Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:51:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....

I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that more megapixels = a better
camera. Nice comparison. Thanks for the site.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:33:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....

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
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:18:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:LdednW5nAtrsM7ffRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>
> "Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>
> 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.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:29:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BEDWd.152716$JF2.129991@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>
> 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.


Reading the first page the feature set has the slight edge for nikon in
terms of shear number of advantages over the other. Whether these features
are individually or as a whole enough to sway one over the other is down to
personal preference. Overall you would have to be hard pushed to use either
of these cameras to their very limit.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:33:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BEDWd.152716$JF2.129991@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>
> 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.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:33:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior.

Given that the Canon kit lens ends up costing about $80 and that the Nikon
kit lens ends up costing about $300 (well, now $200 with the extra rebate),
that's exactly what you'd expect, regardless of brand. The argument that
the D70 is better than the DR XT because of the kit lens is like saying that
one car is better than another because of the tires that come on it.

Also, their repeated argument that the D70 can shoot 144 continuous burst
frames while the DR XT can only shoot 14 is completely wrong, the D70 gets
(depending on your card) about 2.8 FPS for 15 frames, while the DR XT gets
about 2.8 FPS for 20 frames - then they both drop to about 1.9 and 1.6,
respecively, until you run out of storage.
(http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page6.asp) That sort of
exagerated inaccuracy really does make me question either their
familiarities with the cameras or intents.

(Note that I have no argument as to whether the D70 or 350D is a better
camera.)

steve
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:29:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alice wrote:
> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....

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
March 7, 2005 12:52:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>
>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.
March 7, 2005 12:52:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:32:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Fitpix" <David@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:D jEWd.10134$3t3.6002@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:LdednW5nAtrsM7ffRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
>>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>>
>> 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
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:56:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:--GdnT76aLE82rbfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...

The final resolution debate.
Had an older couple who currently shoot film with an eos 300 and want to go
digital. They are currently scanning film and then photoshopping the
results. Rather insistent on 300 dpi at the final print size of A3. yet
they are using an HP injket. I didn't think inkjets could make use of
300dpi. As for the nikon well if they are getting the results they want
with a 300 then a 300D will be fine. The extra £200 would be wasted. On
the other hand the extra 2mp of the 350 may still not give them the
resolution they desire.

My advice was that genuine fractals and noise ninja would be of more use to
them than spending on the extra 2megapixels. AP said that the noise and
quality of the 300D was so good that even the bicubic resampling gave pretty
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?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:29:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:JqMWd.108607$Th1.62217@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Fitpix" <David@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:D jEWd.10134$3t3.6002@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>>
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> news:LdednW5nAtrsM7ffRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Alice" <alice@8u7y.ws> wrote in message news:e6y@b5n6.cc...
>>>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>>>
>>> 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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 4:44:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <96ednWKdkI3eAbbfRVn-3A@golden.net>, bill@c.a 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/
March 7, 2005 5:01:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

paul wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>>
>> ...IS version of their 17-85
>
>Someone mentioned there is a kit price with this lens. What does that
>kit cost?

I don't think a "kit" is available, but you can easily get a deal on the
body and 17-85 lense when purchased together from a reputable dealer.
The 350/XT body is about $900 and the 17-85 is about $600 in US funds,
so about $1500 US.

>What minimum f-stop is that lens?

It's f/4.0-5.6 for the 17-85 IS lense.
March 7, 2005 5:01:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> 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.

Until we get a production model tested, it's all academic.

But based on pre-production tests, it seems the Canon 350/XT would
easily beat the Nikon D70 with similar glass on it at all ISO settings,
but especially at higher ISO's. The noise levels are very low on the
Canon at 800 and 1600. And there are very few practical advantages to
the D70.

I have SLR cameras, both 35mm and digital, and if you asked me a year
ago which is the best "system" to start with, I would have said Canon.
If you asked me again a couple of months ago, it would have been Nikon.
Now with the 350/XT, I would say Canon again.

I'm sure Nikon is furiously working on a new model to compete and
overtake the Canon 350/XT.

Tis the nature of technological advancement. :-/
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:32:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bill wrote:

>Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
>
>
>>>http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>>>
>>>
>>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.
>
>
March 7, 2005 9:32:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>>>>http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>>>>
>>>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.

That's what I said...

>The DRXT buyer should consider getting the !8-85 S lens. The D70 user
>should get the Kit lens. Then compare the results.

I presume by your typo you meant the 17-85 IS lense, and if so, it's not
a fair comparison since the 17-85 would put the price well above that of
the Nikon.

