutter-lag - a bloody annoying feature which alone, would (and did)
> prevent me from purchasing one - even for the wife.

It is far less of a rpoblem on the more modern high-end point and shoot
cameras, such as the Nikon 8400.

> ..and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
> available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost as
> much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
> on any future kit is something close to zero.

You need NO add-on to get the f/2.8 36 - 432mm zoom lens I mentioned, all
included in the basic camera.

I agree that if you want to carry around a bag-full of add-ons, the DSLR
is a more appropriate vehicle, but I am glad now to be rid of the bag!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 6:51:46 PM

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

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:13:00 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>[]
>> The SLR rut?
>
>Call it habit of a lifetime, then.
>
>> Changing lenses = flexibility. A P&S is far more rut-like.
>
>Of course the DSLR is different, the point-and-shoot offers a different
>way of working.
>
>> Way back in 1998, I too would have purchased the Coolpix. But since
>> 2004, the D70 has been a far superior choice.
>
>Not superior, just different. It may well be that a DSLR will suit the OP
>better, but it's not a given.

True.

>> Personally, I've yet to try a P&S that doesn't suffer significant
>> shutter-lag - a bloody annoying feature which alone, would (and did)
>> prevent me from purchasing one - even for the wife.
>
>It is far less of a rpoblem on the more modern high-end point and shoot
>cameras, such as the Nikon 8400.

Glad to hear that. My wife still wants one.

>> ..and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
>> available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost as
>> much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
>> on any future kit is something close to zero.
>
>You need NO add-on to get the f/2.8 36 - 432mm zoom lens I mentioned, all
>included in the basic camera.

I got that, it's just they sell a 1.5 tele thingy to make it reach
about 650mm. $500 looks very steep for that, even if it is a good
brand.

>I agree that if you want to carry around a bag-full of add-ons, the DSLR
>is a more appropriate vehicle, but I am glad now to be rid of the bag!

That's what the wife's for. Chief lens-carrier when I am out. I got a
belt-holster for the flash gun, CF cards fit in front trouser condom
pockets, filters in main pockets and the other lens goes into stroller
cup-holder or wife's fanny-pack. Tripod attaches to stroller.

Big padded camera bag stays in the car. This holds spare batteries for
flash and camera, data cables, more filters, stepping rings, cleaning
kit, IR remote control, portable HD/Card reader thingy for off-loading
the CF cards and some mylar sheets for reflectors, a pen, some tape,
N80 film body and some film. The D70 body goes with me.

Truly, all you are saving is having to carry one or two lenses - you
can still use (and might need to carry) the rest of the kit I
mentioned (okay, not the spare body).

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:09:38 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
[]
>> You need NO add-on to get the f/2.8 36 - 432mm zoom lens I
>> mentioned, all included in the basic camera.
>
> I got that, it's just they sell a 1.5 tele thingy to make it reach
> about 650mm. $500 looks very steep for that, even if it is a good
> brand.

I wouldn't consider it on bulk grounds alone.


> That's what the wife's for. Chief lens-carrier when I am out. I got a
> belt-holster for the flash gun, CF cards fit in front trouser condom
> pockets, filters in main pockets and the other lens goes into stroller
> cup-holder or wife's fanny-pack. Tripod attaches to stroller.
>
> Big padded camera bag stays in the car. This holds spare batteries for
> flash and camera, data cables, more filters, stepping rings, cleaning
> kit, IR remote control, portable HD/Card reader thingy for off-loading
> the CF cards and some mylar sheets for reflectors, a pen, some tape,
> N80 film body and some film. The D70 body goes with me.
>
> Truly, all you are saving is having to carry one or two lenses - you
> can still use (and might need to carry) the rest of the kit I
> mentioned (okay, not the spare body).

There's where we differ. I take the camera and a couple of spare
batteries and a CF card in a body belt. No extra lenses, no filters, no
flash, nothing. Most of the places I travel I don't have a car (who wants
the hassle of driving and parking in Euopean cities!). I'm often away all
day (perhaps looking at geology) and carrying everthing including lunch.
I find I'm much more likely to carry my point-and-shoot than I ever was
with an SLR, especially in the evenings for those night-time shots.

