Quality vs Value

[springtide]

All will be revealed in good time.

Michael

Great first article Michael.  Looking forward to articles from the rest from the trip.  

I guess (as a Sony user) we are always hearing about the lack of lenses for the Sony system, some of which are justified but I find most are not.
I guess what would really be of interest..... Out of the gear taken by your clients, what percentage of these used lenses that would not be available in Sony mount?  The clients sound like they had 'big pockets' so many not the best metric as a good represenitive of 'Joe Average A900 Owner' - but would give us some idea.
 

[michael]

Sometimes is just isn't worth the effort of replying to ill-thought-out partisan comments by people that would seemingly prefer to pick a fight that engage in rational discourse.

Michael

[pss]

i think the best thing is that there has never been a time in digital capture when so much quality was available for so little money....it really does not matter which system or camera one goes for, they can all provide amazing results and with the D3, 5DII, A900 and many others the prices have really come down....
just imagine what all the great "old" photographers admired here could have done with all this gear....
the point is not if this is the better value or quality, that is up to each and everyone....i believe michael likes the A900 because he has all the other toys anyway and is jsut happy to see a tool for that price that can provide certain qualities he likes.....and i am sure he has the same feelings about the P65....good for him....

and since this is all very personal i will share a little something here....i reluctantly got a G10 and it is great...don't get me wrong...it really is....but it totaly sucks....i just don't like the shots i take with it...i don't like anything above 400 (if even), i hate flash on p&s, so really it does not work for snapshots for me...unless they are outside....the m8 on the other hand just can't take a bad picture....and its high iso isn't so great either....but it really feels like a camera...the G10 feels like a cellphone cam...and i actually prefer my iphone shots (with all the fun apps (quadcam, camerabag,....)....so in the end there are so many variables, a lot of the time you just can't objectively make a decision...or at least not one that makes sense to other people....

i am actually really excited about the panasonic G1...not yet...because zooms just don't do it for me at all....but that pancake 20/1.7 will be just perfect...great lowlight right there...add in a larger (much larger then G10 and such) sensor and all the easy, "i won't miss a shot" features the m8 just does not have (AF!?) and it comes pretty close to a dream p&s....although i did see that olympus micro 3/4 mock up...silver with leather...retro...hmmm....

if it isn't obvious...yes i am totally into cameras...and i don't know any photographer who isn't....without getting too philosophical....but the camera is an extension of the body and the eye....so it has to feel right...whatever that is for everybody....

i'll head over to DxO now to check the "feel right" ratings...otherwise i just won't know what does.....

[Ray]

Phew! And I thought I was the only person who is seeing this.

The whole point of the new DxOMark website obviously is to attract clueless gearheads, to give them something to rant about, and to create traffic on the DxO web pages. But lo and behold---everybody is loving these pages; they get drawn into them like moths into the light. Just why can't people see how pointless those DxO rankings actually are?



Exactly!

And I am afraid that if people don't stop taking these brain-damaged DxOMark Sensor rankings for gospel then sooner or later we're going to end up with camera manufacturers designing their digital cameras not for best image quality but for best DxO rankings.  

-- Olaf

The problem with such a view you have just expressed is is the lack of evidence to support it. It therefore seems more like a rant, as though you are not happy with some of the DXOMark results because they don't show your favourite camera in a good light.

Now, it's certainly true that what might appear to be large differences on the DXO charts might sometimes susrprisingly not be noticeable on prints of a certain size and in images of a certain type of subject. An obvious example would be Michael's comparison of the Canon G10 and Phase P45+. I raised the question myself in the other thread on this topic, why differences in noise and tonal range were not apparent to experienced photographers when viewing A3+ prints of the same subject, from both these cameras. Such differences in tonal range between the G10 and the A900 (for example) seem quite significant on the DXO charts at the 8"x12" size.

However, such practical examples (as the G10/P45+ comparison) do not necessarily demonstrate the DXO tests are wrong or irrelevant. All scientific results have to be interpreted and their significance evaluated.

