Nikon D70 (kit w/ lens) vs Canon 10D vs Canon 20D for newbie

Joined: 22 Jan 2005 Posts: 9

Hi All,

Please bear with me because I am very much new to photography. The whole reason I have found a new interest in photography is our first child, now 22 months old. I take tons of pictures now, mostly of the kid. But since she became mobile (crawling, then walking, now running), its much much harder to get good pictures of her with our digital point and shoot. I borrowed my friend's Canon 10D for a week, and spent a week taking tons of pictures, and now I really, really want a DSLR. I have no film SLR equipment, so no experience, and no lenses to leverage. I want to spend as close to $1K as I can, but can go up to $1500 if there is significant advantage for spending a little more.

So which camera (and lens) would you recommend for a total newb? The main reason I liked the Canon 10D was because it was so much faster than any PnS I had used. With the kid, its hard to get her expressions if there is a lag between pressing the button and the actual shutter release. Also, I take alot of indoor pictures, in relatively low light. And I don't like using flash. The 10D did very well, especially when I changed the ISO setting accordingly.

Right now, I am leaning toward the Nikon D70 because it was very well reviewed, seemes to have enough features for a newcomer, and is cheapest. :-) I was just wondering if there are features of the 10D or 20D that might make it worthwhile for me to choose them.

Thanks in advance,
Neal

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:52 pm

It all comes down to how much money you have to spend? All of the cameras you mentioned are just fine for someone starting out but you need to decide how much money you want to spend. If you have for example $2000 to spend, you certainly can get the Canon 20d but you will not have a lot left over for upgrades. If you buy the D70 you will nearly half your money left over for say lenses, memory card and such. The difference between the 20d and the D70 is small and honestly in my opinion not worth the price difference. The difference in the price could be spent on a better lens. Personal I would rule out the 10D as this is older technology and the D70 clearly surpasses it.

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:55 pm

First off I'd recommend searching this site. There's a lot of threads about all these cameras that'll help you out. Aslo, if you want a good review and comparison check out Dpreview.com, they have lots of good information.

Personally I'm purchasing the D70. I did tons of research and it fits me the best. And if you can only go up to $1500 it'll probably be the best choice for you as well. Don't forget about all the little things you'll want to go with the camera, those add up quickly. Like memory, maybe a bag, tripod, filters, and a whole host of other options not to mention another lens.

Canon makes some really good cameras, nothing wrong with em at all. But for the same price range you're looking at a 300D from Canon and the D70 way outperforms that camera.

Just my opinion, hope it helps and good luck on your purchase.

Joined: 22 Jan 2005 Posts: 9

Thank you both for your advice. I hadn't really thought of all the "accessories and addons" I would probably need to purchase. With PnS, you really don't need much additional. So I guess I am going to go for the D70, as it is cheaper than the other 2 for almost as much functionality. Then I can have more to spend on the addons.

Thanks again!

Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Posts: 10 Location: Twickenham

I have both a D70 and a 20D. The 20D is a LITTLE better (nice autofocus system) but I find it harder to use. For image quality there isn't a great deal to chose between them - for somebody without any Canon/Nikon kit already I'd always suggest the D70 because it's very similar to the 20D but half the price.

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:17 pm

I would say the extra money on the 20D is worth even if the only difference was the far superior ISO performance, not to mention the MANY other advantages.

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Posts: 129 Location: Stratford Canada

I have a D70 and am quite satisfied with it. As Sparky mentioned the D70 has a great deal more noise at higher ISO's than the 20D, but if you are not shooting at 1600, it is not enough to worry about. The D70 is lighter with a composite body, so don't drop it. (G) I would definitely go with the D70 for the price, buy some extra flash cards and an extra battery with the money you will save. I am not familiar with the Canon software, but the Nikon software is quite nice. Cheers!

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:56 pm

Looking here there is very little difference between the 20d and the D70. I would still vote the d70 a better option with the left over money for better glass. Honestly if you want to spend $1500 on a DSLR I would seriously look at the Minolta 7D.

Joined: 22 Jan 2005 Posts: 9

Thanks everyone for the additional advice. I have to go ponder it now.

I have some questions about ISO's that may influence my decision on whether I would be happier with the 20D. What is a typically good ISO setting for shots indoors with fair lighting, and also a good ISO setting for indoors at night in moderately lit rooms? When is 3200 ISO typically used? Keep in mind, until my daughter is a few years older, I probably won't be taking many sports shots. :-)

Thanks again!

