SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

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.

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 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.

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

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

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)