We already know that A3+ size is not large enough to show off the resolution differences between the G10 and the P45+. Nothing difficult to understand there. We also know that one can't demonstrate differences in Dynamic Range in a subject that doesn't contain a wide range of brightness levels, at least not with a single, correctly exposed shot. We also know that noise is more readily apparent on smooth surfaces than heavily textured surfaces.

It would now appear to be the case, that one can't necessarily demostrate differences in tonal range if the subject being photographed does not lend itself to such fine distinctions. In the case of the G10/P45+ comparison, the subject was a fairly evenly lit forest of detailed textures (leaves, bark and twigs) which would tend to obscure differences of smoothness of tone.

In order to demonstrate such differences in tonality, it would appear to be necessary to choose a different subject, perhaps a young female model with smooth, blemish-free complexion.

To summarize, I think one should consider the following points when using DXO results as a guide.

(1) Are the results accurate in a comparative sense? If camera A is shown as having a greater DR at ISO 200 than camera B, is there any contrary evidence, for example, that in fact Camera B has a greater DR than camera A at ISO 200 and that DXO has got it wrong?

(2) The fact that performance difference as shown on DXO graphs may not always be apparent on prints of a particular size, may be an indication that the photographed subject is not well-chosen to demonstrate such differences. To demonstrate noise, you need smooth, dark surfaces. To demonstrate DR you need subjects with a high brightness range. To demonstrate resolution differences, you need huge prints, or 100% crops representative of huge prints.

(3) Divergences of lines on a chart might appear to be significant but their significance needs to be translated to real-world shooting. For example, I personally would not be concerned about a difference of just 1/3rd of a stop of DR and/or SNR. 2/3rds of a stop just might get me interested, and a whole stop definitely gets me interested, particularly if it's at ISO 1600, and that's because I frequently find myself in a situation where I need to use ISO 1600 in order to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed for a sharp image.

[ziocan]

I can't put this any nicer, I am sorry if I sound rude. But I can't feel anything but disgust for the author's lack of seeing the larger context in which the value of camera bodies and systems are evaluated. Not everyone just uses a 24-70/2.8 for everything.

yes you are rude and you should be labelled as a troll and sent back to dpreview forum as I was, for being rude.  

I can see your point on Sony  not having any value for you, since they do not have the lenses you need. that is a fact and it is fair enough.

On the other hand if someone uses only primes from 50mm to 135mm, and maybe also 200mm, Sony/Zeiss/Minolta offer something that neither Nikon or Canon can do better. they may be equal (not quite), but definitively not better. Lets put also the 70/200mm on that list....

[ziocan]

We already know that A3+ size is not large enough to show off the resolution differences between the G10 and the P45+. Nothing difficult to understand there.

I made an experiment few weeks ago.
I took a shot of the usual test junk (bottles of good wine, cans of beer, cosmetic packagings, foulards from the wife's closet etc..) that are "normally" used for testing cameras and lenses.  
I used a Sony a900 with a 135mm CZ and on the other a Phase P30 on a Mamiya 645 with a 150mm AF from previous generation, which is slightly inferior to the latest one, but still very good. Both shot at f8 under studio strobes.
Processed with the best possible RAW converter that could extract the most of acuity for each file and sharpened to taste until they looked at their best. Though they were sharpened very, very little.
i printed on an Canon pro9500 on glossy tabloid size paper and showed to one photographer that has never used anything more than a FF dslr and to two Art Directors from down town New York, who normally work with photographers that use DB on hasselblad and mamiya only and are published on Vogue and friends regularly.
The photographer that was not familiar with anything different from a DSLR, could not really tell the difference, well maybe... Instead the two AD, picked the print from the Phase One back on a matter of few seconds without even looking too close. they both actually hold the prints on their hands and extended their harm to view it better. They simply said something on the line of "this print has more crispiness and some how more life  and better nuances than the other one.
That is pretty much what I also saw when the prints popped out from my printer as well. They were very close, colors were pretty similar, yet there was something on one print that the other did not have.
When I look at my photos or someone else does, just for a technical quality assessment, that is the kind of reaction, or "metric" for observation, I like to ear.
Bottom line: some people do see the difference and IMO that is also the people worth to work with.

