SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:19:25 -0600, John A Stovall wrote:
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.

Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus
the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have
limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking
pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next.

Dag

DoN. Nichols wrote:
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.

What I ment was the memory card or battery door.
"door" was missing in my post

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:29:34 GMT, "T.N.T." wrote:

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.

No, I'm just pointing out his comparison wasn't apples to apples. Yes,
you can always add 3 slave flashes into the equation to deal with
power issues, but this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, neither
is changing the aperture.

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.

Agreed.

The ability to freeze ambient light in fill flash is a plus, but minor and
in rare situations.

Not sure what 'freezing ambient light' entails, but okay.

--
Owamanga!

On 9 Mar 2005 13:03:53 GMT, Dag wrote:

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:19:25 -0600, John A Stovall wrote:
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.

Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus
the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have
limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking
pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next.

Dag

The after rebate cost of the 18-70mm kit lens was $120. Why wouldn't
you buy it.

In article , Paul Bielec wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article , Paul Bielec wrote:

Larry wrote:

[ ... ]

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.

[ ... ]

What I ment was the memory card or battery door.
"door" was missing in my post

O.K. Looking at mine, the Memory card door looks quite good,
and interestingly enough it has a rubber gasket to help seal out the
elements when it is closed. (I never noticed that before now, when your
article called my attention to it.) There is also a small rubber button
to catch the swing of the door when you pop it open -- perhaps because
of the possibility of the noise distracting people in certain
situations, though that would have to be quieter than the shutter.

As for the battery door -- it happens to be removable (without
tools), as long as you pull at the right angle, so it could be easily
replaced at need. Since it closes firmly flush with the bottom, I've
never had any problem with it.

The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the
clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it
(apparently) hooked on my belt as I was getting out of a car, and by the
time I noticed that it was missing, it was too late to find it. (I
tried -- ever looked for a transparent chip of plastic over highly
variable terrain? :-)

The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand
strap bracket. (I did a couple of eye splices in some bright yellow
nylon string. :-) That has saved it from getting lost quite a few times
since. (I tend to wear the camera most of the time that I am outdoors
or even indoors away from the house.)

I've read complaints about the noise of the autofocus, which
seemed to be complaints about nothing to me, as I had the "28-105mm
f3.5-4.5 D" lens when I got the camera. I did not get the kit lens.

Now that I've added a 50mm f1.4 autofocus, I see where the
complaints come from. It produces significanly more noise than the
28-105mm does. Both are mechanically-coupled (from the camera body)
autofocus -- not ones with the built-in motor in the lens, which I have
not yet experienced.

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 ---

The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the
clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it
(apparently) hooked on my belt as I was getting out of a car, and by the
time I noticed that it was missing, it was too late to find it. (I
tried -- ever looked for a transparent chip of plastic over highly
variable terrain? :-)

The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand
strap bracket. (I did a couple of eye splices in some bright yellow
nylon string. :-) That has saved it from getting lost quite a few times
since. (I tend to wear the camera most of the time that I am outdoors
or even indoors away from the house.)

I bought self adhensive Palm screen protectors and I installed it over
the LCD of my 300D. You have to cut it out to proper shape but it works
like a charm.

Paul Bielec wrote:



I bought self adhensive Palm screen protectors and I installed it over
the LCD of my 300D. You have to cut it out to proper shape but it works
like a charm.

Where did you buy them? I was at Bureau-en-Gros (Staples to the rest of
you) last night and they were $20 for a pack of 12. Seemed outrageous.
I don't want 12, I figure a few will last a long enough 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.

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Bielec wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article , Paul Bielec wrote:

Larry wrote:

[ ... ]

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.

[ ... ]

What I ment was the memory card or battery door.
"door" was missing in my post

O.K. Looking at mine, the Memory card door looks quite good,
and interestingly enough it has a rubber gasket to help seal out the
elements when it is closed. (I never noticed that before now, when your
article called my attention to it.) There is also a small rubber button
to catch the swing of the door when you pop it open -- perhaps because
of the possibility of the noise distracting people in certain
situations, though that would have to be quieter than the shutter.

Sure - the card door does look and feel flimsy, but after almost 1 years
careless use, it has been just fine. I'm sure it could also be replaced
fairly easily IF it did ever break off.

As for the battery door -- it happens to be removable (without
tools), as long as you pull at the right angle, so it could be easily
replaced at need. Since it closes firmly flush with the bottom, I've
never had any problem with it.

Me neither.


The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the
clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it
(apparently) hooked on my belt as I was getting out of a car, and by the
time I noticed that it was missing, it was too late to find it. (I
tried -- ever looked for a transparent chip of plastic over highly
variable terrain? :-)

The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand
strap bracket. (I did a couple of eye splices in some bright yellow
nylon string. :-) That has saved it from getting lost quite a few times
since. (I tend to wear the camera most of the time that I am outdoors
or even indoors away from the house.)

And the tranparent cover DOES have a little hole predrilled in it for
exactly that purpose. What's more, new ones are pretty cheap.

( I really should buy another one, mine is cracked from dropping the camera
about 4 foot onto concrete - and that's the ONLY damage )


I've read complaints about the noise of the autofocus, which
seemed to be complaints about nothing to me, as I had the "28-105mm
f3.5-4.5 D" lens when I got the camera. I did not get the kit lens.

Now that I've added a 50mm f1.4 autofocus, I see where the
complaints come from. It produces significanly more noise than the
28-105mm does. Both are mechanically-coupled (from the camera body)
autofocus -- not ones with the built-in motor in the lens, which I have
not yet experienced.

Yup - it's a lens issue.

I have a couple of older (but good) Nikon lenses that aren't AF-S, and are a
little noisy (but not too noisy unless you are photographing funerals full
of easily offended people, near to a PA coupled microphone), and a couple of
AF-S lenses that are really quiet. To be honest, the noise on the mech.
coupled versus AF-S lense is no issue at all for me. Sometimes, with the
AF-S lenses, I have to almost check to see if they have moved at all (and
the sharp focus in the viewfinder ins't an illusion)

"Oliver Costich" wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2005 13:03:53 GMT, Dag wrote:

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:19:25 -0600, John A Stovall
wrote:
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.

Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus
the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have
limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking
pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next.

Dag

The after rebate cost of the 18-70mm kit lens was $120. Why wouldn't
you buy it.

Glass Nazis

"T.N.T." wrote in message
a.disorg...
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.

Especially if you are taking shots of splashing water 'n stuff.....