If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message ink.net... "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. alot of reviews are out of the box. I've seen comments such as epson v canon printers where canon takes better scans out of the box while the epson needs plenty of experimentation and tweaking. The reverse decision was made about a pair of scanners. The kit is sold as such as a reason. The quality of the supplied components equate to value for money. If someone has put a crap lens on a good camera then promoted that kit then that kit should be scrutinised. After such a comparison you may decide to go body only. I noticed in this particular review image quality was practically ignored. So was handling and ease of use. It was merely a side by side feature list. I questioned the real world validity. Others have also pointed out flaws in this method regarding the weight given to each "advantage" My conclusion is that this review is very weak and would only appeal to the most novice of consumers. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"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. i only use the kit lens as buying a decent 18mm is rather expensive. Basically if i'm not shooting landscape or in tight spaces indoors i will stick to my 28-105. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message .. . 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. not sure its even glass. ;( |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message ink.net... "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. The 18-70 is a dx DO lens. Which is what canon call low dispersion and sigma call apo. I'm reasonably sure that is better than G or even D lenses. Its certainly far more substantial. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"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 $300 one and base your judgment on the camera heavily on that. But both are the normal kit lens that the majority of first-timers will buy the camera with, no? So it is a comparison not so much of camera bodies but kits, but what percentage of buyers will understand the difference? After all, there is no use in buying the camera without lens for them. Canon is simply doing its usual 'low price at all costs' thing. I agree. canon have done themselves a disservice with this choice of lens. Nikon have a cheap lens alternative, the yellow ring 28-80 G lens kit that sells cheaper. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Jan Böhme wrote:
On 6 Mar 2005 05:51:49 GMT, "Alice" wrote: http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml The review gives price as one factor favouring the D70, saying that the 350D body is 100 canadian dollars more expensive than the D70 as recommended retail price. This seems to vary considerably betteen markets. Cyberphoto, the most reputable Swedish online camera store, quotes the D70 at SEK 6376, and the 350D at SEK 6396. Dustin, another online store, quotes both the D70 and the 350D at SEK 6396 The price differential in Cyberphoto's case, SEK 20, amounts to CAD 3:59, and it is thus fair to argue that the cameras are marketed at an essentially equal price for the Swedish market. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. So far, I've seen the following in Montreal (all an CAD, add 15% taxes): Digital Rebel + 18-55 969$ D70 Body 999$ Digital Rebel XT body 1149$ Digital Rebel XT + 18-55 1299$ I paid around 1200$ for my Rebel D kit year ago. Not too bad compared to the D70. Its price dropped 500$ within a year... |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf wrote: 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 MLU is not just a firware issue. A real MLU always needs mechanics support as otherwise holding it up continues to draw power. 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. What colour is teh sky on your planet? D100 and D70 are not trivialy comparable and there is a ton of way more useful features than you list in the d100 to make one chosoe that over d70. There is no need for extra shepherding. What does the 100 do that the d70 doesn't? It seemed to me more the otherway around. Once the d70 came out i couldn't sell 100 the 70 was faster and shot continously for longer. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Paul Bielec wrote:
Larry wrote: [ ... ] I use a small Canon A60 when I don't want to bring my DRebel (hiking, biking, skiing). It makes great 4x6 for a 2MP P&S camera. When I looked at D70, it gave a rougher impression. I don't remember exactly what it was, but there was something really cheap about it, the battery or memory card maybe. Something that didn't fit in on a camera in that price range. Hmm ... I haven't noticed anything of that sort. The battery is a specialized Li-ion battery which gives an amazing number of shots per charge. (Well over 700 shots at the medim/fine size JPEGs on a 1GB flash card, I've not filled a flash card with RAW for a comparison -- but a large percentage of those shots used the built-in flash at some distance.) As for the Flash Card -- you buy your own choice for that, the same with the other cameras. The Nikon kit (I have been told) does not come with a Flash Card. My D70 body certainly did not. Thus, I was able to pick my own choice in the size/cost/speed tradeoff. (I opted for a 1GB 80X Lexar -- and got another one a week or so later. I've only had to roll over to the second on a long weekend trip with a wedding involved. (No -- I was not the pro, but I took a lot of shots anyway. :-) And I have been quite happy with my D70 -- but I already had Nikon glass. Otherwise, the Cannon might have had a greater chance. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:57 GMT, Owamanga , wrote
in news On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:50:15 -0500, bob wrote: T.N.T. wrote: the D70's flash sync speed of 1/500s at ISO200 vs 350D's 1/200s at ISO100 is just 1/3 stop different, not as much an advantage that 1/500s vs 1/200s makes it out to be. That makes it 16-15 for D70. The point of faster flash synch is to have shorter exposure times: 1/500 will stop action better than 1/200. It's true for better action stopping. But it must be a rare situation when you need both fill flash and high speed action stopping. At least Nikon seems to think so: the D2X only has 1/250s flash sync, but it has ISO100. So the main point of 1/500s flash sync on the D70 is to compensate for the high lowest ISO of 200, enabling it to use the same aperture opening in fill flash as other cameras with 1/250s sync at ISO 100. Not only that, but to still be able to use fill flash in bright sunlight when faster shutter speeds are a necessity to maintain proper exposure. It's not a necessity because of the available lower ISO of 100 on the other camera. Looking at this purely in the sense of stops is just weird. Not purely in stops, but 1/3 stop is meant you only have to close the *aperture* down just 1/3 of a stop to get the same proper exposure. 1/3 stop also means not much of an advantage at all. -- T.N.T. Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:35:25 GMT, Owamanga , wrote
in : On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:10:05 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: bob wrote: T.N.T. wrote: the D70's flash sync speed of 1/500s at ISO200 vs 350D's 1/200s at ISO100 is just 1/3 stop different, not as much an advantage that 1/500s vs 1/200s makes it out to be. That makes it 16-15 for D70. Thinking about this some more, you'd need twice the power output to illuminate the same scene if you drop from ISO200 to ISO100, effectively cutting your flash power in half, limiting ranges, doubling recharge times etc. This just isn't a good comparison. You seems to think the aperture always get stuck and can't be opened up or ISO can't be changed to 200 or something. snip Flash photography is always 2 exposures, ambient and flash, at the same time. You missed the killer, the big one, the real reason for fast sync: It lets you fill-flash in broad daylight, dark Churches or anywhere in between. You seems to miss the ISO setting aspect. For the same ISO, faster flash sync is, of course, always better and always wanted in fill flash to enable the use of wider aperture opening, which brings the main desireable effect - shallower DoF. For a higher minimum ISO setting, a proportionately higher flash sync is a "necessity" in order to get the same aperture effect. The ability to freeze ambient light in fill flash is a plus, but minor and in rare situations. -- T.N.T. Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D | Alice | Digital SLR Cameras | 118 | March 11th 05 11:36 AM |
SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D | Alice | 35mm Photo Equipment | 119 | March 11th 05 11:36 AM |
Digital Rebel XT/350D | Darrell | Digital Photography | 78 | February 25th 05 08:36 AM |
Digital Rebel XT/350D | Darrell | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 16th 05 04:26 AM |
__ (Brand New) Canon Digital Rebel w/18-55mm lens for sale __ | David Weaver | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | November 8th 03 06:42 PM |