Joined: 10 Dec 2004 Posts: 307

honestly, $500 is very little when comparing slr systems. sure you could buy the d70 with a kit lens, and be quite happy with it... for a while. and then you decide you need a longer lens for wildlife etc. so you go out and buy one of those cheap 70-300 consumer lenses. later... you decide you want to have a go at macro. $500 later with a brand new tamron sp90 - you figure out for macro you need a good flash setup so you spend another $300 on a flash. and then you realise you can get a "throw in the bag" 50mm for $100 so why not? and then you decide your 70-300 has very slow af, chromatic abberations, very soft @ 300mm. so you decide you need a 2.8 70-200. $1500 later you figure out that you are in the market for a good tripod. my point is, when comparing a 20d to a d70, the price margin is fairly low. it isn't likely you will satisfy your hunger for photography with one body and one lens and that's all. so my advice to you is to go to the camera shop, hold both of them in your hands (i say both because i wouldn't recommend a 10d) and fiddle with all the controls. see what you like the most. for the prices they go for these days, i would strongly consider the 20d. this is not a biased opinion - i own a d70 and i love it. the 20d, in short, is a better camera.

as for your iso questions, high iso's are typically used when there is not very good ambient lighting. a football game at night etc. the highest i ever use is 800.

Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 26

the D70 kit lens is a great lens. it's hard to find a better lens for the price by Nikon.

Whereas the Canon kit lens is kind of sucky.

I saw somewhere to buy the brand for the lenses, not the body. I want the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye very badly right now.

Joined: 22 Jan 2005 Posts: 9

I understand your point. And yes, $500 is not very much if you are already deep into photography, have lots of equipment , and plan to get lots more. But I have zero real photography equipment. (My $300 digital point and shoot hardly qualifies.) I had to convince my wife that getting a digital SLR will be worth it. When starting at $0, going to $1200 vs $1700 is a pretty big deal. Further down the road, I can work on adding lenses and other equipment, but that first plunge has been a bit of negotiation. If my wife knew I planned to spend thousands on additional lenses, filters, tripods, bags, etc, she wouldn't even let me make the first purchase. :-)

Thanks for the advice though.

hir0 wrote:

honestly, $500 is very little when comparing slr systems. sure you could buy the d70 with a kit lens, and be quite happy with it... for a while. and then you decide you need a longer lens for wildlife etc. so you go out and buy one of those cheap 70-300 consumer lenses. later... you decide you want to have a go at macro. $500 later with a brand new tamron sp90 - you figure out for macro you need a good flash setup so you spend another $300 on a flash. and then you realise you can get a "throw in the bag" 50mm for $100 so why not? and then you decide your 70-300 has very slow af, chromatic abberations, very soft @ 300mm. so you decide you need a 2.8 70-200. $1500 later you figure out that you are in the market for a good tripod. my point is, when comparing a 20d to a d70, the price margin is fairly low. it isn't likely you will satisfy your hunger for photography with one body and one lens and that's all. so my advice to you is to go to the camera shop, hold both of them in your hands (i say both because i wouldn't recommend a 10d) and fiddle with all the controls. see what you like the most. for the prices they go for these days, i would strongly consider the 20d. this is not a biased opinion - i own a d70 and i love it. the 20d, in short, is a better camera.

as for your iso questions, high iso's are typically used when there is not very good ambient lighting. a football game at night etc. the highest i ever use is 800.

Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 250 Location: Concrete, WA

I really enjoyed all the info you guys had to offer here. I have a question though.......A professional photographer was telling me the other day that while I don't have much money spent on equipment I should seriously consider making the switch to Canon......he told me the reason for this is Canon's better focusing system......is there truly enough difference to make the switch, or can my current Nikon equipment, and the D70 which I hope to be purchasing soon, be enough?

A little about my photog needs:
I was just asked to take action shots for NWLegends, a racing company, and I like a mixture of outdoor, wildlife, portrait and just regular shooting.......

Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 250 Location: Concrete, WA

ChrisL wrote:

Looking here there is very little difference between the 20d and the D70. I would still vote the d70 a better option with the left over money for better glass. Honestly if you want to spend $1500 on a DSLR I would seriously look at the Minolta 7D.

I looked at the info you suggested and have a few questions that hopefully you can answer....

1. Is the difference n effective pixels and sensor photo detectors a big deal?

2. What is a sensor photo detector?

3. I notice that Sony makes Nikon's sensor......is there a quality difference to be noticed by this or is Sony a common maker of Nikon elements?

Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 212 Location: UK

sony makes lots for nikon...and themselves in their own compact cameras...!
makes you wonder sometimes if its REALLY worth getting a dSLR.

what am I saying? of course it is! just what make you go for is the question.
My advice: wait unitl the 20th this month when future releases are likely to be anounced at the PMA event...
I think we're all about to witness a spate of dSLR releases over the next year or so. and yes we could all wait until 'the next release' but then that would be pointless, i'm just holding on cause I KNOW that there will be some announcements coming up and wish to see whats on offer before shelling out quite a bit of money - especially if there's one on the way thats the same price but does more/better like the 20d/10d scenario...!