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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. I agree, the Nikon gets the edge in image quality due to the better glass on it. Perhaps if you couple the 350/XT with a similar quality lense like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, that optical edge is removed and it once again becomes more a comparison of the bodies. 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 best way to compare the two would be to put either a third-party lens on each, or use the respective 50mm primes from Nikon and Canon, which are pretty much identical in quality. As far as the kit lenses, Canon doesn't have a equivalent to the 18-70 Nikon, but the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS certainly has a lot going for it. If only it were closer in price to the 24-135mm version. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Alice wrote:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...sRebelXT.shtml Interesting comparison. I think he went into too much detail on items that don't matter (i.e 0.2 versus 0.02 seconds start-up time), and didn't concentrate enough on important items. Strongest negative of the 350D is the lack of spot metering. Strongest negative of the D70 is the noise at higher ISO settings, ISO range, and moire. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I always tend to first look at what the reviews say are the "negatives" or "cons" of each camera, and find the fewest cons that are important, and for which their is no workaround. Then I look at the "positives" or "pros" of the models that haven't been eliminated by the "negatives" or "cons." The biggest drawbacks of the D70 are noise at higher ISO settings, and excessive moire, for which there is no real work-arounds. The lack of mirror lock-up, and the lack of a vertical grip (even though there is an after-market grip coming), would be other issues that some people may care about, though maybe not in the amateur segment. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bill wrote:
...IS version of their 17-85 Someone mentioned there is a kit price with this lens. What does that kit cost? What minimum f-stop is that lens? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I may be interested in a DSLR at some point. While I am interested in
specifications, balance and feel; my main concern is in results. Can I assume that with moderate cropping both the D70 and DRXT will produce very similar images and get those images with the same relative ease. If so then the lens and noise issue will take a back seat. I am assuming that the results will be comparable at all of the ISO speeds. ian lincoln wrote: "ian lincoln" wrote in message . uk... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message .com... "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. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. There certainly are more custom functions on the nikon, i wonder how many budding amateurs would comprehend the real world practical use of each one let alone use them to their full artistic potential. My main concern is the sensor itself. Very low noise images even at high iso is a good thing. No need for IS lenses if you can increase the sensitivity by 3 stops without a serious compromise on noise. I have heard of problems with moire patterns such as that of photographing a roof with uniform slates lined on it. I've been shown an example of the nikon censor producing interesting patterns of its own under these circumstances. The bundled raw processing software with the d70 is said to be ****e too. My main concern as someone who sells both and is not on commission is that i am giving an honest and informed opinion. The typical person who asks me won't have done his reading and asks very basic questions about the cameras. This makes me think things like custom functions and other things buried deep in menus aren't going to be used so though on paper the D70 is better you are paying for alot of stuff you aren't going to use. There is also the issue of plain old image quality, how does the nikon cope in both raw and jpeg. Such a user is more likely to be a jpeg user so which is the better using that format? A typical example is of someone who thinks he is going to make it as a wedding photographer (don't ask). Typically alot of flash used to flash exposure control is important. This means the d70. On the other hand you aren't going to stick with the built in flash and the ex550 has flash exposure compensation so is it an issue? In a reasonably lit church were people aren't groping around in the dark the EV0.5 sensitivity compared to the EV1 of the canon for metering and focusing isn't really an issue. Black cats in coal scuttles may be one thing but comparitively ordinary conditions i doubt it. On paper the nikon is better but it costs £200 more even with cashback in our store. The 350 is a nice compromise in price performance and features between the 300 and the 20D. With enlargements and cropping in consideration i think the final resolution and sensor qualities tilt the balance in such a customers hands. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bill wrote: Brian C. Baird wrote: 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. I agree, the Nikon gets the edge in image quality due to the better glass on it. The glass on the kit lens should not be an issue. Compare the bodies. The DRXT buyer should consider getting the !8-85 S lens. The D70 user should get the Kit lens. Then compare the results. Perhaps if you couple the 350/XT with a similar quality lense like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, that optical edge is removed and it once again becomes more a comparison of the bodies. It's too bad Canon didn't have an 18-70 or similar lense to compare with the Nikkor 18-70. Read above comment. 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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
measekite wrote: I may be interested in a DSLR at some point. While I am interested in specifications, balance and feel; my main concern is in results. Can I assume that with moderate cropping both the D70 and DRXT will produce very similar images and get those images with the same relative ease. If so then the lens and noise issue will take a back seat. I am assuming that the results will be comparable at all of the ISO speeds. The Canon should have the edge in image quality, being that it's a second generation of a camera that was good competition to the D70. It will definitely do better on very long exposures. The Canon seems to be designed as travel camera while the Nikon as a hobby camera. The Canon is compact and comes with an ultra-light (expendable) kit lens while the Nikon is a more standard size and comes with a normal quality kit lens. Even then it's not a huge difference. Better try them out. I went with Canon a year ago because I use my camera hiking and bicycling. A more compact camera and lighter lenses means a lot to me. The only heavy lens I have is the 70-300 DO IS, and that can be forgiven because its IS eliminates a tripod and it's the size of a large coffee mug. ian lincoln wrote: "ian lincoln" wrote in message . uk... "Clyde Torres" wrote in message .com... "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. going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior. There certainly are more custom functions on the nikon, i wonder how many budding amateurs would comprehend the real world practical use of each one let alone use them to their full artistic potential. My main concern is the sensor itself. Very low noise images even at high iso is a good thing. No need for IS lenses if you can increase the sensitivity by 3 stops without a serious compromise on noise. I have heard of problems with moire patterns such as that of photographing a roof with uniform slates lined on it. I've been shown an example of the nikon censor producing interesting patterns of its own under these circumstances. The bundled raw processing software with the d70 is said to be ****e too. My main concern as someone who sells both and is not on commission is that i am giving an honest and informed opinion. The typical person who asks me won't have done his reading and asks very basic questions about the cameras. This makes me think things like custom functions and other things buried deep in menus aren't going to be used so though on paper the D70 is better you are paying for alot of stuff you aren't going to use. There is also the issue of plain old image quality, how does the nikon cope in both raw and jpeg. Such a user is more likely to be a jpeg user so which is the better using that format? A typical example is of someone who thinks he is going to make it as a wedding photographer (don't ask). Typically alot of flash used to flash exposure control is important. This means the d70. On the other hand you aren't going to stick with the built in flash and the ex550 has flash exposure compensation so is it an issue? In a reasonably lit church were people aren't groping around in the dark the EV0.5 sensitivity compared to the EV1 of the canon for metering and focusing isn't really an issue. Black cats in coal scuttles may be one thing but comparitively ordinary conditions i doubt it. On paper the nikon is better but it costs £200 more even with cashback in our store. The 350 is a nice compromise in price performance and features between the 300 and the 20D. With enlargements and cropping in consideration i think the final resolution and sensor qualities tilt the balance in such a customers hands. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:56:33 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote: "Sheldon" wrote in message ... The final resolution debate. Had an older couple who currently shoot film with an eos 300 and want to go snip good results. I suggested they only increase the size by 20% at a time rather than one jump. Finally i gave them a disk of my own work and said "print that at A3 without any manipulation and see what happens". They also wanted to know if they could take me home Based on the same situation what would you have advised? My advice: Let them take you home. "Old" folks might teach you some new tricks! :-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm ian lincoln wrote:
considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an inferior lens on the front seems pointless. On the other hand i have read a Note that its Canon's choice to put the lens there, not the reviewer's. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
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 |