|
|
SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D
|
"Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. |
"Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Well, there you have it. I'm buying a D70 now. Not. Greg |
"Alice" wrote in message ...
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. Clyde Torres |
"Sheldon" wrote in message ... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the 300 and 350. However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling silver vs a silver-plated one....it's the steak (ie the image) that counts. |
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. Reading the first page the feature set has the slight edge for nikon in terms of shear number of advantages over the other. Whether these features are individually or as a whole enough to sway one over the other is down to personal preference. Overall you would have to be hard pushed to use either of these cameras to their very limit. |
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. Reading the first page the feature set has the slight edge for nikon in terms of shear number of advantages over the other. Whether these features are individually or as a whole enough to sway one over the other is down to personal preference. Overall you would have to be hard pushed to use either of these cameras to their very limit. |
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. |
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. |
"ian lincoln" wrote in message k... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. Canon is no slouch when it comes to lenses. Do you think the inferior (according to some) lens is to save money and bring the price of the camera down? Or, does Nikon just have the edge in this genre of lens? After all, when you buy a "kit," the lens is often as important or more important than the camera, and will make a huge difference when comparing images. A crappy lens on a 16 megapixel camera won't compare favorably to a great lens on a 5 megapixel camera, even if you blow up the prints. |
going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior.
Given that the Canon kit lens ends up costing about $80 and that the Nikon kit lens ends up costing about $300 (well, now $200 with the extra rebate), that's exactly what you'd expect, regardless of brand. The argument that the D70 is better than the DR XT because of the kit lens is like saying that one car is better than another because of the tires that come on it. Also, their repeated argument that the D70 can shoot 144 continuous burst frames while the DR XT can only shoot 14 is completely wrong, the D70 gets (depending on your card) about 2.8 FPS for 15 frames, while the DR XT gets about 2.8 FPS for 20 frames - then they both drop to about 1.9 and 1.6, respecively, until you run out of storage. (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page6.asp) That sort of exagerated inaccuracy really does make me question either their familiarities with the cameras or intents. (Note that I have no argument as to whether the D70 or 350D is a better camera.) steve |
Which is better, D70 or 20D?
Sheldon wrote: "ian lincoln" wrote in message . uk... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message .com... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. Canon is no slouch when it comes to lenses. Do you think the inferior (according to some) lens is to save money and bring the price of the camera down? Or, does Nikon just have the edge in this genre of lens? After all, when you buy a "kit," the lens is often as important or more important than the camera, and will make a huge difference when comparing images. A crappy lens on a 16 megapixel camera won't compare favorably to a great lens on a 5 megapixel camera, even if you blow up the prints. |
|
"ian lincoln" wrote in message
.uk... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. Reading the first page the feature set has the slight edge for nikon in terms of shear number of advantages over the other. Whether these features are individually or as a whole enough to sway one over the other is down to personal preference. Overall you would have to be hard pushed to use either of these cameras to their very limit. As far as just image quality is concerned the Canon, with more pixels and larger ISO range, probably has a slight edge. But I agree that the Nikon wins feature-wise. One thing that stands out is the lack of wireless flash control on the Canon. I bought a D70 last year, and hadn't really thought about the feature before the purchase. After using it, I wouldn't do without it. The problem with the Canon is not that it doesn't some with the camera, but that they want 1/3 the price of the body to add it. You can get a decent lens for that. |
"Sheldon" wrote in message ... "ian lincoln" wrote in message k... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. Canon is no slouch when it comes to lenses. Do you think the inferior (according to some) lens is to save money and bring the price of the camera down? Or, does Nikon just have the edge in this genre of lens? After all, when you buy a "kit," the lens is often as important or more important than the camera, and will make a huge difference when comparing images. A crappy lens on a 16 megapixel camera won't compare favorably to a great lens on a 5 megapixel camera, even if you blow up the prints. considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an inferior lens on the front seems pointless. On the other hand i have read a review of the 1ds mkII where they say "due to the incredible resolution of this camera's sensor it will show up any imperfections in your glass so you should only be using L lenses but with cameras at this level this should be a given". This may be an indication that a better lens would be wasted on a 6 or 8mp camera. Unless any imperfections are very pronounced then there won't be a problem. I have fitted the sigma equivalents to a normal camera as they aren't ef-s mount, the vignetting is terrible. Basically the smaller sensor size means you can make a cheap lens that would useless on a 35mm film camera use it on digital because the majority of imperfections are nearer the edges which are conveniently cropped away. No doubt this is why dedicated digital lenses are so cheap. Also the canon ef-s lenses go deeper into the body than standard ones. The smaller the distance you have to "project" the image in order for it to reach the film the fewer corrections are needed for aberrations. I imagine this is why the rangefinder is so good. With no reflex mirror you can have the film plane a hell of a lot closer to the front. Rangefinder lenses are typcially smaller in diameter, in fact most compact cameras have very small diameters but can be surprisingly good. |
