CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

D100 vs Canon 10 D etc


Well-Known Member
I am currently trying to decide between the Canon 10D (which is a very effective tool....despite anything anyone says....other wise it wouldnt be getting the wonderful rave reviews it is getting) And whatever Nikon comes up with between now and April (the time frame I will be buying a camera)

I have always just perferd the Nikon feel and ergonomics (used 8008s in the past, and have a Nikon 5700 now) Just bought a Canon Powershot S50 recently for pocket camera (so I dont have to lug my kit around) and I am actually quite impressed with the metering and quality of the DIGIC processor.

Has anyone used the D10 and the 100D that can give me some useful (no flames) information that you would consider strong points of both cameras...and lacking points as well?

Any one who is unbiased knows these two cameras are both very cometent photographic tools...Im looking for real world info.



Well-Known Member
"What I wanted to say is that with all those electronic ghizmos they have to come up, because "the market" wants them they forget that there are still some weirdos who prefer a nice mechanical camera."

Um...Wink....I'll take manual mode for $100.00!

Am I mistaken or does all these cameras with all the wizzbang technology still have manual modes to them?

If so....then the problem wouldnt be that Manual controls dont exist....but that people with all the extra the controls cant resist using them.

Its like driving a car....if you dont like radios...but all cars come with radios.....just turn the sucker off.

Hee hee hee!

Oh...I dont want to have to pay for such things....but the options ARE there to use the cameras as you wish.



Well-Known Member
I guess everybody is too embedded in their Nikon experience and wondering if manual cameras are still for sale to answer a true *Why Nikon at all" question. (scroll up about 17 posts to see a question that actually relates to the topic of the room)

Maybe thats a reason to NOT buy a Nikon....the user community. Are you all really that uncaring about somone wanting to enter the Nikon experience?

Peace to you all and your quest for manual cameras.



Well-Known Member you think that me asking why I should go with a Nikon D100 vs a canon 10D as trolling?!?.....

Way to make a serious person asking a serious question in the right forum welcome.

Your a WONDERFUL Nikon ambassador.(sic)

I know that somone out there must have some decency that uses a Nikon...somone who gives a damn about their user community.

Any one?



New Member
> Dear Roman

Maybe we care but don't really know the answer.

I have a friend that has the Nikon and absolutely loves it. I have another friend with the canon and says she loves it. Perhaps you could specify what you are planning to use it for and people could respond whether it would meet your needs.



Active Member
You know, this dumb-ass bickering is getting old. As I said 8 months ago - why Nikon? my case, it was primarily ergonomics; the F and F2 25+ years ago just felt better in my hands and were easier to handle for me. As I told shoppers in the camera store I managed back then, the reality is if you stick with a quality brand (today that would be Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Leica, and Pentax) then for the vast majority of users, the offerings at a given price range are equivalent insofar as durability and flexibility are concerned.

Few photographers end up buying the exotic ultra-long or ultra-wide lenses that are offered by Nikon and Canon, but if you're going to do shooting that requires 1200mm or 8mm lenses then Canon and Nikon are pretty much the selections left (Sigma etc. notwithstanding).

That said, why pick one over the other? Well, if it's status you're after, then stop reading here - let me not cloud your vision with factors that won't mean anything to the drooling onlookers envious of your cool gear. If your plan is to go out and take pictures, make photographic art or do anything in between, then the ONLY way for you to really decide is to go to a store and hold both cameras in your grubby little hands and focus and snap and see which feels better to you.

All the spec sheet minutia in the world mean nothing if you select a camera because it's purportedly 1/100th more accurate in exposure but it is difficult for you to focus with or hold comfortably. If camera A's weighting is not balanced in your grip and camera B's is balanced, then the reality is that you will be more likely to get off your ass and pick up camera B and go and take pictures more often then you would with camera A, even if A will get you more ogles in the local Starbucks.

