when I was researching such things, it seemed like the Nikon D 70 was
superior to the Canon in every way, for not too much more money. If I was
going to buy one I would go with the Nikon. It seems like the Canon gets
talked about a lot more, maybe because it's the cheapest of the options at
the moment.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Aussie *ist D Prices
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:35:57 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trevor Bailey wrote:
> If I wanted to lay down the cash, I want a Pentax, But price is telling
> me 300D Canon. As to the 10D, have never seen one in the flesh.
Trevor,
Price once told you to buy the MZ-60; was that a good decision? How
much money did you lose on it so as to upgrade to a more functional
camera? Add the fact that you already have a few Pentax lenses and see
the big equation, not just the initial outlay.
My feeling is that the 300D is a money-pinching instrument on behalf
of Canon, a brutally downsized <fill in the right Canon model>. I hope
that Graywolf was right in his comments the other day that the Baby-D
will not be the same thing, though my motive for that is all to do
with brand allegiance rather than any impending personal choice.
Kostas (I think the main question is "do I want to go digital" and
thus still think that my next camera will be an -S, not a -D).