"Fitpix" wrote in message
... "Sheldon" wrote in message ... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the 300 and 350. However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling silver vs a silver-plated one....it's the steak (ie the image) that counts. 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 |
"ian lincoln" wrote in message k... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message om... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. There certainly are more custom functions on the nikon, i wonder how many budding amateurs would comprehend the real world practical use of each one let alone use them to their full artistic potential. My main concern is the sensor itself. Very low noise images even at high iso is a good thing. No need for IS lenses if you can increase the sensitivity by 3 stops without a serious compromise on noise. I have heard of problems with moire patterns such as that of photographing a roof with uniform slates lined on it. I've been shown an example of the nikon censor producing interesting patterns of its own under these circumstances. The bundled raw processing software with the d70 is said to be ****e too. My main concern as someone who sells both and is not on commission is that i am giving an honest and informed opinion. The typical person who asks me won't have done his reading and asks very basic questions about the cameras. This makes me think things like custom functions and other things buried deep in menus aren't going to be used so though on paper the D70 is better you are paying for alot of stuff you aren't going to use. There is also the issue of plain old image quality, how does the nikon cope in both raw and jpeg. Such a user is more likely to be a jpeg user so which is the better using that format? A typical example is of someone who thinks he is going to make it as a wedding photographer (don't ask). Typically alot of flash used to flash exposure control is important. This means the d70. On the other hand you aren't going to stick with the built in flash and the ex550 has flash exposure compensation so is it an issue? In a reasonably lit church were people aren't groping around in the dark the EV0.5 sensitivity compared to the EV1 of the canon for metering and focusing isn't really an issue. Black cats in coal scuttles may be one thing but comparitively ordinary conditions i doubt it. On paper the nikon is better but it costs £200 more even with cashback in our store. The 350 is a nice compromise in price performance and features between the 300 and the 20D. With enlargements and cropping in consideration i think the final resolution and sensor qualities tilt the balance in such a customers hands. |
"Sheldon" wrote in message ... The final resolution debate. Had an older couple who currently shoot film with an eos 300 and want to go digital. They are currently scanning film and then photoshopping the results. Rather insistent on 300 dpi at the final print size of A3. yet they are using an HP injket. I didn't think inkjets could make use of 300dpi. As for the nikon well if they are getting the results they want with a 300 then a 300D will be fine. The extra £200 would be wasted. On the other hand the extra 2mp of the 350 may still not give them the resolution they desire. My advice was that genuine fractals and noise ninja would be of more use to them than spending on the extra 2megapixels. AP said that the noise and quality of the 300D was so good that even the bicubic resampling gave pretty good results. I suggested they only increase the size by 20% at a time rather than one jump. Finally i gave them a disk of my own work and said "print that at A3 without any manipulation and see what happens". They also wanted to know if they could take me home ;) Based on the same situation what would you have advised? |
"JohnR66" wrote in message ... "Fitpix" wrote in message ... "Sheldon" wrote in message ... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the 300 and 350. However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling silver vs a silver-plated one....it's the steak (ie the image) that counts. 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 yep John, I agree that at 3x the price it should be better and I also own the Canon lens and have been happy. |
