Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon 70s or Nikon 50 or Rebel XT???

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:14:31 PM

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

Hi all,
I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
Paul

More about : nikon 70s nikon rebel

Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:14:32 PM

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

"Paul Schilter" <""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net"> wrote in message
news:o YmdncMe0ZvLiVbfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where I'm
> targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M of
> pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get the
> 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
> Paul

Any of the above will leave you impressed compared with what you're used
to...provided you learn to use them. :) 

The differences between Canon and Nikon are smaller in the consumer DSLR
group. However, there are significant differences in their lens
offerings--especially at the higher end. If you think you'll want to move
toward higher end lenses, or perhaps a higher end body in the future, you
should look at the full system--since you don't want to begin building a
system if it won't continue to serve you into the future. If you don't
think you'll ever be interested in higher end stuff, then it really makes
much less difference. Personally, I like the CMOS sensor rendition of
images better than CCD at this point. YMMV.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:14:32 PM

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

In article <oYmdncMe0ZvLiVbfRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Paul Schilter <""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net"> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
> I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
> of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
> the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
> Paul

I just went thru the experience of choosing between these cameras. For
what it's worth, I bought a D50. Basically, all three will take good
pictures. Both companies have a large selection of lenses. So you can't
go too far wrong.

That said, I liked the Nikons for their better build quality (all three
cameras are plastic, but the Nikons feel more solid, with a nicer
finish) and nice clear, bright menus with big bold type. Between the two
Nikons, the D50 is smaller and lighter, which I preferred. Being cheaper
didn't hurt, either. The kit lens for the D70s is better than the one on
the D50, but I expect I will be buying additional lenses as time goes
on, so that wasn't much of a factor.

And if you like the size of the D70s, you might try to find the older
D70, which is basically the same camera, but will save you a few bucks.

Bob B.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:19:38 PM

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

"Paul Schilter" <""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net"> wrote in message
news:o YmdncMe0ZvLiVbfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where I'm
> targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M of
> pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get the
> 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.

Does not matter all that much. Nikon and Canon both have good products.
Handle them and read the reviews and plan on future purchases (lenses) and
make up your own mind.
July 5, 2005 11:38:54 PM

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

"Paul Schilter" <""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net"> wrote in message
news:o YmdncMe0ZvLiVbfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where I'm
> targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M of
> pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get the
> 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>
The XT has about 448 pixels more on the long size. On a Noritsu printer at
400 dpi, that's about 1" bigger print.

I sell more 70~300 (75~300) zooms than the 55~200 range
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:38:53 AM

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

Paul Schilter > wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
> I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
> of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
> the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
> Paul

there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
even less at Dell.com
July 6, 2005 4:19:37 AM

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

Ford or Chevy?
If you prefer, Lexus or Infiniti?
The 55-200 has been kept under tight wraps by Nikon. I hope it is not just a
truncated version of their 28-200 (ugh) or a rebranded Sigma (more possible
than Nikon would ever want you to know).
July 6, 2005 4:52:10 AM

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

Darrell wrote:


>
> I sell more 70~300 (75~300) zooms than the 55~200 range

So what? I'm sure they sell a lot more cheap P&S's than they do dSLR's as
well.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 6:40:27 AM

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

I have just bought a 350D and I'm really happy with that.
At the end of the day, thay are all excellent cameras with great choice
of lenses for both brands.
Unless you are very good at photography, which I'm not, you will not
find many differences except in design, holding, etc etc.
reviews in specialized press reports pros and cons for all models.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:16:37 AM

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

"Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> Paul Schilter > wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
> > I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
> > of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
> > the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
> > Paul
>
> there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
> Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
> even less at Dell.com

Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and the
choise should be clear...
July 6, 2005 8:16:38 AM

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

Dirty Harry wrote:

>
> Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and
> the choise should be clear...


If all he's going to do is shoot at ISO800. Otherwise that's rather
pointless. There is more to image quality than ISO800 performance for many
people.
--

Stacey
July 6, 2005 10:12:50 AM

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

The decisive factor is Canon's superior lenses and bodies.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Paul Schilter" <""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net"> wrote in message
news:o YmdncMe0ZvLiVbfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
> I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
> of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
> the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
> Paul
July 6, 2005 10:12:51 AM

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

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:12:50 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>The decisive factor is Canon's superior lenses and bodies.


