D-SLR question

[achiro]

I have been looking at the Canon 20D for a while. Had pretty much decided on it but have a buddy that wants to sell me his Nikon D100 with two ok lenses for $800. The Canon is an 8.2 mp with a 5 fps up to 23 frames.
The Nikon is just a 6.1 mp with a 3.06 fps single channel and a 5.09 dual channel.
First I am not sure what the single and dual channel modes mean?
The main reason I was looking at the cannon was the decent fps rate and I've seen some great action shots(waterfowl and retreivers) taken with the canon. My plans are mainly for taking outdoor and wildlife pics(including my kids).

Anyway, for the that price for a very little used nikon would it be worth the "back-up" in technology? Is there that much difference?

[Boomer.....]

I would ask sky"the camera king"cat. He knows all that has to do with cameras.

[skycat]

First of all, either way you would have a quite capable camera.
Okay, a couple of questions.

Have you used SLRs before (either film or digital)?

Do you know what lenses would come with that D100? Depending on what they are, that might be a fantastic deal.

You might think about what kinds of accessories and lenses you might want down the road because when you buy a dSLR you're buying into a system.

Anyway, I wouldn't be too worried about the megapixel difference. I shoot with a 6 MPixel camera (Nikon D70s), and have printed up to 12x18 with acceptable results, and get 11x14s that are excellent.

Either camera will have it's own particular advantages and disadvantages. One thing I would do is pick them up and use them. I feel like the Nikon bodies are far easier to use. I like their control placements, and the access you have to important functions without having to go into menus on the rear display.

You might also take a look at the new offerings from Canon (Rebel XTi) and Nikon (D80). Both would be more than the used Nikon, but less than the 20D. I think they're both 3fps cameras, but I'm guessing that would be fast enough for now. They both are very nice cameras. The Nikon is ~$100+ more but I'd give it the nod. I hate the Rebel bodies (too small, and it's too hard to get at all the functions I want to get to), and if you're buying a "kit" that comes with a lens, the Nikon keit lens is far superior to the Cannon kit lens.

Long story short, if I was buying new right now I'd be awful tempted by the D80 if I liked Nikon. If I wanted Canon, I would probably step up to the 20D or 30D (did I mention I can't stand the Rebel series ergonomics?).

If this is your first SLR the Nikon D50 or Rebel XT might not be a bad choice. They are a little more user friendly for more inexperienced users, and both are capable of producing excellent images. Plus they're both real cheap right now after the introducions of the D80 and XTi.

However, if you can get a gently used D100 with two lenses for $800, and those are lenses that you would actually use, that could very well be too good a deal to pass up.

Also, a very good place to find digital camera reviews is www.dpreview.com

Hopefully, I didn't add too much confusion, but sadly, it's impossible to say "Camera X is the best camera."

[skycat]

I would ask sky"the camera king"cat. He knows all that has to do with cameras.

I wish. ;)

[achiro]

I've been using the dpreview site a lot in my research. My hesitation is the slower fps rate(unless the dual channel thing is usable at 5 fps on the nikon)
Like I said, I will be taking shots of waterfowl in flight and dogs running and swimming so I am thinking that the more fps the better my odds at getting "the" shot I want. Also the 9 point auto focus, quiet use, and instant on of the canon interests me.

[skycat]

What lens are you planning to shoot waterfowl with? That is almost assuredly going to be your limiting factor unless you're willing to shell out some fairly big bucks.

You're right though, 5fps would be useful for birds in flight. I find that 3fps is enough for my running dogs, and I think it will be for you too unless you're at an agility show or something.

I don't care for the arrangement of the autofocus sensors in the Canon, although the module itself does a good job at focus tracking. I like the arrangement in the D80/D200 better. But the D80 doesn't have the fps you want, and the D200 is going to add another few hundred dollars. The D80 and D200 also have a much larger and brighter viewfinder than the D100 and the Canons.

Sorry, I don't know anything about the dual channel otuput of the D100. You might look here : http://www.bythom.com/D100.htm. Looking quickly, it doesn't even mention a dual channel mode on the D100. And it also states that he was only able to achieve 2 fps in a practical test. hmmmmm.

All of the Nikons I've used or handled (D50, D70, D200) have been instant on, so I don't think that's an issue.

If your friend will let you, I'd try the D100 to see if the speed will be acceptable. If you feel like you need 5fps, than the Canon is probably the way to go, unless you feel like stepping up to the D200 (which is the camera I'd have right now if price were no object. But like I said I much prefer the Nikon ergonomics).

Either way, spend a few minutes handling whichever cameras you're thinking about buying. If you're planning on taking pictures of wildlife, you'll need a camera that you can quickly change settings on and feel comfortable with.

[achiro]

OK, so I have the Nikon in my hands right now. The lenses are a Nikon ED AF NIKKOR 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 D and a 19-35 AF? I think the smaller one is a cheapo. BUt it will come with a 256 memory card as well. So do you think $800 is a good deal or not? TYIA

[skycat]

pm sent.

[frankensooner]

Dang, I wondered if it was a good deal, its like I'm sittin here listening to a conversation, and then you realize I am eavesdroping and walk off and I don't get to hear the good stuff! :D

[skycat]

Alright here's my answer...

Just looking up the values at KEH.com (a used photography marketplace), I see the 70-300 going for $200+ depending on condition, and the D100 going for $550+. Nikon doesn't make a 19-35, is the one you're looking at a Tamron? I see Tamrons of that range for the Nikon mount in the $100-$200 range.

So you're getting a decent, but not fantastic deal for this stuff. The 70-300 is an alright lens, and it may well do fine by you. It's probably enough reach for you to start. Optically it does quite well. The question will be whether or not it's fast enough for shooting birds. I'd guess that it will do alright when it's bright out, but you might be wishing for more shutter speed when the sun starts to go down.

I don't know anything about the 19-35, as i'm not even sure which lens it is for sure, but what that tells me is that it's not a lens that would make me say, "Buy it!" Besides, when it comes to kids, I think you'll probably wish you had a lens in that 35-70 range that you'll be missing.

Having said that, $800 for a kit that is perfectly usable isn't that bad. It is a kit that will let you take some waterfowl photos.

It's kind of hard for me to say whether or not you should pull the trigger though. If you go with a new Canon kit that has the 5fps that you want, you'll have some advantages, but you'll spend ~$980+ for a body only, and you'll spend at least $560 for a comparible lens to the Nikon that you're looking at. To get a faster lens you'll be spending $1500++++.

I don't how helpful that is, let me know if you have any more questions.

[BajaOklahoma]

Canon.
Look at Beach Camera online. They beat everyone on my Digital Rebel.
And I find it as comfortable as my 35mm Rebel. :)