As someone else pointed out, using 50mm lenses of similar quality or
even third-party would level the playing field.

>>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.

I did...and it still doesn't make any sense. :) 
March 7, 2005 10:51:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>...IS version of their 17-85
>>
>>Someone mentioned there is a kit price with this lens. What does that
>>kit cost?
>
>
> I don't think a "kit" is available, but you can easily get a deal on the
> body and 17-85 lense when purchased together from a reputable dealer.
> The 350/XT body is about $900 and the 17-85 is about $600 in US funds,
> so about $1500 US.
>
>
>>What minimum f-stop is that lens?
>
>
> It's f/4.0-5.6 for the 17-85 IS lense.


Nikon has a stabilized lens at a longer zoom 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
for about $550. Then of course you'd need the $1000 12-24 f/4 (only real
wide angle option).
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:28:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alice wrote:

> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....

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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:39:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> 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.

Are there any issues wrt the DO and the digital sensor that you've seen?
Do you shooti into the light very often?

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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:13:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:JqMWd.108607$Th1.62217@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 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
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:18:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Don F" <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com> 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 !!!
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:25:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
> In article <e6y@b5n6.cc>, alice@8u7y.ws says...
> > http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>
> 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 +++
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Dragan Cvetkovic" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:lmoedvsa4g.fsf@privacy.net...
> 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
> --
You are correct, of course, and I probable should have said simply that
price should not be a criteria for lens performance -- good or bad (IMHO).
Regards,
Don F
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:35:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill <bill@c.a> 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 +++
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:21:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1110194726.854446@haldjas.folklore.ee>,
sander@haldjas.folklore.ee 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.

> 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.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 7, 2005 3:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c96113b8cbdd3f098a780@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> You mean catering to the market to maintain their #1 position? Yeah,
> that's horrible.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
>
Aint it AWFULL that Canon seems to know what the public wants, they seem to
know how to package it, and they seem to know how to do it at a PROFIT???

That 'oughta be illegal!!!


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

(not a Canon Digital owner, but a big fan of almost all things Canon)
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:21:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1110195315.933076@haldjas.folklore.ee>,
sander@haldjas.folklore.ee 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.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 7, 2005 4:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

paul wrote:

>> I don't think a "kit" is available, but you can easily get a deal on the
>> body and 17-85 lense when purchased together from a reputable dealer.
>> The 350/XT body is about $900 and the 17-85 is about $600 in US funds,
>> so about $1500 US.
>>
>>>What minimum f-stop is that lens?
>>
>> It's f/4.0-5.6 for the 17-85 IS lense.
>
>Nikon has a stabilized lens at a longer zoom 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
>for about $550. Then of course you'd need the $1000 12-24 f/4 (only real
>wide angle option).

That's nice, but they won't fit on the Canon Rebel/300/XT/350 bodies,
which is what we're discussing here. :) 
March 7, 2005 4:03:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Sander Vesik wrote:

>In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill <bill@c.a> 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,

Umm...the 18-70 is not Nikon's best. It's better than the Canon 18-55,
and it has more reach. I would compare it Canon's 28-105 or similar for
image quality.

I'm not saying the Nikkor 18-70 is a bad lense...it's not. It's a good
lense and it covers a very wide range with it's zoom, which makes it
ideal for an "everyday" or "walk about" lense.

I'd like to see Canon come out with something similar for their digital
cameras.

> 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.

If you already have lenses, then you wouldn't even bother with the kit
lense on either model.

Anyway, the question is not about the lenses, it's about the two camera
bodies and how they compare.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 4:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:28:35 -0500, Paul Bielec <no@spam.com> wrote:

>Alice wrote:
>
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>
>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"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Don F wrote:

> "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
> news:JqMWd.108607$Th1.62217@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:18:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Don F wrote:


>
> You are correct, of course, and I probable should have said simply that
> price should not be a criteria for lens performance -- good or bad (IMHO).

If you sort by quality (across all shooting conditions) you end up
sorting roughly by price at the same 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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:20:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:1110195315.933076@haldjas.folklore.ee...
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill <bill@c.a> 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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:1110204860.189248@haldjas.folklore.ee...

> 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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:23:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>
>"Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
>news:1110204860.189248@haldjas.folklore.ee...
>
>> 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"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:1110194726.854446@haldjas.folklore.ee...
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
> > In article <e6y@b5n6.cc>, alice@8u7y.ws says...
> > > http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
> >
> > 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.

The 18-55 kit lens is not a super low end lens like Canon used to promote
with the film Rebel (28-80).

