SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

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.

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.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
news

"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