SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
"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.


Keep in mind that 300D and D70 are the bottom of the line models.
Yet, because their price is much higher than film models, everybody
seems to expect to have them loaded with features that are normally not
available on a Rebel or F55/F60.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf wrote:

"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

There is no reasonable definition of mid-level such that both of the
lens would fit in it.

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

No. The difference is very much about optical performance.

difference, is a no-brainer, but the Nikon lens at $300 difference is
something to consider more carefully.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Paul Bielec wrote:
Keep in mind that 300D and D70 are the bottom of the line models.
Yet, because their price is much higher than film models, everybody
seems to expect to have them loaded with features that are normally not
available on a Rebel or F55/F60.

D70 isn't underfeatured compared to F75 (its ridiculous to compare it to
compare it to the real barrel-bottom F55). D70 is fairly comparable to
F80, though missing out on some features and more advanced on others,
which is not even close to low end.

The problem is more that Nikon doesn't presently have a real low-end DSLR.
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:30:16 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


snipped
considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting
an
inferior lens on the front seems pointless.

Why bother buying one with a kit lens? In putting together my Canon
20D system. I just bought the body and then added the lens(es) I
wanted which would meet my needs.

I don't understand why any one wouldn't just buy a body and not get
the best lenses for their needs rather than what the manufacturer put
on it.

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.

That's true, but many potential buyers will have lots of cash, not much
knowledge about lenses and a love for all things shiny.

I'd imagine that's true of probably at least half the market for the low end
dSLRs.

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/

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