[VinceB]

This is timely for me - I've been struggling with the Value/Quality issue for several months as I debate the four systems I'm considering.   Part of my issue is the self imposed constraint of being able to carry the system on a motorcycle. This makes film and 4x5 hard but not impossible.  Another constraint is that I've decided I need to give up film - the time in darkroom, scanning, cleaning the scanned images all add up to more hassle that I want to deal with any longer.  I really don't want to deal with film holder while camping from the bike.    For reasons of sanity - I'll be using a 4 wheeled vehicle in the winter when I'm likely to encounter ice/snow.  The jeep has no problem hauling a DSLR system and a 4x5 system, (and a few other odds and ends)

Two of the systems are the Phase One/ P30+ and Phase One/P45+  Obvious benefits in image quality - but $$$$ OUCH.  I've all but given up on this idea unless I go back to software development full time (which leaves too little time for photography).  Even though it would let me shoot with a Mamyia (or my Contax 645AFD) and with my Ebony.  It lacks any sort of useful high ISO or image stabilization for hand held work unless your using flash, which I rarely if ever do at this point.  This type of camera is fine on a tripid for me, but I'm not fond of using them handheld.   It's not weather resistant, and it sucks batteries. It's a bit awkward on a 4x5 what with the sliding back and extra cable.   But GREAT images.     I suspect what I really want, but won't be able to afford is the Leica S2.   It would be make do on lenses for a little while as they add to the currently spec'd 4 lenses.   But since the lenses are being designed for the sensor (or at least a particular size of sensor and I suspect a future target photo site size of around 5microns, the image quality should be really stunning.  (Ok what I really want is the RED 6x17 fitted  to an Ebony 617 camera and an A900 to do hand held shots - but that's just not going to happen with out winning the lottery)
 
Given that I've decided my next printer is going to be a 7900 - 24mp is ok - 30 would be better 40 is maybe overkill (but probably not    )

So I either get the Nikon - sell 3 of my existing lenses and one body and pick up 3-5 new lenses (24-70 f/2.8, 135 f/2.8 DC, 180 f/2.8,(or the 80-200), 300 f/4, and maybe the 85 f/2.8 T/S PC) and keep my 50, 85 and 105 macro.  And maybe add teh 14-24 (which is supposed to be a truly great lens).

Or I get the Alpha and sell all the Nikon gear.   If I get the Alpha I'll get the Zeiss 24-70, 85, and 135 and the Sony 70-300G, and the 100 Macro.  - maybe add the 16-35 (which for me is a better range than the Nikon 14-24)

and - I'm no closer to a decision than I was an hour ago

[Dan Wells]

Hi Vince -
    If it helps at all, I consider my D3x to be more than merely "OK"  at 24x36 inches - the D3x and iPF6100 are producing some stunners together at that size - not only resolution, but dynamic range and lovely tonality as well. The Alpha may do this too - I'm no Alpha expert (there are some on here, and they can speak to their tool as I can speak only to mine). The Alpha samples I have seen at 24x36 inches were no better than OK, but all that I know of their provenance is that they were at ISO 200 and converted from RAW. They were from Sony, so I assume that Sony's own RAW converter was used, which I know is NOT the choice of the Alpha cogniscenti on here (I think Aperture and Capture One are the preferred choices), and I know neither the printer nor the profile used (the paper seemed to be some RC gloss, but I don't know which one) - hardly fair against the D3x with Capture One converting the 14-bit NEFs, working carefully in Photoshop with the PixelGenius sharpening tools and printing to an iPF6100 working on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, profiled with Bill Atkinson's 5202 patch target! All I can say is that the D3x with this workflow CAN and DOES produce stunning 24x36 inch prints, not that anything else cannot - ask an Alpha owner with a good Alpha workflow (I'm sure Michael has a superb one) what they think of their camera at 24x36.
    If you don't want to go bigger than 24x36, you'll be happy with the D3x, so I wouldn't consider the Phase, especially given the bike.


