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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Sheldon" wrote in message ... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the 300 and 350. However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling silver vs a silver-plated one....it's the steak (ie the image) that counts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Fitpix" wrote in message
... "Sheldon" wrote in message ... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the 300 and 350. However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling silver vs a silver-plated one....it's the steak (ie the image) that counts. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"JohnR66" wrote in message ... "Fitpix" wrote in message ... "Sheldon" wrote in message ... "Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site. I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the 300 and 350. However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling silver vs a silver-plated one....it's the steak (ie the image) that counts. 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 yep John, I agree that at 3x the price it should be better and I also own the Canon lens and have been happy. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. There are high priced lenses that don't make it and there are lower priced lenses that are excellent if you consider fixed FL lenses. The Nikon 50 mm f1.8 at ~$100 (US) is an example of an good inexpensive lens. I am not familiar with Canon lenses but I think the Canon 50 mm lens also fits this category. Regards, Don F |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Don F" writes:
There are high priced lenses that don't make it and there are lower priced lenses that are excellent if you consider fixed FL lenses. The Nikon 50 mm f1.8 at ~$100 (US) is an example of an good inexpensive lens. I am not familiar with Canon lenses but I think the Canon 50 mm lens also fits this category. Well, 50mm lens is a very simple lens and its optimal design has been known for a number of years. It's zoom lenses and extreme FL (in both directions) where the design get tricky and where the higher price (usually) means a better quality. Dragan -- Dragan Cvetkovic, To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Alice" wrote in message ... http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Well, there you have it. I'm buying a D70 now. Not. Greg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Clyde Torres |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 10:36 AM |
SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D | Alice | 35mm Photo Equipment | 119 | March 11th 05 10:36 AM |
Digital Rebel XT/350D | Darrell | Digital Photography | 78 | February 25th 05 07:36 AM |
Digital Rebel XT/350D | Darrell | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 16th 05 03:26 AM |
__ (Brand New) Canon Digital Rebel w/18-55mm lens for sale __ | David Weaver | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | November 8th 03 05:42 PM |