A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old March 8th 05, 08:53 PM
ian lincoln
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 8th 05, 08:56 PM
ian lincoln
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 8th 05, 08:56 PM
ian lincoln
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 8th 05, 08:59 PM
ian lincoln
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 8th 05, 09:02 PM
ian lincoln
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 8th 05, 09:36 PM
Paul Bielec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 9th 05, 12:48 AM
ian lincoln
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 9th 05, 06:36 AM
DoN. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 9th 05, 07:00 AM
T.N.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 9th 05, 07:29 AM
T.N.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.