Oh, and my wife has a similar photographic outfit!


Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:17:14 PM

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

On 6 Jan 2005 08:01:13 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>> Personally, I've yet to try a P&S that doesn't suffer significant
>> shutter-lag - a bloody annoying feature which alone, would (and did)
>> prevent me from purchasing one - even for the wife.
>
>I had an Olympus C-750UZ and I am no digital P&S fan either. But
>interesting things seem to be happening in the P&S arena.
>
>Check the Ricoh R1V's specs:
>"Incredibly, it takes only less than 0.8 seconds for the Caplio R1V to
>be ready to shoot photos after it is turned on. Moreover, the release
>time is almost instantaneous-as short as 0.05 to 0.1 seconds,
>calculated from the time the user presses the shutter button, and a
>miraculous 0.003 seconds or less from the time the focus is locked.
>This assures that the Caplio R1V will be ready when an exquisite
>picture-perfect moment presents itself. A hybrid auto focusing system
>also ensures the camera to capture quality images of fast-moving
>objects. Furthermore, with a shooting interval of 0.9 seconds or less,
>continuous shooting is smooth and stress-free."

Well that sounds good.

>> ..and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
>> available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost
>as
>> much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
>> on any future kit is something close to zero.
>
>This is a Leica lens thats at a constant aperture of 2.8 throughout the
>zoom range and IS. How much would a similar 35mm SLR lens, say 28-300mm
>IS f/2.8, cost?

Eh? I.S. is already built into the P&S camera. Why would they need to
also put it in the 1.5 x tele-zoom lens addon thingy?

...I am looking at part number DMW-LTZ10, looks like it's made by
Panasonic, not Leica, and doesn't have any electronic connections for
IS function. f/2.8 is, as you mention available across the zoom range.

Here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=detai...

$450 for a bit of proprietary shaped plastic and melted sand? Hmm...

>However, my choice would probably be the FZ3. Less MP but then smaller
>too with a similar lens.

My choice would be a main-brand DSLR with a reliable source of
backwards compatible lenses and addons that will outlast the body.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:52:22 PM

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

On 6 Jan 2005 08:31:37 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>> ..I am looking at part number DMW-LTZ10, looks like it's made by
>> Panasonic, not Leica, and doesn't have any electronic connections for
>> IS function. f/2.8 is, as you mention available across the zoom
>range.
>>
>> Here:
>>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=detai...
>
>You are looking at the wrong product :) 
>
>Here:
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
>
>Its Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. A review here:
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/


Thread confusion. I was looking at *addons* for the FZ20, to see how
it compares if you wanted to retain some of the flexibility of an SLR.
They *do* offer lenses that can be added to the FZ20, both a wide and
a tele-zoom. My comments are just that these lenses are *damn*
expensive for what they are, and it would seem they are not made by
Leica either.

These addons are mentioned in this FZ20 review:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz20-re...

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:29:46 AM

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

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Owamanga wrote:

[Snip]
>>..and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
>>available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost
>
> as
>
>>much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
>>on any future kit is something close to zero.
>
>
> This is a Leica lens thats at a constant aperture of 2.8 throughout the
> zoom range and IS. How much would a similar 35mm SLR lens, say 28-300mm
> IS f/2.8, cost?
>
> However, my choice would probably be the FZ3. Less MP but then smaller
> too with a similar lens.
>

Siddhartha,

It is really interesting that you mentioned FZ3 / FZ20 in a post
originally for 20D / D70 ! :) 

I was looking at FZ15, but due to a higher price range, was considering
the FZ3. My only concern with FZ3 was that it mentioned lack of 'manua'
controls.

I have already troubled Hans (in an another poet, if you are not that
regular) and he urged me to go for FZ3 despite this doubt I had.

I am basically looking for a camera within thie FZ3's price tag, which
will last me from my current amateur level (this will be my 1st "real"
camera") to a somewhat advanced level of photography for hobby (not pro).

The other issue, 3MP FZ3 instead of 4/5 MP for FZ15/20 respectively, is
something which I am hoping will not dissappoint me, as newarly all
pictures will be for online sharing and not printing.