"ian lincoln" wrote: "Sheldon" wrote: going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. And far more expensive. Also, Canon has an IS kit lens alternative. That page does make the spot-on point that the D70 is an excellent camera, but it's a stretch to argue that it's better than the 350D, which was designed to respond to the areas where the D70 killed the 300D while edging it out in resolution and noise. My prediction: Nikon will have a roughly US$1700 camera with the D2x's sensor in it out before the year is out. Canon is no slouch when it comes to lenses. Do you think the inferior (according to some) lens is to save money and bring the price of the camera down? Or, does Nikon just have the edge in this genre of lens? Sno Nikon has one lens at a price point Canon doesn't. Canon has a lot of lenses at various price points all around that. I'd rather the 17-40 + (Tamron) 28-75/2.8 than any of those lenses. After all, when you buy a "kit," the lens is often as important or more important than the camera, and will make a huge difference when comparing images. A crappy lens on a 16 megapixel camera won't compare favorably to a great lens on a 5 megapixel camera, even if you blow up the prints. No. The system MTF is the product of the MTFs of the components, so improving any component improves the system MTF. Also, "crappy" lenses aren't all that crappy at f/8 or f/11. considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an inferior lens on the front seems pointless. See above: although you'd prefer better glass with the better sensor, there really isn't all that much difference in the f/8 to f/16 range. It's at f/4.0 and f/5.6 that the better glass struts its stuff. Also, the main selling point of the 350D is extremely low weight and price without sacrificing image quality. On the other hand i have read a review of the 1ds mkII where they say "due to the incredible resolution of this camera's sensor it will show up any imperfections in your glass so you should only be using L lenses but with cameras at this level this should be a given". This may be an indication that a better lens would be wasted on a 6 or 8mp camera. Again, since the system MTF is the product of the component MTFs, poor glass will slow down even a 3MP camera. There's a review of the Canon 17-35/2.8 vs. the 16-35/2.8 on Luminous Landscape that shows that the differences between those lenses can be seen clearly even on a D30. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
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. I agree, the Nikon gets the edge in image quality due to the better glass on it. Perhaps if you couple the 350/XT with a similar quality lense like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, that optical edge is removed and it once again becomes more a comparison of the bodies. 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 best way to compare the two would be to put either a third-party lens on each, or use the respective 50mm primes from Nikon and Canon, which are pretty much identical in quality. As far as the kit lenses, Canon doesn't have a equivalent to the 18-70 Nikon, but the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS certainly has a lot going for it. If only it were closer in price to the 24-135mm version. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
Alice wrote:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Interesting comparison. I think he went into too much detail on items that don't matter (i.e 0.2 versus 0.02 seconds start-up time), and didn't concentrate enough on important items. Strongest negative of the 350D is the lack of spot metering. Strongest negative of the D70 is the noise at higher ISO settings, ISO range, and moire. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I always tend to first look at what the reviews say are the "negatives" or "cons" of each camera, and find the fewest cons that are important, and for which their is no workaround. Then I look at the "positives" or "pros" of the models that haven't been eliminated by the "negatives" or "cons." The biggest drawbacks of the D70 are noise at higher ISO settings, and excessive moire, for which there is no real work-arounds. The lack of mirror lock-up, and the lack of a vertical grip (even though there is an after-market grip coming), would be other issues that some people may care about, though maybe not in the amateur segment. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com |
Bill wrote:
...IS version of their 17-85 Someone mentioned there is a kit price with this lens. What does that kit cost? What minimum f-stop is that lens? |
I may be interested in a DSLR at some point. While I am interested in
specifications, balance and feel; my main concern is in results. Can I assume that with moderate cropping both the D70 and DRXT will produce very similar images and get those images with the same relative ease. If so then the lens and noise issue will take a back seat. I am assuming that the results will be comparable at all of the ISO speeds. ian lincoln wrote: "ian lincoln" wrote in message . uk... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message .com... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. There certainly are more custom functions on the nikon, i wonder how many budding amateurs would comprehend the real world practical use of each one let alone use them to their full artistic potential. My main concern is the sensor itself. Very low noise images even at high iso is a good thing. No need for IS lenses if you can increase the sensitivity by 3 stops without a serious compromise on noise. I have heard of problems with moire patterns such as that of photographing a roof with uniform slates lined on it. I've been shown an example of the nikon censor producing interesting patterns of its own under these circumstances. The bundled raw processing software with the d70 is said to be ****e too. My main concern as someone who sells both and is not on commission is that i am giving an honest and informed opinion. The typical person who asks me won't have done his reading and asks very basic questions about the cameras. This makes me think things like custom functions and other things buried deep in menus aren't going to be used so though on paper the D70 is better you are paying for alot of stuff you aren't going to use. There is also the issue of plain old image quality, how does the nikon cope in both raw and jpeg. Such a user is more likely to be a jpeg user so which is the better using that format? A typical example is of someone who thinks he is going to make it as a wedding photographer (don't ask). Typically alot of flash used to flash exposure control is important. This means the d70. On the other hand you aren't going to stick with the built in flash and the ex550 has flash exposure compensation so is it an issue? In a reasonably lit church were people aren't groping around in the dark the EV0.5 sensitivity compared to the EV1 of the canon for metering and focusing isn't really an issue. Black cats in coal scuttles may be one thing but comparitively ordinary conditions i doubt it. On paper the nikon is better but it costs £200 more even with cashback in our store. The 350 is a nice compromise in price performance and features between the 300 and the 20D. With enlargements and cropping in consideration i think the final resolution and sensor qualities tilt the balance in such a customers hands. |