No doubt we all have favorites, even within a given brand - I thought the Nikkormat Ftn was a stupidly designed camera even while I liked the F and later, F2 better than anything else on the market (and I had access to everything out there). Does that make it a bad camera? Of course not, just not one I would ever buy because I WOULDN'T USE IT! Plenty of pro's used it (perhaps still to this day) - it is by all accounts a great camera - just not right for me.

And for me to impose my likes and dislikes on anyone else is the height of arrogance - perhaps you would have just loved the Nikkormat. But my point is that I would have explained all that to you back when and end up selling you the Nikkokrmat even though I wouldn't take one for free.

So again, the point is - do not make decisions based on what anyone on this list says - go and have a look (and feel). Nikon, Canon and the others have all made fabulous cameras as well as complete lemons. For ex&le, I can't stand Nikon's N55, and barely tolerate the N65, but that's me - they are fine cameras in their own right and anyone who owns them can take better photos that I if they have the talent.

So to you, Roman - go to a store and actually check out these models. Both get high grades - and both have their faults (and for that matter you could check out the Fuji S2 as it's based on a Nikon body, so you can confuse yourself further if you wish). Because all the specifications in the world don't mean squat if you don't enjoy the experience of picking the thing up, looking through the viewfinder to compose a shot, and clicking the shutter.

Now, on another topic, I so often see the "type your text here!" note as a submission that I stand by my comment of months ago - this is a poorly designed formum mechanism; it's obvious that burying the response instructions in the middle of a long e-mail message is a good way of hiding same from the casual reader.

rant mode off.



Well-Known Member
Thanks Larry and Bob for your answer.

Bob...when somone askes your opinion....then your not "imposing your feelings" on another if I wernt asking...and you answerd anyway....then you would be doing that.
happy.gif no worries.

I was just hoping to actualy hear the honest pitfalls of each if somone has handled both. (the its better to learn from somones mistakes....than make your own ...if at all possable)

Sorry for the comments earlier...just trying to shake the trees for some sensible answers.....or even ANY answers.

I'm just a serious amature hoping to spend my (little over a grand) wisely and hopefully witout any regrets.

My shooting interests are widely varied with a tighter focus on Nature(including macro)and Landscape photography.



Well-Known Member

I just purchased an F100 for my wife as she held it and stated that she liked it. She has been using Nikon for several years and has made some fine photographs and I hope this will aid her. I have read many articles mostly very favorable of the F100. I believe it has the capabilities that would satisfy most shooters.

I also believe there are a lot of good cameras on the market now, so I would consider what you want to do, perhaps what you would like to do in the future and consider if the system you choose can support your needs. As an ex&le I recently purchased a Contax G2, but it will not accommodate large lens for bird photography. By the way Nikon is currently offering a $200.00 rebate for the F100

Good Luck



Well-Known Member

Perhaps the best way to shop is to define your needs, set your priorities without regard to brand, then shop for the combination of body, lenses and accessories that best fits that need within your budget.

Then - as I said in the previous message - get hands on in a camera store.

Do the controls seem confusing or awkward? Is viewing clear and bright? Does the camera body fit your hands, feel balanced and handle well at low shutter speeds?

What level of automation do you want? If you plan to use the camera on full automatic, you might be happier with a high-end point and shoot than a low end SLR, though P&S does not do macro. My "normal" lens for the F3 is the superb 55mm MicroNikkor which is great for both normal lens photography and macro. The current version is a 60mm lens, also highly reputed.

Do you really need an SLR? Have you considered a rangefinder camera, now that they are proliferating again? Compact, quiet, easy and precise focusing in low light. Very unaggressive for people photography - far superior to SLRs in this aspect. For landscape photography, Voigtlander has 12mm, 15mm and 21mm superwides that actual mortals can afford.

Have you considered digital over film? You can shoot freely without even thinking of film and processing costs. I have owned two Nikon Coolpix cameras and both paid me back in a few months considering the number of shots I took and what it would have cost with film. I love the fact that I can instantly review my settings and make adjustments to get the highest possible quality, right on the spot.

