In article , says...
Nikon has a stabilized lens at a longer zoom 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
for about $550.

Canon has a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM for about $350-$400. The 17-85
was designed to provide the 28-135mm field of view on a 1.6x crop
sensor.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...

Ummmm.....what about spot metering and fast flash sync ?

For me, those are far more useful than mirror lock up.

For me.

Which is why the D70 is the best choice for you.

That seems to be the thing everyone forgets in these conversations -
that one isn't always superior and the other is junk. There are many
aspect to consider and you have to choose the combination of features
and quality you want. Certainly the 350XT will be a better choice for
some, the D70 a better choice for others.

That said, the comparison was crap, so if there's any bickering it's
mostly due to that.

Don F wrote:

"JohnR66" wrote in message
...

The Nikon lens is 3x the price. It had better be superior. I've not seen
image quality comparisons. From my experience, the Canon zoom has been
very good in image quality given the price.
John

----------
Lens quality is not (should not) be related to price. There are
measurement parameters that suggest the lens is of high quality and, if
photos taken under adverse lighting conditions prove the quality of the
lens, then it may be safe to assume the lens is good. I would guess that
*any* lens used at the optimum aperture under good lighting conditions will
provide good results.

The sign of very good glass is how it performs in the worst conditions,
not the best conditions. Alas, this typically goes with price. The
reason 50mm lenses are so high-q/price is due to their simplicity and
volume of sales.
d 100mm f/2.8.

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.

Don F wrote:



You are correct, of course, and I probable should have said simply that
price should not be a criteria for lens performance -- good or bad (IMHO).

If you sort by quality (across all shooting conditions) you end up
sorting roughly by price at the same time.

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.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

But who sticks with the kit lens? Almost nobody. And you're forgetting
the utility of an extra $200 to throw towards a decent zoom.

A lot of people. Why do you think camera store "kits" with superzooms are
so popular? For those that don't, the extra lay-out would in at least
the Canon case be quite pointless.


Canon is simply doing its usual 'low price at all costs' thing.

You mean catering to the market to maintain their #1 position? Yeah,
that's horrible.

In that case you should not be arguing that teh comparison is unfair, as
the Canon kit buyers are getting what Canon designed for them - a lower
quality cheaper combination.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...
The problem is more that while Nikon bundles essentialy a L glass equvalent
with D70

No, the 18-70 is certainly NOT 'L' glass equivalent.

Which is the case - you don't know what the optical performance
of teh 18-70 is or you are deluding yourself about L glass quality?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
...
I would go as far as to say anyone buying a 20D and not knowing enough
to pick a lenses doesn't need to be buying one but rather needs to be
learning more about the basics of photography.

John, you have to remember that people with lots of money to spend will buy
high end and then expect to learn from there on. Why would someone with
lots of cash restrict themselves to a lousy camera just because they haven't
learned enough about photography to buy a high end camera? If they never
master it, then so be it. They either set it aside or give it to someone.
A lot of people in this newsgroup are in fact those kind of people. And
then there are people in this newsgroup who wish they had the money to buy
high end and learn as they go along.

Clyde Torres

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:23:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:


"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.

If the review is on the kit, it must be reviewed with the kit lens.
If the review is on the body, the lenses should be as identical as
possible; this would almost require a third party lens, since the
mfgrs don't supply many identical lenses.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
m...
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
...
I would go as far as to say anyone buying a 20D and not knowing enough
to pick a lenses doesn't need to be buying one but rather needs to be
learning more about the basics of photography.

John, you have to remember that people with lots of money to spend will
buy high end and then expect to learn from there on. Why would someone
with lots of cash restrict themselves to a lousy camera just because they
haven't learned enough about photography to buy a high end camera? If
they never master it, then so be it. They either set it aside or give it
to someone. A lot of people in this newsgroup are in fact those kind of
people. And then there are people in this newsgroup who wish they had the
money to buy high end and learn as they go along.

Clyde Torres

This statement shows remarkable insight. It is the reason why one can find
very good used equipment at a reasonable price. It is also the reason why I
have lost money over the years buying professional equipment that I have
never learned how to use. One of the unfortunate facts of life is that when
you are young enough to be able to learn how to use the good stuff, you are
usually too poor to afford it. By the time you can afford it, you are
frequently too old to learn how to use it, or just don't have the energy it
takes.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:28:35 -0500, Paul Bielec wrote:

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.

You could be in for a long wait.
I'm on my third laptop, and I'm still waiting for that market to
stabilize. Obviously, I'm not putting off upgrading while I wait. :-)
I think it'll be a while before the digital camera market stabilizes.
And if you put off buying what you want while waiting, you'll miss out
on some terrific kit.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"