                                                                                                               -Dan

[Ray]

I made an experiment few weeks ago.
I took a shot of the usual test junk (bottles of good wine, cans of beer, cosmetic packagings, foulards from the wife's closet etc..) that are "normally" used for testing cameras and lenses.  
I used a Sony a900 with a 135mm CZ and on the other a Phase P30 on a Mamiya 645 with a 150mm AF from previous generation, which is slightly inferior to the latest one, but still very good. Both shot at f8 under studio strobes.
Processed with the best possible RAW converter that could extract the most of acuity for each file and sharpened to taste until they looked at their best. Though they were sharpened very, very little.

I presume tabloid size is 11x17" or A3, pretty close to Michael's A3+ comparison. Again, I would refer you to the choice of subject. All cameras have differences in performance, to some degree. Whether or not such differences will be noticeable on the print will depend not only on the size of the print, but the nature of the subject material under comparison.

[John B Blackford]

Re: Michael's first Quality vs Value article

Michael’s discussion of value and image quality is fascinating and clearly reasoned, as always. Allow me to add two thoughts: First, it is only true that price determines quality in the upper range of print sizes. Gallery-quality prints up to 12 x 18 are easily achieved using equipment costing less than $2,000, including camera, lens, printer, and Lightroom or Photoshop. Second, users’ goals should be a component of any consideration of image quality.

I observed the rise of personal computers as editor of Computer Shopper magazine, and after years of focusing on quality-performance-value, watched PC technology reach a plateau.
What happened in the PC industry after those fast-paced days has begun in digital imaging: As sensor technology reaches the plateau, performance among many cameras tends to level out.

If you filter out photo-industry spin, the reason the Canon G10 compares well to—let’s say the Canon 5D MkII—is that both employ the same generation of technology and use the identical image-processing engine, DIGIC 4. Yes, the sensor is different, so at higher ISOs, the tiny G10 sensor kicks up a racket. But in important ways, the internals are the same.

To equate quality and price today is to overstate the significance of medium-format backs. As Michael has said, a $3,000 Canon 5D MkII or Sony A900 can surpass yesterday’s medium-format film cameras. Pricing is related to market size. One reason the Phase One P45 back is so expensive is that its sensor-fabrication equipment costs dearly, though not as much as fabs for the G10 and 5D MkII. But unlike them, the potential audience for the P45 in the low thousands. Yield for medium-format sensors is also lower than for smaller ones. Such factors demand premium pricing.

Individual goals are hard to define consistently, yet what each shooter strives for should inform discussions of image quality. Yes, large format was the king of quality, but as Michael aptly said, only at the cost of convenience.

Yesterday, I was lurking along the Delaware River with my new 5D MkII. I shot basically the same perspective I’d captured years ago in a successful photo using my Mamiya 645AFD. The image quality of the two cameras is similar, with advantages to the 5D MkII. Yet, in an hour, I shot dozens more images with the 5D MkII than I could have with the 645AFD—at no cost for film or processing. Just as the 645AFD allowed studio and landscape photographers to capture a nice percentage of the quality of a 4x5, quickly and conveniently, so the 5D MkII improves handling over the 645AFD, without loss in quality.

And because of technology’s plateau, anyone with the price of a Canon XSi, or even an under-$500 used Canon 20D, can produce much of the quality of a 5D MkII, or even a medium-format digital back, in print sizes approaching 12 x 18 inches, at up to ISO 800.