Do you call the XT body superior??? Many would disagree if you do.
I read many call it cheap plastic and I held one (I don't own one) and
I have to agree that it felt flimsy even as briefly as I held it.
Made me wonder if it could stay together long.
July 6, 2005 7:55:57 PM

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

Lilo wrote:
> Paul Schilter > wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>> where I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the
>> extra 2M of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also
>> planned to get the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>> Paul
>
>
> there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
> Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
> even less at Dell.com

Unfortunately, it is still a hard choice. Canon don't have anything to
compare with the 18-70 D70s kit lens at anywhere near the price.
For little more than a 350d kit with the nasty 18-55, you can get a D50
with a 55-200 and what looks like a similar nasty plastic 18-55 but -
which I'll wager my left nut on - is optically a lot better than the
Canon equivalent.
The OP said he wanted a 55-200 to "round out" the package.
If he said as a "starter" until I buy the great fast expensive lenses
that I've forever lusted after, then the XT has some small advantage.
For the question the OP asked, it does not.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:55:58 PM

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

frederick wrote:
> Lilo wrote:
>> Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>>> where I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are
>>> the
>>> extra 2M of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also
>>> planned to get the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any
>>> opinions. Paul
>>
>>
>> there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>> Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes
>> find
>> even less at Dell.com
>
> Unfortunately, it is still a hard choice. Canon don't have anything
> to compare with the 18-70 D70s kit lens at anywhere near the price.
> For little more than a 350d kit with the nasty 18-55, you can get a
> D50 with a 55-200 and what looks like a similar nasty plastic 18-55
> but - which I'll wager my left nut on - is optically a lot better
> than the Canon equivalent.
> The OP said he wanted a 55-200 to "round out" the package.
> If he said as a "starter" until I buy the great fast expensive
> lenses
> that I've forever lusted after, then the XT has some small
> advantage.
> For the question the OP asked, it does not.

I've only been at this for a few decades, so it's not unexpected that
the technical photography term "nasty" has escaped my ken. I wonder
what it means, especially in relation to the Canon 18-55mm "kit" lens.
http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/46AFA181D207F41/orig.jpg
Full-size untouche crop:
http://www.fototime.com/8987E3E43BEC63F/orig.jpg

Nasty.

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
-Calvin
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:00:26 PM

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

> I've only been at this for a few decades, so it's not unexpected that
> the technical photography term "nasty" has escaped my ken. I wonder what
> it means, especially in relation to the Canon 18-55mm "kit" lens.
> http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
> http://www.fototime.com/46AFA181D207F41/orig.jpg
> Full-size untouche crop:
> http://www.fototime.com/8987E3E43BEC63F/orig.jpg

Nice shots Frank. I also have had good results with that lens. I have been
into photography since the 1950s and have learned to look at my own results
and ignore the snobs and self-anointed high-priests. Keep on truckin!
July 6, 2005 9:21:31 PM

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

Oh - you don't think it feels good and therefore isn't. My my my how
scientific we are. My wifes original Rebel was purchased in 1991 and all the
owners of Nikon's iron works said it wouldn't last 6 months. It was still
working jes'fine when it was stolen in 2003. I've never had a Nikon go more
than a couple years without expensive repairs. I've never had any need for
repairs on any Canon. It is smaall wonder that Nikon is losing market share
and Rebels have been the biggest selling SLRs since their introduction.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<Karl> wrote in message news:m7umc1hb69pj6aktq4vhk921frq3s0pkto@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:12:50 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The decisive factor is Canon's superior lenses and bodies.
>
>
> Do you call the XT body superior??? Many would disagree if you do.
> I read many call it cheap plastic and I held one (I don't own one) and
> I have to agree that it felt flimsy even as briefly as I held it.
> Made me wonder if it could stay together long.
July 6, 2005 10:07:58 PM