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. Perhaps if you couple the 350/XT with a similar quality lense like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, that optical edge is removed and it once again becomes more a comparison of the bodies. It's too bad Canon didn't have an 18-70 or similar lense to compare with the Nikkor 18-70. Read above comment. 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. |
In article ,
measekite wrote: I may be interested in a DSLR at some point. While I am interested in specifications, balance and feel; my main concern is in results. Can I assume that with moderate cropping both the D70 and DRXT will produce very similar images and get those images with the same relative ease. If so then the lens and noise issue will take a back seat. I am assuming that the results will be comparable at all of the ISO speeds. The Canon should have the edge in image quality, being that it's a second generation of a camera that was good competition to the D70. It will definitely do better on very long exposures. The Canon seems to be designed as travel camera while the Nikon as a hobby camera. The Canon is compact and comes with an ultra-light (expendable) kit lens while the Nikon is a more standard size and comes with a normal quality kit lens. Even then it's not a huge difference. Better try them out. I went with Canon a year ago because I use my camera hiking and bicycling. A more compact camera and lighter lenses means a lot to me. 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. ian lincoln wrote: "ian lincoln" wrote in message . uk... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message .com... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions. I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. There certainly are more custom functions on the nikon, i wonder how many budding amateurs would comprehend the real world practical use of each one let alone use them to their full artistic potential. My main concern is the sensor itself. Very low noise images even at high iso is a good thing. No need for IS lenses if you can increase the sensitivity by 3 stops without a serious compromise on noise. I have heard of problems with moire patterns such as that of photographing a roof with uniform slates lined on it. I've been shown an example of the nikon censor producing interesting patterns of its own under these circumstances. The bundled raw processing software with the d70 is said to be ****e too. My main concern as someone who sells both and is not on commission is that i am giving an honest and informed opinion. The typical person who asks me won't have done his reading and asks very basic questions about the cameras. This makes me think things like custom functions and other things buried deep in menus aren't going to be used so though on paper the D70 is better you are paying for alot of stuff you aren't going to use. There is also the issue of plain old image quality, how does the nikon cope in both raw and jpeg. Such a user is more likely to be a jpeg user so which is the better using that format? A typical example is of someone who thinks he is going to make it as a wedding photographer (don't ask). Typically alot of flash used to flash exposure control is important. This means the d70. On the other hand you aren't going to stick with the built in flash and the ex550 has flash exposure compensation so is it an issue? In a reasonably lit church were people aren't groping around in the dark the EV0.5 sensitivity compared to the EV1 of the canon for metering and focusing isn't really an issue. Black cats in coal scuttles may be one thing but comparitively ordinary conditions i doubt it. On paper the nikon is better but it costs £200 more even with cashback in our store. The 350 is a nice compromise in price performance and features between the 300 and the 20D. With enlargements and cropping in consideration i think the final resolution and sensor qualities tilt the balance in such a customers hands. |
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:56:33 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote: "Sheldon" wrote in message ... The final resolution debate. Had an older couple who currently shoot film with an eos 300 and want to go snip good results. I suggested they only increase the size by 20% at a time rather than one jump. Finally i gave them a disk of my own work and said "print that at A3 without any manipulation and see what happens". They also wanted to know if they could take me home ;) Based on the same situation what would you have advised? My advice: Let them take you home. "Old" folks might teach you some new tricks! :-) |
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. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm ian lincoln wrote:
considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an inferior lens on the front seems pointless. On the other hand i have read a Note that its Canon's choice to put the lens there, not the reviewer's. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
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. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
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 10:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com