My Nikon digital is legendary for macro photography, and I love it for landscapes.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is also a superb camera at night.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For me, the upside is that I get complete control of the whole image-making process concept, exposure, processing and presentation. My run of the mill prints are the equal of the best of my professional portfolio shots, but then I do know image processing quite well. With digital, I hit it first time ever time, while the portfolio prints took days and consumed a box of paper and the chemistry to process them. I print my five megapixel images up to 13" x 19" - 239mm x 483mm.

However, for many, this is also the downside. If you want to just drop off you film at the one hour lab and let the operator and big machine do your interpretation for you, this becomes a lot less handy with digital, though more and more processors also do digital snapshots now.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As per learning from mistakes, no, I really have not. Money for equipment has always been carefully budgeted, and no equipment is bought until the needs are clearly defined. Once defined, then it has been a matter of looking for the best specific solution within the budget. I have never purchased equipment on a whim. Though I have bought a lot of cameras over the years, none has been a disappointment.

While I have had excellent service from Nikons over many decades and can highly recommend them, it is well worth thinking outside of the box befor buying. If you keep coming back to a Nikon SLR after checking out each other alternative, then you can go ahead and buy with confidence. It is well worth the time and effort.



Well-Known Member
Larry, thanks again. I have narowed it down to Digital....(if you look at my earlier posts...I have narrowed it down to Canon 10D and Nikon D100 or the D70 when it comes out will warrant a look as well)

I curently own a nikon 5700 (close to your 5000 but with a gangly but useful mega zoom) and just purchased a Canon Powershot S50 for keeping on my person all the time (hate missing a shot due to no camera on pocket) Both of these cameras will be staying in my arsenal as I like them both for varying reasons.

The 5700 while doing wonderfully with most still subjects is just a little tough to use on faster moving subject (not impossable...just a challenge) and with the ability to change lenses and get brighter glass and also higher ISO levels (with reasonable noise levels), I think that it will expand my photography to include wildlife....the occational weddings my friends wish for me to shoot and the like.

So in effect....I want a camera that is best for me in my Nature/Landscape/Macro (which a DSLR will probably be best as you can "basicly" change i's personality with a change of lens. (yes, I know the body is still the body).

One of the biggest points I have been looking at is durability ( still works) not that I abuse my equipment....but nice to know the frame would be up to it if I did.

The other one I seem to be edging toward Nikon is due to a spot meter. There are times it is invaluable...and center weighted or averaged metering just dosnt cut the mustard. I use it on both of my current cameras on a regular basis.

Menus...I can learn.....handling...while important.....isnt as important as the end shoot with a shoe box if the result was wonderful (taking into account equal talent on the other side of the lens.)

I have found your information very valuable.




Well-Known Member

Picked up the thread a just now, so missed that you are already digital. With that understanding, I suggest you continue to wait eagerly for slightly more than a month. PMA comes up in early February, and I expect that around that time the successor to the D100 and possibly the 10D will be announced.

The D100 is coming up on the two year mark and certainly due. Then there is the already announced D70. The Canon has only been on the market a year, but that was the shelf-life of the predecessor - the D60. The much more expensive flagship D2X should also appear about that time, and while it will be out of the reach of many of us, it will give a clear indication where Nikon - and the whole technology - is going. A preview, if you will, of what we WILL be able to afford in a couple of years when it trickles down.

Canon is being very aggressive in wanting to dominate the market. They have already stated that they plan 20 new consumer/prosumer models in 2004, with Sony being the prime target. The others need to keep up as well, so I expect PMA time to be extremely interesting.

There are also rumours of an upcoming price war that will see a lot of camera selling for considerably less money than now, if it materializes.

Digital camera sales have jumped from around 25 million units in 2002 to something between 40 and 44 million this year once the score is counted. It is no longer a fringe item, but a major profit centre for not only the old line camera makers, but for consumer electronics, PC companies, film companies and even office machine companies. In time there will be a shake-out, but the next few years may be quite bloody.

And it will be our gain.