That’s huge, letting the would-be Ansel Adams know that (with suitable dedication) he or she can produce exhibition-quality prints, for peanuts.

To me, the nagging difference between what testing tells us and what our eyes can see is about what we can achieve. Yes, the 5D MkII captures more detail and dynamic range than the 20D, but after post-processing in Lightroom or Photoshop, either can produce a 12 x 18 print worthy of a gallery. Viewed from three feet or so, there’s not much to separate the prints, certainly not enough to diminish their impact.

With today’s technology, Yes You Can!


John Blackford,  February 2009

[Brammers]

I don't see how anyone can argue with the essay.  It's a really simple, practical premise and covers all bases.  Here's a quick summary if I may:

• There is camera equipment available to cover all bases
  
  Everything from a webcam to the Hubble Space Telescope exists if you have the budget.
  
  
• Some people may require specialist equipment
  
  Some people want THE best 35mm camera.  Some people want T/S lenses or 400mm 2.8s.  Some people want p65s.  These people may purchase this kit, but it's gonna cost.
  
  
• Other people have less specialist needs.  Arguably, these people are the majority.  They will be the principal recipiants of some great deals.
  
  For the 'majority' who do not have really specialist needs, there are some cracking deals around.  One of which appears to be an a900 coupled with some Zeiss.

Micheal's essay, and sorry about this...  It doesn't really say anything we didn't already know.  It's just common sense.  What he does so well is to extract the killer point from the mess by drawing attention to something that is so easily overlooked - for a lot of people a lot of the time you don't need to spend very much money to produce great results - results that we'd have only been dreaming about a few years ago.

All the D3x Vs a900 that's going on in this thread...  It's kind of missing the point of the article.

[JohnKoerner]

Let's be honest - as we progress through the years, there *always* will be something better - always. Unless you're wealthy enough to constantly upgrade, at some point you have to be willing to hop off the train and be comfortable with what you've got. I may only be using cruddy old 12mp D2X and D300's now, certainly not anything as exciting as the 24mp class bodies, but you know what? - I'm producing 16x20" prints - the largest size I commonly print - that are superior to anything I ever did with 35mm and easily in the same league of prints I produced from 6x6 negs/chromes from back in the old days. I'll certainly upgrade at some point, but at my own pace. I put the money into the best lenses first (and some of them Sony, for example, has absolutely no counterpart in their system, thus severely limiting them as a choice should I have wanted to switch brands anyway)

This is so true (and so overlooked) ... at some point a person has to just get something and enjoy what he has. Whether next year some other manufacturer comes out with a camera back that's a hair better here, or a hair better there, means nothing. It doesn't matter what back you buy, this will happen, so therefore what the intelligent person does is just make a purchase decision on what's available to him at the moment, that will best fit his needs, and try to get it for the best overall value. And then be happy.

In fact, before Michael's "Quality vs.Value" article came out at all, I myself posted this very idea on the "D3x Offers the Best Image Quality" thread on the Camera Back forum ... quality versus value. I asked the question, is the D3x really worth 3x the 5DMkII? Does it have the same value? To me, no, but to someone else maybe so.

But hell, for that matter, what about the 50D? Consider this:

If I were going on a safari to Africa, I would have to pay $8100 for a D3x and another ~$8,000 for a 500mm Nikkor f/4 lens. That's sixteen grand for a camera and one lens.

By contrast, if I decided to buy a Canon 50D (and I did), that puts me out $1,100 for the back, and I could purchase a Canon 600mm f/4 lens for only $7,600. That means I am only out $8,700 for both a camera back and a lens, and my 600 mm Canon lens is better than Nikkor's 500 mm, in pretty much every way. Moreover, because of the 1.6x crop factor, my 600 mm lens is really a 960 mm lens, so I have almost twice the reach at around half the cost! Nikkor doesn't even have an answer for this, and Sony sure as heck doesn't either.

