Re: A camera question for alt-photo.

My take on the D200/5D debate would be that the Nikon is a better camera
in terms of handling and build - and I've used mine in heavy rain
without problems, and there are things like auto ISO that work so much
better than on Canon. But that the Canon has a better sensor, so if you
are prepared to use a camera that is a little less intuitive and needs
rather more care in handling, the results, particularly at ISO 1600 are
better.

I weighed up all the pros and cons and my decision was for Nikon, but
many others would be better served by Canon. One of the factors that
came into my decision was the Nikon 18-200VR lens, and another was the
10.5mm semi fisheye, both impressive in their different ways and in my
camera bag, along with a 12-24mm. Though I do also use fixed lenses
such as the 20mm f2.8.

So when you are comparing costs, make sure you look at a system rather
than just a camera body.

Personally I'd buy a second-hand 4x5" as there are some incredible
bargains available, and that would leave enough money for a D70s if not
a D200. With 4x5 there is absolutely no point in buying new, in fact the
only cameras I'd suggest buying new are recent digital cameras. Anything
else you can get in mint condition at sometimes incredible but always
useful savings.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@cix.co.uk +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Don Bryant wrote:
> Ehud,
>
> Given the reasons you have listed I can't see why you shouldn't consider
> purchasing a DSLR such as the D200. However, I would encourage you to
> consider the Canon 5D as well. The price of this camera has dropped and a
> copy of this camera can be purchased for about $2500 (with a kit zoom lens.)
> The performance of this camera, IMO, is a little better than the D200 and
> there is no crop factor. I also think the D200 presents an excellent value
> for DSLR and should not be discounted as a possible choice.
>
> One other suggestion would be to not purchase neither of these cameras;
> instead take a look at either the Canon Rebel XT or the Nikon D50. Though
> these represent the bottom end of the DSLR camera models for Canon and Nikon
> both can produce very nice output. Buying in on the low end could save you
> some money and allow you to wet your beak with this type of digital capture.
> Of the two the Canon will provide more features such as 1/3 stop increments
> for ISO sensitivity changes and a smoother rendering (less noise) in the
> higher ISO ranges.
>
> As Camden has mentioned most the DSLRs on the market won't compare with 4x5
> (especially when rendering fine detail.
>
> And BTW, I don't own a DSLR so I have no personal prejudice toward one brand
> or the other.
>
> Making digital negatives will not be inexpensive when you factor in the
> expense of the inks and substrate.
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ehud Yaniv [mailto:eyaniv@telus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 1:29 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: A camera question for alt-photo.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have just been told that I will be receiving a contract signing bonus in
> September which I would like to use for a camera.
>
> Frankly, I would like to buy a 4 x 5 but that would take my signing bonus as
> well as my wife's because I would like to buy new. On the other hand, I
> could buy a D200 with only my bonus.
>
> I don't have a darkroom right now and I live quite a ways from a pro lab. I
> will be taking some Photoshop courses in the fall and have everything to
> make digital negatives.
>
> Any suggestions for someone in my position.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ehud
>
> PS: And, I am not trying to start a film vs. digital debate!
>
>
>
>
>
Received on 07/01/06-12:53:13 PM Z