Canon EOS 300D Vs Nikon D70

[Fathoms Down]

Isn't it just the way of things... I'd been thinking about getting a 300D with the new eTTL Ike housing and then someone come along and says "Have you thought about the D70? Its a slightly better camera.". Gits.

Its true, the D70 does have a slightly better image quality out of the water, a faster start up and response time and more up to date features such as USB 2.0 but the 300D does seem to have a better in water pedigree and the eTTL option on the Ike housing.

So, I know this could be quite an emotive question, but which one would people say are better for underwater photography?

[JohnK]

Oh dear - now you will have started a major flame session.

To be honest its about brand loyalty at the end of the day. The Nikon mob will state that the lenses are sharper/better (more expensive) The Canon mob will say the same (but lenses cheaper)

If you already have Nik glass then stay with nik - seems daft to change everything.

I got the 300D cos it was cheapest at the time and well enough for my UW exploits. Also got the Ike housing /DS125/EV controller and will probably upgrade to ETTL when the retro is available.

If you are at Stoney tomorrow, come see the kit. If you are a serious topside photographer then you might go for the Nik. For the occasional topside (and more frequent UW) the Canon suits my needs greatly. You can now even get them in Tekky black (for £100 more !!!!!)

If you want any info on the 300D/Ike setup, pm me - I can give first hand feedback

Finally - remember that its Photoshop that really makes the difference !!!

[Fathoms Down]

Originally Posted by kirky

Oh dear - now you will have started a major flame session.

Thats what I rather suspected.

Originally Posted by kirky

To be honest its about brand loyalty at the end of the day. The Nikon mob will state that the lenses are sharper/better (more expensive) The Canon mob will say the same (but lenses cheaper)

If you already have Nik glass then stay with nik - seems daft to change everything.

Hmm, I had heard that the Canon lens with the 300D was designed to work better with the limitations of the CCD than normal SLR lenses but I may be mistaken. I'm looking to move from the compact side of the market so I don't have any existing lenses.

Thanks for the overview (and I may get in touch)... I guess it boils down to whether the eTTL on the 300D Ike housing makes all the difference....

[JohnK]

From a lens/port perspective only the EFS 18-55 is catered for from a port perspective. This lens is made for the Canon CCD. Most folk still have to use the EF 50/100/15`s for standard work (and ports are standard for these). The CCD gives some lens benefit at the long end (crop factor @ 1.6) but you lose this at the WA end. If you want full frame CCD then your gonna spend thousands

[Tim Ingmire]

D70 every time!

EOS has a better UW pedigree because it was available earlier and so were the housings.

TBH there is not a lot between them. The D70 is more configurable as, for some reason, Canon fixes a number of things (eg exposure mode) depending on the shooting mode you choose - Nikon don't do this. Does it make much difference? I not so sure.

Check out www.dpreview.com for a comprehensive review of both and then checkout www.digitaldiver.net and www.wetpixel.com where a number of people have asked the same questions.

if you like macro, there is no better lens than the Nikon 60mm micro lens.

If you decide you must have TTL then have you thought about the Fuji S2pro. a more expensive setup but a very capable camera that uses nikon lenses.

[TX101]

Well, assuming you don't currently own any lenses, I'd go with the cheapest camera/housing combination.

I personally prefer Canon - having owned Canon cameras for the last 6-7 years. I used to participate in the internet flame wars, but mostly keep out of it since the introduction of digital SLR's because people who own only digital SLR's seem to often lose sight of what they are arguing about and just quote specs to each other.

Canon are generally regarded as having overall the best lens system (just look at any sporting event). The reason a lot of news photographers were shooting Nikon was because in 1989, Canon moved from a mechanical (FD) mount to a fully electronic (EOS) mount, making all the old lenses obsolete. Newspapers didnt want to buy all new cameras, so they stuck with Nikon and sold their Canon equipment.

I think Nikon seems to be falling behind with digital camera development - but thats just my personal opinion. I'd also say if you want to get a Canon, spend an extra few hundred and get the 20D as the housing is going to be the same price and you buy a little more future proofing.

I wouldn't worry so much about the new ttl system as once you work out how flash works, you can do it manually - especially since it's digital and you can preview the shots. It's a good feature, but thats about it..

All this is personal opinion.. but keep in mind that I'm no brand (or even format) snob, owning cameras from Canon, Minolta, Mamiya and Linhof.

[BJ]

I'm told sports photographers have gone over from Nikon digital to Canon en masse but that's for the full-frame CMOS. That said, if you feel like risking more than 5000 GBP in the water you're a braver man than I.

[JohnK]

Amen to that !!!!!

[Fathoms Down]

Well, I got to play with a few of the cameras yesterday as I was out shopping for my nephews birthday and popped into a few shops. And here are my findings:

Canon 300D - This may sound horrible but the first thing I looked for when I picked this camera up was the Fisher Price logo... its very plasticy. The poor build quality was a pitty as the camera is pretty good otherwise and the quality of the photos were very good on the whole even though the colour balance was a bit warm.

Nikon D70 - Wow, its true what they say about the quality of the Nikon lenses! (insert flame war here ). A nice camera, good picture quality and nice build quality. As a bonus I hear Ike are doing a TTL upgrade for the D70 housings soon.

Canon 20D - The daddy of the three even though the lens quality didn't seem up the the Nikon's. A lovely camera but the rotary dial on the back was a PITA to use and I had visions of lining up a shot only to find that the subject had swum off! Also, although the image quality is stunning I really don't think I have the guts to take a camera that expensive under the water with me yet and I really don't think I'm a good enough photographer to do many of its features justice.

So, those are my findings; your milage may vary Thanks to everyone who offered advice and the greens are incomming. Next stop, Dive 2004 and a bit of shameless haggling and, perhaps, a bit of shameless begging. If anyone wants to join in and see if we can get a bit of a deal then let me know and I'll pack the Nargile.

[TX101]

Originally Posted by Nick Bown

Well, I got to play with a few of the cameras yesterday as I was out shopping for my nephews birthday and popped into a few shops. And here are my findings:

Canon 300D - This may sound horrible but the first thing I looked for when I picked this camera up was the Fisher Price logo... its very plasticy. The poor build quality was a pitty as the camera is pretty good otherwise and the quality of the photos were very good on the whole even though the colour balance was a bit warm.

Nikon D70 - Wow, its true what they say about the quality of the Nikon lenses! (insert flame war here ). A nice camera, good picture quality and nice build quality. As a bonus I hear Ike are doing a TTL upgrade for the D70 housings soon.

Canon 20D - The daddy of the three even though the lens quality didn't seem up the the Nikon's. A lovely camera but the rotary dial on the back was a PITA to use and I had visions of lining up a shot only to find that the subject had swum off! Also, although the image quality is stunning I really don't think I have the guts to take a camera that expensive under the water with me yet and I really don't think I'm a good enough photographer to do many of its features justice.

So, those are my findings; your milage may vary Thanks to everyone who offered advice and the greens are incomming. Next stop, Dive 2004 and a bit of shameless haggling and, perhaps, a bit of shameless begging. If anyone wants to join in and see if we can get a bit of a deal then let me know and I'll pack the Nargile.

Never picked up any of the cameras, but I've heard that about the 300D from quite a few sources. As far as the kit lens goes for the cameras, I believe it adds around £50 to the price of the camera - so in essence you get what you pay for. If you buy the Canon, I'll bring along my 70-200/2.8 one day and you can hang a real lens off it (I think it's still worth (new) more than the 20D)