I hope I am making the right decision in going with the FZ3, which will
be around $100 less than FZ15 (The max I really could spend - after
stretching a lot ) and $200 or so less than (FZ20) ?


TIA

Abhinav
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 2:04:02 AM

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

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Abhinav Modi wrote:
>
>>The other issue, 3MP FZ3 instead of 4/5 MP for FZ15/20 respectively,
>
> is
>
>>something which I am hoping will not dissappoint me, as newarly all
>>pictures will be for online sharing and not printing.
>>
>>I hope I am making the right decision in going with the FZ3, which
>
> will
>
>>be around $100 less than FZ15 (The max I really could spend - after
>>stretching a lot ) and $200 or so less than (FZ20) ?
>
>
> I would choose the FZ3 over the FZ15/20 only if the bulk of the camera
> was an issue for me. It won't be an issue for me but definitely for my
> wife. So for her, I would get the FZ3.
>
> As you mention using the camera for mostly online photo sharing, I
> doubt 3MP vs 4/5MP will matter much for you. For web sharing, even 2MP
> cameras produce nice pics. So if you are on a tight budget, go ahead
> and get the FZ3.
>

Thanks ! Sorry for pestering you a bit more, but will the lack of manual
controls (found on FZ15/20) be a major stumbling block for my learning
? I just want to make sure that it will "last" for a decent amount of
time. ( I realize that there will be some loss - everything comes for a
price :) ..but I would want to be able to learn with it for a coupls of
years at least )

(The fact that the cameras are not available here in India readily, and
I have to make a decision and ask someone in the US to buy it for me, is
one reason for me having to cross check so much :)  I will not be able
to look at the camera before actually purchasing it..)

Thanks
Abhinav
January 7, 2005 9:57:09 AM

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

On 6 Jan 2005 07:04:08 -0800
In message <1105023848.608819.167790@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Willem wrote:
> > Try this link:
> >
> > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
>
> Isn't this the guy who has a magical ability to review cameras without
> ever touching them?
>
> Quote from the link:
> http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm
> "Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
> played with one." - Mr.Rockwell.

<SNIP>

Interesting that anyone would presume to think the 1D(s) Mark II is
marginally better than the 20D. I used a 1D Mark II for a couple days
and it is well worth the extra cost compared to the 20D. The only
thing that kept me from buying it was the stupid interface. The way
the [SET] button works causes cramps in old (or in my case
parkinson's) hands in less than 30 minutes. It's a shame Canon is
using an archaic interface in the 1D series. The Mark II doubled
processors and full viewfinder makes it an entirely different, and
much better camera (with or without the "s").

Jeff
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:24:10 PM

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

In article <3452rtF44e2kqU1@individual.net>, david-taylor@invalid.com
says...
> > ..and FZ20's tele lens addon gizmo (fixed glass, no moving parts) is
> > available at a complete rip-off price of $500 - WHAT? that's almost as
> > much as the camera. And the likelihood of being able to use that lens
> > on any future kit is something close to zero.
>
> You need NO add-on to get the f/2.8 36 - 432mm zoom lens I mentioned, all
> included in the basic camera.
>
Google Olympus TCON14 TCON17 FZ20 for lots of links to using the Olympus
add on lenses on the FZ20 for bird photography and other long tele uses.
The 14 reaches to 604mm 35mm equivalent focal length and the even less
expensive 17 reaches to 734mm 35mm equivalent focal length with quality
reported to be acceptable to many users. I'm sure that a Canon 500mm
IS with a TC14 converter would work better, but only pros or the very
rich and strong can afford that. Now I have NO practical experience of
these things, just lurking for now, but my daughter has an FZ20 back-
ordered and I have been saving up for a DDLR body and I will review that
approach when I play with her FZ20.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:31:30 PM

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

In article <04rqt0plh7304ipplsihe965dkcntoe5tl@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com says...
> Thread confusion. I was looking at *addons* for the FZ20, to see how
> it compares if you wanted to retain some of the flexibility of an SLR.
> They *do* offer lenses that can be added to the FZ20, both a wide and
> a tele-zoom. My comments are just that these lenses are *damn*
> expensive for what they are, and it would seem they are not made by
> Leica either.
>
I think Panasonic only claim that the "Leica" lenses are using some Leica
design and technology - I don't think Leica actually make them for that
price.