New Member
after 30 years of film i picked up a d100 this year .......... my main use for it is for the local paper ....... sports.......etc........ i gotta say i'm very pleased with it ......... it has improved the look of the finish product........ higher percentage of quality shots....... and my lense fit it.......... life is good.........

do enjoy the ride...........

i am gazer


Well-Known Member
Yep....somthing tells me that the D70 might be a bit more than expected....(just a hunch...based on the market exploding)I am assuming that Nikon didnt just whip this up as a response to the 300D, but have been developing this all along..and wasnt going to be pushed (well at least too much) into the market with that design till its really ready....(this spring). I too agree that the future of digital imaging is heating up nicely from a consumer point of view.



New Member
My research involves photo identification of White Sharks, and up to two years ago, I used a film camera and a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED... Two years ago, Nikon introduced the Coolpix 5000, and I decided that the necessary resolution threshold was attained at which I could use a digital camera. For me and my work, resolution and response are two extremely important factors. A couple of weeks ago, I was standing in a shop about to buy a D100 with a rare grant that I had just received. I hesitated... and a day later, the D70 details were released, and I was really glad I did not spend that money on two year old technology... Is the D70 the ultimate solution? No, I do not think so... but an upgraded D100 including the D70 features with maybe a 8 megapixel CCD would probably be... but when will the Dx00 be released? Or does Nikon consider the D70 to be the answer to the 300D or the upgrade for the D100... Confusing! Any thoughts on the matter?


Odds are the D70 will be closely matched to the 300D - to offer a competitive Nikon alternative to the consumer without cannibalizing sales from higher end cameras. Slimmed-down feature set, resolution (most people by ONLY on the number of Megapixels w/o looking at sensor size, fps, etc), average 2-3 fps, avg dile transfer buffer/timing etc.

The unfortunate fact is that as bottom-end entries into the DSLR market, either the 70 or the 300D will be worth zippo 12 months from now. They are DSLR versions of the coolpix xxxx designed to take some % of their buyers into higher-end DSLRs from either manufacturer.

If I had the grapefruits to snap pics of GWSharks, waiting for a 70 or 100 to transfer pcis to the card, etc would be a royal PITA. I'd be tempted to get a niced used D1X, D1H or even an F5 (C$1900 MINT in Canada). High FPS, great resoltuion, H20 resistant (in case fishy nips your housing) and parts available globally.

The Nikon vs Canon debate is meaningless. EVERY @#$%^ DSLR has issues.10ds are slower than molasses and have back-focus issues. 1Ds have noise and banding issues. the 1Ds costs as much as your car. Some have issues with anything other than Canon lenses (Sigma compatability issues) -- which costa god awful fortune.

D100s have noise issues, D1s have magenta skin color and noise/banding issues. the S2 is slow (fps), the Fuji sftwrae sucks and it takes RAW pics that need a bloody Cray Supercomputer to manage at 12MB each. N80-based bodies like the D100 and S2 will not meter with Ai/AiS lenses.

The 300D is slow (fps), will have little value in 12 months with 1500 for sale on eBay and little features. The D1H is only 3MB. The D1X has a skinny buffer. The Olympus could or could not be an orphan -- or a raging success - but you take the risk.

You get my drift. Every user has a sweet spot of needs/desires/ergos that are different than any one elses. The toughtest thing is picking any camera that will not piss you off to no end, keeps its value, evolve with you and let you concentrate on taking pics vs fixing photos on expensive production software.

Just My 2 cents


Very Confusing, but the camera's will evolve as quickly as computers. With better computer they make better camera's etc. So, does waiting make sence?? As confinced as i was, i bouth the 5700, after 12years making pictures with my F601 (6006). What a disapointment. Not with picture quality but in handling the camera. Should I buy the D100 or wait for the D70. More buttons, more feature's etc. The digatal camera stands where the analog film camera stood, say 50 years ago. And still evolving. Next year an other will come with better specs. The question you must ask yourself is...what i want to do with the camera. A lot of this subject is discusted in this forum.
The D100 is a wonderfull camera but for most, a lot of money. The 300D en the D70 will be the first camera in a price class for the common people as myself, as where i stood 12 years ago when i want to buy the F601 (F401,F801). It was then confusing and still it is.