So please don't tell me that some extra resolution or high ISO quality in the D3x is going to make up for nearly twice the reach at half the cost. What would be a dust-speck in the $16,000 of wasted money on the D3x and 500 mm Nikkor ... becomes a beautiful, printable photograph on my 50D and 600 mm Canon. And, again, you can't do that with a Sony either  

So sure, maybe in dark light and within the D3x's reach, a person can take a better 40" blow-up photo than my 50D. Whoopie.

I can get twice the reach of the D3x at half the cost. And I can do a whole lot more with my 50D for that same total $16,000, and by a country mile, than I could getting a D3x and a single 500 mm lens. I could add a 5x macro, a 180 mm macro, and a 10-22 mm super-wide, and get a backpack to keep it all in --- and still save $5K.

But if someone gets their own personal satisfaction that, under the right conditions, he can crank out a bigger blow-up print than I can, fine. I am happy with that.

I personally get the satisfaction of knowing I can take absolutely wonderful photographs ... that 99.99% of the human population can't tell the difference between the two ... and that I can get all the lenses I could possibly want, for far less money.

That to me is value.

Jack



.

[NikosR]

Moreover, because of the 1.6x crop factor, my 600 mm lens is really a 960 mm lens, so I have almost twice the reach at around half the cost! Nikkor doesn't even have an answer for this,
.

Why? Ever heard of Nikon APS cameras and Nikon 600mm telephoto lens?

[Farmer]

One thing to bear in mind when comparing reach based on APS-C cropping:

50D (for example) is 15.1MP and 1.6 crop.

A900 is 24.6MP no crop.  If you crop that at a ratio of 1.6, you get 15.375MP which means that with the same focal length lens you actually get more resolution out of the A900 than the 50D after you crop the A900 shot to the same view as the 50D.  Sure, it's a tiny amount, but don't be confused by "reach" on an APS-C - it's not reach, it's just effective view.  After that, it comes down to pixel density.

Although no longer available, the Minolta - AF 600 F4 APO or the Minolta - AF 600 F4 APO G HS would offer you slightly more "reach" and were last seen at B+H for about $8k.

Certainly a more expensive combo than your 50D, and you'd have to be able to find a second hand lens available - they are out there, but not simply.  Of course, for a little less reach you could go with the 500mm mirror for a "cheap" and certainly a light solution.

I think you make some fair points, but you've got to tread carefully when claiming that an APS-C lens gives more reach compared to something else if you don't take into account the pixel density as well as the sensor form.

[BernardLanguillier]

One thing to bear in mind when comparing reach based on APS-C cropping:

50D (for example) is 15.1MP and 1.6 crop.

A900 is 24.6MP no crop.  If you crop that at a ratio of 1.6, you get 15.375MP which means that with the same focal length lens you actually get more resolution out of the A900 than the 50D after you crop the A900 shot to the same view as the 50D.  Sure, it's a tiny amount, but don't be confused by "reach" on an APS-C - it's not reach, it's just effective view.  After that, it comes down to pixel density.

I don't believe that this is correct. The surface of the A900 sensor is 1.6^2 = 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, meaning that a 9.6 MP camera has the same pixel density as that of the A900.

The 50D does therefore clearly have a higher pixel density.

As a consequence, using the same 600 mm lens on the 50D and the A900, and cropping the central section of an A900 frame, you will get less pixels and therefore less detail.  

It is therefore totally correct to say that today, the 50D offers the highest pixel density of any DSLR and is therefore specwise well suited for telephoto work.

Whether its 15MP sensor does resolve more than the lower MP resolution bodies from the competition is of course a different question all together.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JohnKoerner]

Why? Ever heard of Nikon APS cameras and Nikon 600mm telephoto lens?