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

Frank ess wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> Lilo wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>>>> where I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the
>>>> extra 2M of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also
>>>> planned to get the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any
>>>> opinions. Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>> Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>> even less at Dell.com
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, it is still a hard choice. Canon don't have anything
>> to compare with the 18-70 D70s kit lens at anywhere near the price.
>> For little more than a 350d kit with the nasty 18-55, you can get a
>> D50 with a 55-200 and what looks like a similar nasty plastic 18-55
>> but - which I'll wager my left nut on - is optically a lot better
>> than the Canon equivalent.
>> The OP said he wanted a 55-200 to "round out" the package.
>> If he said as a "starter" until I buy the great fast expensive lenses
>> that I've forever lusted after, then the XT has some small advantage.
>> For the question the OP asked, it does not.
>
>
> I've only been at this for a few decades, so it's not unexpected that
> the technical photography term "nasty" has escaped my ken. I wonder what
> it means, especially in relation to the Canon 18-55mm "kit" lens.
> http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
> http://www.fototime.com/46AFA181D207F41/orig.jpg
> Full-size untouche crop:
> http://www.fototime.com/8987E3E43BEC63F/orig.jpg
>
> Nasty.
>
Nice shots, but meaningless in terms of comparison. Hey, the Nikon
18-70 has some real genuine faults, but that does not include softness
at wide apertures except at minimum focal length. I have used both, and
have compared the results, and have found that there is a big
difference. At best, the Canon 18-55 might be okay for the price. The
Nikon 18-70 is twice the price, and worth every cent.
The 350d is a very nice camera, and very good value. I'm not Canon
bashing - but the 18-55 lens is nasty, and worth no more than the low
price asked for it. If you are going to be fussy about 2mp difference
in sensor, how bright the lcd is, how many fps it will shoot etc, then
you should get a little fussy about lenses IMO. Nope, the Nikon 18-55
doesn't cut it for me with a D70 either. Even if it is much less soft
than the Canon version, it is still unsuitable for me with slow AF, bad
focus ring, rotating front element, plastic mount.
Remember it is opinions being expressed here. Even in the unlikely
event that the Canon 18-55 had good MTF scores, it's still a nasty lens
with a rotating front element, a practically unusable MF ring, a plastic
mount. If you get sharp results from it that's great for you. Maybe you
got lucky as many others say the same as I do, including dedicated Canon
fanatics. The one that I tried was soft and nasty compared to any lens
I have used on a dslr.
I've been using the term nasty to describe various photographic items
for decades. Sorry for my colloquialism. POS is more common in these
forums.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 10:07:59 PM

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

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120630009.258770@ftpsrv1...
> Frank ess wrote:
[ . . . ]
>>
>> I've only been at this for a few decades, so it's not unexpected that the
>> technical photography term "nasty" has escaped my ken. I wonder what it
>> means, especially in relation to the Canon 18-55mm "kit" lens.
>> http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
>> http://www.fototime.com/46AFA181D207F41/orig.jpg
>> Full-size untouche crop:
>> http://www.fototime.com/8987E3E43BEC63F/orig.jpg
>>
>> Nasty.
>>
> Nice shots, but meaningless in terms of comparison. Hey, the Nikon 18-70
> has some real genuine faults, but that does not include softness at wide
> apertures except at minimum focal length. I have used both, and have
> compared the results, and have found that there is a big difference. At
> best, the Canon 18-55 might be okay for the price. The Nikon 18-70 is
> twice the price, and worth every cent.
> The 350d is a very nice camera, and very good value. I'm not Canon
> bashing - but the 18-55 lens is nasty, and worth no more than the low
> price asked for it. If you are going to be fussy about 2mp difference in
> sensor, how bright the lcd is, how many fps it will shoot etc, then you
> should get a little fussy about lenses IMO. Nope, the Nikon 18-55 doesn't
> cut it for me with a D70 either. Even if it is much less soft than the
> Canon version, it is still unsuitable for me with slow AF, bad focus ring,
> rotating front element, plastic mount.
> Remember it is opinions being expressed here. Even in the unlikely event
> that the Canon 18-55 had good MTF scores, it's still a nasty lens with a
> rotating front element, a practically unusable MF ring, a plastic mount.
> If you get sharp results from it that's great for you. Maybe you got lucky
> as many others say the same as I do, including dedicated Canon fanatics.
> The one that I tried was soft and nasty compared to any lens I have used
> on a dslr.
> I've been using the term nasty to describe various photographic items for
> decades. Sorry for my colloquialism. POS is more common in these forums.