Thankyou for your 2 cents worth. At last a sensible concise treatise on the current state of DSLRs. An excellent and valuable posting and IMHO worth much more that just 2 cents.



New Member
Thanks for your response, Robert... But you missed my point! I am well aware of the fast moving digital technology, and I agree that waiting for a newer model as a buying strategy is lost in advance. The FACT remains that the D100 is TWO years old! And I find it outrageous that Nikon has not come up with an upgrade for the D100 while releasing its response to the 300D in the form of the D70 which incorporates NEW technology. On the digital market, two years equals prehistoric times. WHY would anyone buy a D100 when the D70 is available, that was the question? Of course I would go for the D1x, but we are talking about a whole different category of prices. I would prefer buying the D200 (let's call it that for the sake of this argument) than the D70 for the enhanced quality and features, but I REFUSE to buy a camera that is two years old. My three cents worth...



You raise a good point. However, I've concluded you can go two ways when buying a digicam:

1. A non-DSLR or entry-level (skinny features, high MP, slow FPS, etc) for roughly US$1000+ that will be worth (in the market, not to the owner) bupkus as a trade in. It's like buying those lenses that come with most camera kits - they'll do the job, sorta sharp, sorta fast on a sunny day, but they're paperweights when you want to get a 105/1.8 or 80-200VR, etc because they're inexpensive (there are exceptions like the 50/1.8D) and everybody and his dog has 2 of them -- and they all want that 85mm f1.8, etc.

2. A high-end pro DSLR that has all the great features but sacrifies MPs for FPS & pic quality (large sensors w/large receptors) customizability and robustnest -- that will hold its value with much higher upfront costs.

It doesn't mean the entry DSLRs are crap, but as a local camera shop owner stated to me one day, the Canon Rebel DSLR was the brightest thing Canon's done in a long time - and the biggest mistake a new average Joe could make if they wnat to move fwd with the hobby (equipement wise).

It takes great shots, but lenses 2, 3,4 will cost almost as much (each) as the camera was new and the trade-in or resale value of the body will be zippo in 12mos.

Think of it. The (arguably) BEST DSLR out there is the Canon 1Ds -- and it's technology really hasn't evolved since it's first release.

It works, has a full-size sensor, robust and access to good lenses and all it's foibles are known and lots of software is out there for RAW management, etc. The same with the Nikon D1/1H.

While a sweet review is nice for a D2H (just to pick a new costly cam) or what have you, owners are the ones, after 100s of shots, who will be doing the real product testing - at their expensive. No one like spending $$$$ on a possible orphan.

New technology is not always great. In many cases it's released for marketing purposes more than for the actual benefit of the end picture -- hence the great MegaPixel war. "My cam have more MPs than yours does - the pics are 1/2 noise, but hey the average consumer doesn't read detailed reviews, right?"

More tech also translates into more software control of the camera - it's a given. Less expensive cameras will take any control of what the software does, tweaking if you will, away from the user, they have to in order to keep from sucking sales from their next higher model.

More software interprolation means more chances for someone in the software lab to screw up or decide "that's good enough until the next version".

I like the idea of less computer and more camera in any given body, but that's my pref.

Look at the D2H - new sensor has noise issues. The Fuji S2 takes great pics - but having used one for awhile, managing 12MB pics with that !@#$% software, 256-512MB cards and only an average harddrive can be hell. They also have color artifacts on fine lines (e.g. dog hair) at 45 or deg angles (green pixels all over my mutt).

My solution was to bite a BIG bullet and get a USED pro DSLR (D1H) and then start the $$$ vs quality juggling act on lenses.

My logic (possibly screwed) was that someone else ate the depreciation, it will last , is proven and the I'll get a greater % of the higher upfront cost back at trade/sale time.

But hey, different strokes for different folks.