Minolta A2 or Canon 300D or Nikon D70

[cobrus]

I'd like to ask somebody to advise me what is should I choose. I know Minolta A2 is not a Digital SLR, bu t it seems to be good camera. I've used Canon 30 so far and still I have this camera but I'm not sure if I should take a Canon 300D. Pleas advise. Many thanks in advance.

[bobtrips]

I went through somewhat the same decision process except with the A1 and 300D. The A2 and D70 were not yet available.

I chose the A1 for the following reasons:

Weight. I travel and spend my days walking around with my camera. I've carried film SLRs and multiple lenses for several years and they are just plain heavy.

Cost. To get the lens coverage of the A1 (A2) I would have had to add the 35-135 IS Canon lens at about $400. That would have brought the overall cost to around $1300 (including the 300D kit zoom). And the shorter zoom wouldn't be image stabilized.

I suspect that in a couple of years we will see smaller, lighter dSLRs with built-in IS. The A1 is serving my needs in the meantime.

I suppose that I would go the dSLR route if I were shooting sports or indoor performances (high ISO settings) or wildlife (longer lenses). Perhaps I would get a dSLR if I were shooting a lot of architecture (extra wides and tilt/shift lenses).

[sdaconsulting]

I bought the Sony 828 over the 300D because I wanted video (I have kids) and because I much prefer composing using the live LCD preview for my tripod landscape shots.

[fastuno]

I had to make the same choice with the Canon 10D & the Nikon D100. I chose the 10D & have been very happy with the camera overall. It's VERY responsive & fast, has a 8 pic buffer, controls are intuitive & properly placed. It feels rock solid in my hands (as opposed to the 300d).

In terms of the picture quality, not quite there because they generally tend to come out soft & require post-processing. From what I have seen most pictures from various types of cameras just don't have that sharpness & vivid color that you would expect. At least not consistently, it seems that the constellations must align for the right shot!


I have seen a pro photographer take pictures with a Mimaya cam with Velvia film that are just stunning. The same shots taken with a 10d just didn't have that same spunk!!!

If you have any comparison same shots of 10d & other cams, please link it will be very much appreciated!

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno

[tristantom]

i have a D70 and it's *way* faster than the 10d. also the 3d matrix metering and autofocus system are also faster. it also has 1/500 flash sync versus Canon's 1/200. i'm not a brand zeolot but am very impressed with the Nikon D70 in virtually every area. i thought about getting a 10d but would have to spend more money and also there is no Canon equivalent 18-70 zoom lens like the one that comes bundled with the Nikon; i would have had to spend a lot more for a Canon zoom lens and then it wouldn't have even gone to 70mm.

here is a shot taken with the D70, shot in .jpg mode. this is directly out of the camera taken with the nice 18-70 kit lens, with no post processing other than resizing/sharpening for the web. i probably didn't do a very good job in the sharpening of the image, but i can tell you that it looks very good and crisp.

[bobtrips]

"In terms of the picture quality, not quite there because they generally tend to come out soft & require post-processing. From what I have seen most pictures from various types of cameras just don't have that sharpness & vivid color that you would expect. At least not consistently, it seems that the constellations must align for the right shot!"

You need to realize that the images that are produced by an advanced digital intentionally "come out soft & require post-processing". The cameras are designed that way in order to give the photographer maximum latitude in how he/she best realizes his/her 'vision'. Consumer digital cameras produce more 'finished' images.



"I have seen a pro photographer take pictures with a Mimaya cam with Velvia film that are just stunning. The same shots taken with a 10d just didn't have that same spunk!!!"

You also should realize that a Velvia image is a 'not real' image. What comes out of the camera is more saturated, more contrasty, more punchy than what went in the front of the lens.

If that's a look you like then you have a choice. You can shoot Velvia or you can run the sliders to the right with your digital captures or scans.

[gillettecraig]

What should be driving your choice is the type of photography you want to do. Briefly, between the two dslrs, I'd suggest which ever "feels" best to you. Unless you have a legacy of existing gear for one "system" or the other. Both are very good and both will require some added chunks of money to be spent for flash, lenses, memory, etc. Now you will also likely need to spend a good chunk of that non-lens expenditure if you go with a high end digicam as well.

While the IS may reduce some of the need for higher iso's, if you are going to need to do a lot of high iso (low light) work, or, high throughput sports/action type shooting, the dslrs tend to be a lot more useful in those areas. They have more useful high iso's and the viewfinders and repeat shot functions are more suited to action shooting - the D70 I believe somewhat more so than the 300D. Also, if you anticipate needing lens focal lengths outside of those on the A2, even with wide/tele adapters, the dslrs would be the way to go. If you have to set a high priority on budgets, then the digicams may be a better choice.