I noted in another post there are lots of alternatives to the Pana add-
ons, including good, less expensive olympus glass. I've seen reviews on
the web with add-ons from Pana, Raynox, Oly, Canon and others. The Pana
was good but expensive, heavy and bulky. The Oly was also good.
January 7, 2005 7:31:31 PM

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

"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message

> I think Panasonic only claim that the "Leica" lenses are using some Leica
> design and technology - I don't think Leica actually make them for that
> price.

The Panasonic FZs are using lenses designed and manufactured by Leica
in Germany which are then sent to Japan for assembly. They are the real
McCoy.

> I noted in another post there are lots of alternatives to the Pana add-
> ons, including good, less expensive olympus glass. I've seen reviews on
> the web with add-ons from Pana, Raynox, Oly, Canon and others. The Pana
> was good but expensive, heavy and bulky. The Oly was also good.

It appears that most of the people using add-on lenses with their FZs are
avoiding the Panasonic accessory lenses, mostly due to the high costs
involved. I just added a Raynox wide angle for about US $100 which
lowers my wide angle range down to around 23mm. I'm also considering
some of the Olympus and Canon Tele-converters but haven't narrowed it
down to a final choice yet. The Olympus T-Cons look pretty impressive
from the examples I have seen.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:28:10 AM

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

"Justín Käse" <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:41e7818a.3378539@chupacabra...
> In Message-ID:<K2eFd.2023$df.97748@tor-nn1.netcom.ca> posted on Wed, 12
> Jan 2005 14:49:08 -0400, Linda_N wrote:
>
>>You can't just say the D70 produces a better image or the 300D does
>>without
>>getting into a discussion of the lens(es) being used at the time the
>>images
>>were taken. The body alone does not a sharp and crisp picture make.
>
> Isn't the dimensional stability of the lens holding framework (body)
> a factor in picture quality?
> IOW: Metal versus plastic
> --
>
> JK

The rebel is very cheap feeling, At least Canon could have used a better
plastic.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:48:22 PM

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

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

><forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote:
>>i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was
>>about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d
>>and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the
>>canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

>I don't doubt you are correct, given just the price difference - The
>street price of the 20D is 45% more expensive than the D70.
....
>But, you get what you pay for, and probably save money in the long run
>because Canon lenses are cheaper.

But, if you get the good Nikon kit lens, it's even -more- cheaper
(ugh) than the Canon. One off-putting thing is the cost of a
reasonably good Canon lens (okay, I would have gone for the 17-85 IS)
on top of the body.

Are you sure Canon lenses are more expensive than Nikon? I will
certainly admit the Nikon range is poorer than the Canon one, which
has a lot of options including slower (lighter) IS lenses in the
tele- range, of which Nikon has none.

I think the OP needs to consider whether he needs an SLR, but I
personally am -extremely- happy to be back in the SLR world after
fighting with a higher-end p&s for a long time. I've tried the
FZ20 too, and am pleased I didn't go that route. I wanted fast
response and a crisp viewfinder, and that's exactly what I got.
I also like the user i/f of the D70, and can do what I need
quickly. (Though an ISO indication in the viewfinder for
'eyes free' changing would be handy).

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 4:15:44 PM

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

TORENGI wrote:
> I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
> and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
> This is my first venture into digital.
>
> Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
> me a few pointers on making my selection?
>
> My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
> Your thoughts please.............

That should be a very minor concern due to the low cost of Compact
Flash memory.

The D70 was more comperable to the Canon EOS-300D Digital Rebel and
older Canon 10D. The 20D is a higher end camera, and really should not
be compared against the D70.

The 20D is superior to the D70, but it also costs $400 more ($1400
versus $1000 for body only). That said, I've been very impressed with
the Nikon D70. If not for the fact that I already have three Canon
lenses, and a Canon flash, I might have gone the D70 route versus the
20D route.
Related resources
!