SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:23:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:


"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.

If the review is on the kit, it must be reviewed with the kit lens.
If the review is on the body, the lenses should be as identical as
possible; this would almost require a third party lens, since the
mfgrs don't supply many identical lenses.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
m...
"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

This statement shows remarkable insight. It is the reason why one can find
very good used equipment at a reasonable price. It is also the reason why I
have lost money over the years buying professional equipment that I have
never learned how to use. One of the unfortunate facts of life is that when
you are young enough to be able to learn how to use the good stuff, you are
usually too poor to afford it. By the time you can afford it, you are
frequently too old to learn how to use it, or just don't have the energy it
takes.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:28:35 -0500, Paul Bielec wrote:

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.

You could be in for a long wait.
I'm on my third laptop, and I'm still waiting for that market to
stabilize. Obviously, I'm not putting off upgrading while I wait. :-)
I think it'll be a while before the digital camera market stabilizes.
And if you put off buying what you want while waiting, you'll miss out
on some terrific kit.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:32:59 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

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.

Indeed. At least in the case of the D70, I don't know anyone who
*didn't* buy the kit - even if they had significant investment in
Nikon glass already. That was (and still is) a good deal.

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.

...but are they falling for it?

--
Owamanga!

In article ,
says...
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.

The kits are popular because it gives them a lens covering a popular
range for cheap. They can always buy bigger/better/more expensive
lenses later.

To that end, the Canon succeeds a little better than the Nikon, I'm
afraid.

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.

No, they're getting what they want. A dSLR with great performance for
under $1,000. The lens might not be perfect, but most entry level
buyers aren't going to splurge for a more expensive lens until much,
much later.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
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?

"L" denotes better build quality and better optics. It also means a
hell of a lot more in terms of cost.

The 18-70 is a decent consumer zoom. But it is no where near the
quality/build of a 'L' series lens.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Big Bill wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:28:35 -0500, Paul Bielec wrote:


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.


You could be in for a long wait.
I'm on my third laptop, and I'm still waiting for that market to
stabilize. Obviously, I'm not putting off upgrading while I wait. :-)
I think it'll be a while before the digital camera market stabilizes.
And if you put off buying what you want while waiting, you'll miss out
on some terrific kit.


Not a very good example.
While a DSLR will still take the same pictures after 5 years, a PC will
not give you the same functionality after 5 years.
A picture is a picture. Digital cameras will not be able to produce
better pictures that film cameras do. It is only a different, more
accessible medium. Both Canon and Nikon are at their first generation of
consumer level DSLRs. They are expensive and still have some quirks.
Give them another generation or two and the set of features, the size of
the sensor and its resolution will stabilize. There is a limit to what
we can see.

No, they're getting what they want. A dSLR with great performance for
under $1,000. The lens might not be perfect, but most entry level
buyers aren't going to splurge for a more expensive lens until much,
much later.

Exactly.
Too many people always compare against the best and forget about the
price. You get what you pay for. And you want to spent 1000$ on a
camera, you don't want to know which one is the best. You want to know
which one is the best for 1000$.
I know that my 300D is not as good as the 20D. In the same way as my
Honda is not as good as a BMW. But it is one of the best for the price.
And the 300D kit was definitively the best digital camera for the price
when I bought it. The D70 kit was better...it was 1.5 times more
expensive as well.

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.

In article , says...

No, they're getting what they want. A dSLR with great performance for
under $1,000. The lens might not be perfect, but most entry level
buyers aren't going to splurge for a more expensive lens until much,
much later.

Exactly.
Too many people always compare against the best and forget about the
price. You get what you pay for. And you want to spent 1000$ on a
camera, you don't want to know which one is the best. You want to know
which one is the best for 1000$.
I know that my 300D is not as good as the 20D. In the same way as my
Honda is not as good as a BMW. But it is one of the best for the price.
And the 300D kit was definitively the best digital camera for the price
when I bought it. The D70 kit was better...it was 1.5 times more
expensive as well.



I did the same kind of math when I bought my last new camera. (a Sony F-828)
It was either the Sony or a DRebel, and the Sony seemed (and has been) MUCH
more rugged.

I dont get good pictures at ISO 800 (not even usable) and I have to be
carefull about backlighting (pf), but the Sony has taken some whacks for the
horses that the Canon might not have survived. It took one knock severe
enough to straighten the little triangular fastener at the end of the neck-
strap, and dump it to the ground (thank God the lens cover was on). It went
face first into the dirt!

I picked it up and dusted it off with a soft paintbrush I use to clean things
(sable hair) It didn't get broken.

I went out today and farted around at the camera store... Played with a D70,
a Digital Rebel, and several other cameras, including the EVolt.

I hate to say it but the one that felt "Tough Enough" in my hands was the
D70... Go Figure.

With any luck, I'll have one soon. I was seriously considering the New DRebel
or the '20.

The '20 plus a lens would be too much money for me this spring, but the D70
with the kit lens will probably do the job, at least through the spring, as
long as I keep it away from the horses.

This year there will be less "in the ring" shooting and more posed stuff, now
that I have all my lights and a backdrop ready to go.

I know I ramble on a bit, but the point is, I KNOW the Canon '20 is a better
camera, but we all have to deal with the money problem (we gotta PAY for
stuff). With all the money I have spent on backdrops, lights, reflectors
ect. the D70 is what I can afford without going into debt. Perhaps the D70
will earn me enough to pay for a '20 (or whatever Canon comes up with next).
Then I can retire to the peacefull life of a 'round the house camera. Or put
a BIG lens on it and use it for nature shots.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.