<guffaw!>

If he didn't like "nasty" I doubt he'd like "POS"!

Thanks for the info, though.

While I'm by no means convinced yet that a dSLR would be worthwhile for me,
considering the SLR-like features of much more pedestrian digital cameras
(and I've been a 35mm SLR user for over 40 years), I do get some surges of
temptation from time to time. When I do, the strongest surge is for the
Nikon 70s with that 18-70mm kit lens. So your comments are of interest to
me.

N.
July 7, 2005 12:57:46 AM

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

Tony wrote:
> The decisive factor is Canon's superior lenses and bodies.
>
Of course - forget about features and facts - just stick with Advanced
Stupidity, and all will be fine.
July 7, 2005 12:57:47 AM

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

That is what Nikon owners do. Heavy = Good. No features = fewer things to
go wrong. Nikon = GOD.
I never spent more money on repairs and less time taking pictures than
the 12 yearas I wasted owning Nikon. I've never had to have any camera
repaired since I switched to Canon.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120640196.322189@ftpsrv1...
> Tony wrote:
> > The decisive factor is Canon's superior lenses and bodies.
> >
> Of course - forget about features and facts - just stick with Advanced
> Stupidity, and all will be fine.
July 7, 2005 1:16:05 AM

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

Dirty Harry wrote:

> "Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
> news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>
>>Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
>>>I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
>>>of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
>>>the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>>>Paul
>>
>>there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>even less at Dell.com
>
>
> Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and the
> choise should be clear...
>
>
.... as mud:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:06 AM

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

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
> Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> "Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
>> news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
>>>>I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
>>>>of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
>>>>the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>>>>Paul
>>>
>>>there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>>Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>>even less at Dell.com
>>
>>
>> Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and
>> the
>> choise should be clear...
>>
>>
> ... as mud:
> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...

You don't see a clear difference between those?????
Really?
The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
difference would be obvious.
The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins that
partiular noise comparison.
That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:06 AM

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

frederick wrote:
> Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> "Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
>> news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>>>> where I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are
>>>> the extra 2M of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had
>>>> also planned to get the 55-200mm lens to round out the package.
>>>> Any opinions. Paul
>>>
>>> there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense,
>>> 8MP
>>> Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes
>>> find even less at Dell.com
>>
>>
>> Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800
>> images
>> and the choise should be clear...
>>
>>
> ... as mud:
> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...

800. Eight Hundred. Eight Zero Zero.

Advanced what?
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:07 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:8BNye.7568$Eo.2323@fed1read04...
>
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
>> Dirty Harry wrote:
>>
>>> "Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
>>> news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>>>>> where
>>>>>I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
>>>>>of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
>>>>>the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>>>Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>>>even less at Dell.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and
>>> the
>>> choise should be clear...
>>>
>>>
>> ... as mud:
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>
> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
> Really?
> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
> difference would be obvious.
> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins that
> partiular noise comparison.
> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.

I would add that if you DON'T see a real difference here, then buy whatever
the heck tickles your funny bone, because you'll clearly never notice the
difference. Some people are more picky than you. That's OK. This is not
unusual at all. Most people aren't picky enough to appreciate a lot of
visual differences in a lot of different ways.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:07 AM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
[]
>> ... as mud:
>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>
> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
> Really?
> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
> difference would be obvious.
> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins
> that partiular noise comparison.
> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.

There I would disagree. Yes, the D70 appears noisier, but whether you
would actually see that in a real shot would probably depend on the print
size. Would you see the different at 7 x 5 inches, for example? I doubt
it. Would you see the difference on images which had normal texture
rather than colour patches? Debateable.

