 Ruby Kong-Arnoux |
8MP SLR vs. 8MP p&s cameras I was interested in the Canon Eos 20d 8MP SLR. Since the Nikon coolpix is also 8mp, which would have better quality? Would the Nikon be better if I just purchased wide angle, telephoto, etc.lenses?Or should I just go with the SLR? I really want to go pro someday.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
the nikon coolpix does not have interchangeable lenses. you are stuck with the lens it comes with, which, I believe is the equivalent of a 35-350mm lens. the canon 20d offers you more versatility with interchangeable lenses, and you can choose from canon's vast selection of consumer and pro level lenses. the big difference is in the cost, but the 20d will be expandable, whereas the coolpix (or any p&s for that matter) will not be. on the flip side, the coolpix is much smaller and lighter, and as I pointed out, cheaper. your call. michael h. cothran www.mhcphoto.net
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Fels |
Hi Ruby, I was also thinking the same thing when I was deciding to go digital. On the surface there seemed no reaon but after asking around I found that things like shutter lag and frame burst rate were a real issue if you wanted to do sporting shots. For what its worth I'm sill undecided, I like the colour from the D70 but I've already got canon lenses that will fit the 350D....I'll make a decision one day...Reading these Q&A's is a great way to learn. Thanks to all involed. Take care, Steve
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ruby Kong-Arnoux |
I'm not going to be shooting any sports events. I'll just be doing an album which will have indoor-outdoor, maybe some nature shots. I have learned so much by joining this group. Thanks. Ruby
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Rhodes |
Ruby, there can be a significant difference between sensors in an 8MP SLR and an 8MP digicam (P&S). You must consider the size of the sensor, not just the pixel count. Likely, the SLR will have a comparativly larger sensor than the same pixel-count sensor in the digicam. A larger sensor (keeping the pixel count constant) means the actual pixels are larger and, most important, much less apt to show noise. Please refer to www.dpreview.com to research this. Now, the 8MP digicam will (depending on the camera) deliver excellent photos at a considerable cost savings. However, if you spend $1000 (MSRP) plus several hundred more for the teleconverter lenses. You would not have nearly the same quality camera as the 20D. Of course, additional lenses for the SLR can be pricy, but if you have a desire to "go pro" someday, why not start and learn with the better camera. Now a confession--I use a high-end digicam myself, the Canon G6. But I aspire to own the 20D or Nikon D70.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I think that Canon has the technology that extends the 20D and would make this a better option for a pro. If you buy the 20D and invest in the lenses you will not be disatisfied! Take a look at the pro cameras that they offer and the technology that they are developing! The Mark 1DS is sweet! Some of this technology they are soon to be placing in the 30D (or so they say)!! I Can't wait! I believe the camera is just a first step but the lenses--OH THE LENSES!! The lenses are what will make a huge difference! My suggestion would be to look at the higher pro cameras of the two brands you are contemplating and look where they are headed for your long term decision. The lenses can easily exceed that of your 'camera box'. Which is a good thing! Camera lenses hold their value! But they offer such a distinct difference in your photographs! You also state that you will not shoot sports but want to shoot nature. Well that would be concidered sports if you are shooting insects or active animals! :o) Take a look at my lady bug shot, it was sharp only because the lens was so fast and the camera was equally as fast--this guy was a very fast mover. There would have been no way to capture this fast mover with a slow camera. I shot this little guy on sports mode. :o)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
The image quality will be better on the 20D. My main basis for this response has to do with digital noise. This was somewhat mentioned before. It has to do a lot with sensor size. The sensor is a lot smaller on the Nikon Coolpix, leading to more information and electronics crammed into a smaller area. The pixels have "more room to breath" in the 20D. It's about the same size as a negative from some of the Kodak Advantix film or any other APS film system. The noise reduction is also better on the 20D. ISO 1600 on the 20D will probably be better than ISO 400 on the Nikon Coolpix, plus the 20D is much more expandible. expandable? spell check please!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||