|
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm measekite wrote:
Bill wrote: Brian C. Baird wrote: http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Kind of ridiculous to compare a $99 lens with a nearly $300 one and base your judgment on the camera heavily on that. I agree, the Nikon gets the edge in image quality due to the better glass on it. The glass on the kit lens should not be an issue. Compare the bodies. The DRXT buyer should consider getting the !8-85 S lens. The D70 user should get the Kit lens. Then compare the results. This is ridiculous - teh kit lens is what most peopel will buy the camera with, so why the heck is wrong with such a comparison? If Canon's kit sucks then its canons problem and they should fix that. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
In article ,
says... You mean catering to the market to maintain their #1 position? Yeah, that's horrible. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ Aint it AWFULL that Canon seems to know what the public wants, they seem to know how to package it, and they seem to know how to do it at a PROFIT??? That 'oughta be illegal!!! -- Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. (not a Canon Digital owner, but a big fan of almost all things Canon) |
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill wrote: It's too bad Canon didn't have an 18-70 or similar lense to compare with the Nikkor 18-70. Now that I think about it, I'd like to see Canon come out with a non-IS version of their 17-85 with the same optical quality, as it would be a good everyday lense for a good price. It would be an excellent starter lense for the Rebel series and 20D too. The problem is more that while Nikon bundles essentialy a L glass equvalent with D70, Canon bundles low quality lens - something you wouldn't really want to keep if you already hadlens and were intersted in quality. The Nikon one would be a keeper either ways. Neither of those statements are true. The Nikon lens has been crticized for build quality and vignetting, the Canon lens has been criticiszed for being too soft at the edges. They are both mid-level lenses. The Nikon has a metal mount, and a wider range, which makes some people think that it is better than it really is. The difference is that the Canon lens, at $100 difference, is a no-brainer, but the Nikon lens at $300 difference is something to consider more carefully. |
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... This is ridiculous - teh kit lens is what most peopel will buy the camera with, so why the heck is wrong with such a comparison? It's very misleading. They should compare the cameras with the closest lenses available (from the camera manufacturer). It is quite insane to compare zoom ranges of kit lenses in an SLR camera review. They should not go to some second-tier lens manufacturer that makes the same lense for both cameras. |
Alice wrote:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Here is another, an amateur point of view. The 300D was a real bargain when I bough it. The D70 was much more expensive. Now the price dropped and it is definitively the best digital camera for the price. I don't own any expensive gear and I don't need it. When I bought my 300D, I wanted a DSLR but I wasn't willing to spend 2000$ (Can) to buy one. The 300D and the used EOS 300, is an upgrade from the Nikon F60 I used to have. I want to buy an Elan 7e/7ne eventually. It is all I need. Upgrading to 350D or 20D, for me, it would be a waste of money. I'll upgrade in few years when the digital market stabilizes. |
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
The only heavy lens I have is the 70-300 DO IS, and that can be forgiven because its IS eliminates a tripod and it's the size of a large coffee mug. Are there any issues wrt the DO and the digital sensor that you've seen? Do you shooti into the light very often? Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird wrote: In article , says... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Kind of ridiculous to compare a $99 lens with a nearly $300 one and base your judgment on the camera heavily on that. But both are the normal kit lens that the majority of first-timers will buy the camera with, no? So it is a comparison not so much of camera bodies but kits, but what percentage of buyers will understand the difference? After all, there is no use in buying the camera without lens for them. Canon is simply doing its usual 'low price at all costs' thing. The 18-55 kit lens is not a super low end lens like Canon used to promote with the film Rebel (28-80). If anyone is trying to de-feature based on price, it's Nikon. It's inexcusable to not have mirror lock-up, it's just a firmware issue, and they omitted it to try to move people to a more expensive model. Similarly, the lack of a vertical grip connection is another de-contenting move to try to force consumers to move up to the D100. They remind me of how some car manufacturers have certain options only available on the most expensive sub-model (Honda is famous for this). Kudos to Canon for not leaving important features off of its amateur product. |
Bill wrote:
paul wrote: Bill wrote: ...IS version of their 17-85 Someone mentioned there is a kit price with this lens. What does that kit cost? I don't think a "kit" is available, but you can easily get a deal on the body and 17-85 lense when purchased together from a reputable dealer. The 350/XT body is about $900 and the 17-85 is about $600 in US funds, so about $1500 US. What minimum f-stop is that lens? It's f/4.0-5.6 for the 17-85 IS lense. Nikon has a stabilized lens at a longer zoom 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED for about $550. Then of course you'd need the $1000 12-24 f/4 (only real wide angle option). |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com