Canon-ization

To ease my agony over which DSLR to buy, I created some criteria. These are price, image quality, speed, weatherproofing, image stabilization, cost of accessories and low light sensitivity.
These parameters have finally allowed me to clearly distinguish where the Nikon, Canon and Sony candidates stand.

From the start, I am resigned that I cannot buy yet a full frame DSLR. On the other end, I don't want to settle for a point and shoot, even if it is the best point and shoot in the world. I feel I need to move on from the compact cameras into the DSLR categories.

From Nikon line, I am considering D300, D200, D60 and D80. D300 is the 2007 Camera of the Year after some rigorous laboratory tests by Popular Photography. This is definitely a nice camera, which has also an extremely nice price of about $2,000 including the stabilized lens (called VR or vibration reduction). As such, D300 is virtually beyond my wallet, but I'll dream for a while. D200, though old still packs a competitive set of very good features. D60 is the newest entry level DSLR from Nikon but I haven't read any significantly positive review about it. This makes me consider D80, another old Nikon, but perhaps the closest to my budget.

From the Canon camp, I am looking at 40D and XSi/450D. 40D comes closest to Nikon's D300 in terms of features and performance based from laboratory tests. It is much cheaper though at $1,499. XSi is more like a close little twin of 40D rather than a big brother of its predecessor, the Rebel XTi. The Rebel XSi (called 450D in Europe and also in Asia, I guess) is the newest release this April. It has live view, IS lens kit (image-stabilized), higher resolution (12 MP, which is even higher than 40D), improved LCD, etc. From its heart and soul though, XSi is still an entry level DSLR and the semi-pro 40D still stands taller overall.

I am eyeing A350 and A700 from the Sony set. A700 has a semi-pro features and it was conceived to battle against Nikon D300 and Canon 40D. Sony falls short this time. In 2006, Sony A100 (Camera of the Year, Popular Photography) was able to momentarily knockdown the camera giants Nikon and Canon when it pioneered the in-camera image stabilization in its class. This time, A700 hardly created a buzz. Nikon and Canon were obviously decisive to flex muscles and show the world who's king when they both fortified heavily the D300 and 40D models and separate themselves from the new challengers (Sony, Pentax, Samsung). Sony A350 is the entry level little brother of A700 but A350 has a more glamorous feature set than A700. Perhaps the only advantages of A700 over A350 are build and speed. A350 has a new flipping LCD which can be useful for overhead and below the waist shot. It has also the best live view so far, even better than any Nikon and Canon. Both Sony A700 and A350 have built-in image stabilization which works with any lens. For a photographer who wants to get specialized wide and telephoto zoom lenses, the additional purchases wouldn't be as prohibitive. Nikon and Canon lenses, though available in more models, can be extremely expensive, even costlier than the camera itself.

I will not go into details here about what I found out about camera engineering and laboratory analysis. For now, this is how I rank the Nikon, Canon and Sony candidates.

Price
First: Sony A350 in a wide margin. Even Sony A700 is still cheaper than Canon 40D.
Second: Canon Rebel XSi, 40D.

The older Nikon models may have dropped in price already but then again, they are old. Both Canon and Sony models above are recent releases. Also, In about 2 years, Canon and Sony entry level DSLRs have slipped by almost half the introductory price. You'll be lucky if Nikon slides the price down of their $1,000-plus models by $300. That's as rare and as long as a solar eclipse.

Image quality
First: Nikon D300
Second: Canon 40D
Either Nikon D200 or D80 can take second place to Canon 40D should I knock off Nikon D300 by my reality wallet.

Speed
First: Nikon
Second: Canon

That is, generally Sony comes third when class-by-class models are compared. There is an inherent shooting and processing speed advantage in the camera engineering of Nikon and Canon. The speed is basically hinged on the CMOS versus CCD argument.

Image Stabilization
First: Sony
Second: Canon or Nikon

I am not sure about the extensive merits of in-camera stabilization (Sony) and lens stabilization (Canon and Nikon) to image quality. What is obvious is that Sony makes DSLR significantly cheaper because of in-camera stabilization. From what I have browsed so far about the physics of light and lens, I think it is wiser to put the image stabilization in the sensor, just as Sony does. I have been getting consistent complaints from camera analysts from various websites against the in-lens stabilization primarily due to the cost factor. The image quality from Nikon and Canon may still be superior but their system's overall excellent performance may be concealing the weakness of lens image stabilization. The lens itself has several moving glasses already and adding image stabilization into it can make it more delicate and complicated. My practical guess is this: both Canon and Nikon are protecting the interests of their bigger, older customer base. Canon and Nikon have several high-end cameras that do not have in-camera image stabilization. To allow their clients to experience image-stabilized shooting by not discarding or replacing their older, expensive cameras, the image-stabilized lens is offered. I suspect though that after some time, Canon and Nikon may shift to in-camera image stabilization and cease to develop image stabilized lens to be able to produce newer, affordable models.

Cost of accessories
First: Sony, definitely
Second: Canon

Just consider the additional lens and Sony blows up the competition. There are other accessories like flash, spare battery, camera bag, tripod or monopod, lights, etc. that an enthusiast may need to buy. In this regard, Nikon and Canon can definitely turn off consumers.

Low-light shooting capability
First: Nikon D300
Second: Canon 40D

This is one aspect of image quality but I am separating this as another criteria because noise is a serious concern. Nikon has made significant strides in this feature already.

Weatherproofing
First: Nikon
Second: Canon

This is one reason why Nikon has a very high resale value. Its build prevents its price from dropping so fast in spite of aging.

This was originally a minor concern for me but the more I read about DSLRs, the more I appreciate its importance. Dust is perhaps the top enemy of DSLRs. Moist and temperature are just secondary problems, I think.

Film cameras can easily replace a damaged film but a dusty sensor in DSLR is like damaging the heart of the equipment itself. To some extent, sensors can be cleaned or sealing can be repaired but generally, experts say better buy a new camera when the anti-dust removal system of your DSLR can't sweep the invading particulates. How serious can that be?

I intend to use the camera in the Philippines where there is significantly more dust than here. So, if I can only afford a camera with an average sealing (body and lens), I wouldn't buy at all. I don't want to turn my savings into dust, so to speak.



Overall, Canon 40D comes out on top based from the criteria above. I would be happy though if Canon comes up soon with 50D which improves the live view, low-light shooting capability and resolution of 40D.

When can this possibly happen? No one can tell for sure but with the DSLR competition heating up, Canon may want to establish its supremacy in such a dominating fashion. Historically, Canon produces newer models in about one and a half year. From this, it implies that we'll have to wait for one year more from now before we can see the successor of 40D (released Aug 2007).

Can I wait for Canon 50D?

I am not really sure given my heightening excitement to shoot with my first DSLR and document my US adventure. On the other hand, I remember canonization takes time. And miracles.

...
040808
#