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
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.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:46:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
> news:1110194726.854446@haldjas.folklore.ee...
>
>>In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e6y@b5n6.cc>, alice@8u7y.ws says...
>>>
>>>>http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT....
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
> The 18-55 kit lens is not a super low end lens like Canon used to promote
> with the film Rebel (28-80).
>
> 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
> 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.
>
>
Keep in mind that 300D and D70 are the bottom of the line models.
Yet, because their price is much higher than film models, everybody
seems to expect to have them loaded with features that are normally not
available on a Rebel or F55/F60.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:vH_Wd.5640$603.3730@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 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
> 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.

Ummmm.....what about spot metering and fast flash sync ?

For me, those are far more useful than mirror lock up.

For me.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:58:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

John P Sheehy wrote:

> Like a RAW RGB histogram?

AFAIK, the only low-end D-SLR with an RGB histogram is the Sigma SD10,
and it's there for a very good reason. It's not like any major player
is putting this feature into their amateur or prosumer models. But who
knows. We haven't seen the spec on the D80 or D200 yet, but they should
be out soon.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:7e2dnZXiu-ObGLHfRVnyhg@giganews.com...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message

> Ummmm.....what about spot metering and fast flash sync ?

The D70 is an anomaly in terms of the fast flash sync, even the D2X doesn't
have the fast flash sync. It's a real advantage to the D70, but it wasn't
like Canon decided to decontent it out of the EOS-350D in order to get
people to go to a model that has it.

The spot metering is a real issue. I don't know if the Canon processor can't
do it, or what. It isn't in the 20D either.

The lack of mirror lock-up is just decontenting. They do lock up the mirror
for sensor cleaning, so the capability is there.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:45:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:38:25 GMT, Steven M. Scharf
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> decontent

Did you make this word up yourself? If not, where did you get it?
Thanks.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> "Sander Vesik" <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
> news:1110195315.933076@haldjas.folklore.ee...
> > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill <bill@c.a> 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

There is no reasonable definition of mid-level such that both of the
lens would fit in it.

> 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

No. The difference is very much about optical performance.

> difference, is a no-brainer, but the Nikon lens at $300 difference is
> something to consider more carefully.
>

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:48:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:lk0Xd.4691$CW2.1228@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:7e2dnZXiu-ObGLHfRVnyhg@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
>
>> Ummmm.....what about spot metering and fast flash sync ?
>
> The D70 is an anomaly in terms of the fast flash sync, even the D2X
> doesn't
> have the fast flash sync. It's a real advantage to the D70, but it wasn't
> like Canon decided to decontent it out of the EOS-350D in order to get
> people to go to a model that has it.

It's a great feature to have. I use it quite a lot.

> The spot metering is a real issue. I don't know if the Canon processor
> can't
> do it, or what. It isn't in the 20D either.

It's strange - I wonder why Canon don't do it....

The fast flash sync and the spot metering were two of the main things that
made me buy Nikon over Canon last year. As I had no major investment in
glass at the time, it just made sense. The other key things I made the
choice on were the faster/for longer shooting capabilities and the general
feel of the camera.

> The lack of mirror lock-up is just decontenting. They do lock up the
> mirror
> for sensor cleaning, so the capability is there.

True. I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be a firmware hack for this
though...
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:15:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Paul Bielec <no@spam.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that 300D and D70 are the bottom of the line models.
> Yet, because their price is much higher than film models, everybody
> seems to expect to have them loaded with features that are normally not
> available on a Rebel or F55/F60.

D70 isn't underfeatured compared to F75 (its ridiculous to compare it to
compare it to the real barrel-bottom F55). D70 is fairly comparable to
F80, though missing out on some features and more advanced on others,
which is not even close to low end.

The problem is more that Nikon doesn't presently have a real low-end DSLR.
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:16:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 16:58:51 -0800, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
wrote:

> John P Sheehy wrote:
>
>> Like a RAW RGB histogram?
>
>AFAIK, the only low-end D-SLR with an RGB histogram is the Sigma SD10,
>and it's there for a very good reason.

Because the SD10 doesn't do anything *BUT* RAW?
>It's not like any major player
>is putting this feature into their amateur or prosumer models. But who
>knows. We haven't seen the spec on the D80 or D200 yet, but they should
>be out soon.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <3eKdneR47qkP5bHfRVn-jg@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
> Nikon has a stabilized lens at a longer zoom 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
> for about $550.

Canon has a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM for about $350-$400. The 17-85
was designed to provide the 28-135mm field of view on a 1.6x crop
sensor.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
!