Yes I have:

Nikon D300 = $1,500
Nikkor 600mm = $9,700

TOTAL PRICE = $11,200


By Contrast:

Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 600mm = $7,600

TOTAL PRICE = $8,700



This translates to a $2,500 savings by going with the Canon product. The value in doing so is further augmented by the fact the D300 is a 1.4x crop (making the 600 mm only = to an 840 mm), whereas the 50D is a 1.6x crop (making the 600 mm into a 960 mm), so once again, Canon offers BY FAR the better value giving me 120 mm more reach for $2,500 less expense.

This means, by going with the 50D as I did, I could add a top-shelf Gitzo tripod, a Wimberly head, a Tamrack backpack, and a 100 mm macro lens, and still not have spent as much money as I would have on the lone Nikon product, while enjoying better reach too with my lens.

Now that's what I call VALUE, so thanks for pointing this out  

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

By Contrast:

Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 600mm = $7,600

TOTAL PRICE = $8,700

The 600 IS can actually be had for around 7400 US$. This huge difference in the US is surprising knowing that in Japan, the 2 lenses are priced within 400 US$ of each other. It is actually almost twice cheaper to buy a 600 IS in the US than it is in Japan (670.000 Yen vs 1.150.000 Yen).

This translates to a $2,500 savings by going with the Canon product. The value in doing so is further augmented by the fact the D300 is a 1.4x crop (making the 600 mm only = to an 840 mm), whereas the 50D is a 1.6x crop (making the 600 mm into a 960 mm), so once again, Canon offers BY FAR the better value giving me 140 mm more reach for $2,500 less expense.

The D300 is in fact a 1.5 crop factor.

Cheers,
Bernard

[NikosR]

Yes I have:

Nikon D300 = $1,500
Nikkor 600mm = $9,700

TOTAL PRICE = $11,200


By Contrast:

Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 600mm = $7,600

TOTAL PRICE = $8,700



This translates to a $2,500 savings by going with the Canon product. The value in doing so is further augmented by the fact the D300 is a 1.4x crop (making the 600 mm only = to an 840 mm), whereas the 50D is a 1.6x crop (making the 600 mm into a 960 mm), so once again, Canon offers BY FAR the better value giving me 140 mm more reach for $2,500 less expense.

This means, by going with the 50D as I did, I could add a top-shelf Gitzo tripod, a Wimberly head, a Tamrack backpack, and a 100 mm macro lens, and still not have spent as much money as I would have on the lone Nikon product, while enjoying better reach too with my lens.

Now that's what I call VALUE, so thanks for pointing this out  

Jack

Where I live the typical differences in prices are MUCH lesser. Typical Eurozone prices (www.technikdirekt.de)

Canon 50D 1119
Canon 600  8481

Nikon 300D 1499
Nikon 600   8999

That amounts to about 800 Euro difference, nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things and many would argue you're buying a better camera and a more modern lens.

Granted that will buy you somewhat less pixels on the target since the Canon is of somewhat higher resolution and the crop factor is 1.6 vs. 1.5 (not 1.4 mind you) but still nothing to write home about.

[JohnKoerner]

Where I live the typical differences in prices are MUCH lesser. Typical Eurozone prices (www.technikdirekt.de)
Canon 50D 1119
Canon 600  8481
Nikon 300D 1499
Nikon 600   8999
That amounts to about 800 Euro difference, nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things and many would argue you're buying a better camera and a more modern lens.
Granted that will buy you somewhat less pixels on the target since the Canon is of somewhat higher resolution and the crop factor is 1.6 vs. 1.5 (not 1.4 mind you) but still nothing to write home about.

Actually, it's a $900 difference where you live. So even where you live this would still get me an absolutely top caliber Gitzo tripod that I could throw in on top of my camera and lens ... the combined total which also gives me 60mm more in reach.

Either way you slice it, the value is with Canon. Where I live, the value is even greater.

There is no question both offer great products, but there is likewise simply no question as to which product gives you more for your money.

Jack

[Farmer]

Yes good point, Bernard - my math was bad!  thank you :-)

I suppose the point still stands that oyu need to consider pixel density when comparing different size sensors, but your math needs to be better than mine :-)