I also disagree about the XT being better on all the patches - to me the
green patch on the XT looks noticeably noisier, and perhaps the light
blue, but the purple patch less so. Different, yes. Better? Maybe,
maybe not. In any case, there is sufficient difference in the colour
saturation of the images to make accurate comparison impossible - you are
perhaps comparing whatever processing the manufacturers to make the camera
defaults.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:08 AM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:qjOye.63938$G8.13995@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
> []
>>> ... as mud:
>>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>>
>> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
>> Really?
>> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
>> difference would be obvious.
>> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins
>> that partiular noise comparison.
>> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
>
> There I would disagree. Yes, the D70 appears noisier, but whether you
> would actually see that in a real shot would probably depend on the print
> size. Would you see the different at 7 x 5 inches, for example? I doubt
> it. Would you see the difference on images which had normal texture
> rather than colour patches? Debateable.
>
> I also disagree about the XT being better on all the patches - to me the
> green patch on the XT looks noticeably noisier, and perhaps the light
> blue, but the purple patch less so. Different, yes. Better? Maybe,
> maybe not. In any case, there is sufficient difference in the colour
> saturation of the images to make accurate comparison impossible - you are
> perhaps comparing whatever processing the manufacturers to make the camera
> defaults.

The reason I am confident the noise would be more obvious in a real world
shot is because people don't use ISO 1600 in well-lit test labs! :)  They
use 1600 in poorly lit environments. In these real-world, poorly lit
environments, you see a LOT more of the noise. If you shoot an image at
1600 in bright daylight, it will look darn good. Try that same shot in low
light (like it would be if you really NEEDED 1600) and it quickly separates
the differences.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:08 AM

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

Mark and all the other posters,
I would like to thank you and all the other posters for your input. I
can conclude that how the camera feels to one's hand is important, I've
yet to check this out. As far as your link to the site, at first I
thought it was about color rendition, (I did think the XT was the better
of the three here)I didn't think about noise. Apparently there's a lot I
have yet to learn, heck I'm still shaking my head at that "illusion"
post. I get the impression that the discriminating photographer sees a
lot more than the casual observer. I also get the impression that either
camera's offerings in the kit, use lens that are far from the best but
yet would serve me well. If I ever become discriminating enough I could
always buy a better lens, the advantage of an SLR. Again, thanks.
Paul


Mark² wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:8BNye.7568$Eo.2323@fed1read04...
>
>>"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
>>
>>>Dirty Harry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>>>>>>where
>>>>>>I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
>>>>>>of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
>>>>>>the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>>>>>>Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>>>>Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>>>>even less at Dell.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and
>>>>the
>>>>choise should be clear...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>... as mud:
>>>http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>>
>>You don't see a clear difference between those?????
>>Really?
>>The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
>>difference would be obvious.
>>The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins that
>>partiular noise comparison.
>>That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
>
>
> I would add that if you DON'T see a real difference here, then buy whatever
> the heck tickles your funny bone, because you'll clearly never notice the
> difference. Some people are more picky than you. That's OK. This is not
> unusual at all. Most people aren't picky enough to appreciate a lot of
> visual differences in a lot of different ways.
>
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:09 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:6nOye.7574$Eo.112@fed1read04...
>
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote
in
> message news:qjOye.63938$G8.13995@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Mark² wrote:
> >> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
> > []
> >>> ... as mud:
> >>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
> >>
> >> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
> >> Really?
> >> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
> >> difference would be obvious.
> >> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins
> >> that partiular noise comparison.
> >> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
> >
> > There I would disagree. Yes, the D70 appears noisier, but whether you
> > would actually see that in a real shot would probably depend on the
print
> > size. Would you see the different at 7 x 5 inches, for example? I
doubt
> > it. Would you see the difference on images which had normal texture
> > rather than colour patches? Debateable.
> >
> > I also disagree about the XT being better on all the patches - to me the
> > green patch on the XT looks noticeably noisier, and perhaps the light
> > blue, but the purple patch less so. Different, yes. Better? Maybe,
> > maybe not. In any case, there is sufficient difference in the colour
> > saturation of the images to make accurate comparison impossible - you
are
> > perhaps comparing whatever processing the manufacturers to make the
camera
> > defaults.
>
> The reason I am confident the noise would be more obvious in a real world
> shot is because people don't use ISO 1600 in well-lit test labs! :)  They
> use 1600 in poorly lit environments. In these real-world, poorly lit
> environments, you see a LOT more of the noise. If you shoot an image at
> 1600 in bright daylight, it will look darn good. Try that same shot in
low
> light (like it would be if you really NEEDED 1600) and it quickly
separates
> the differences.
>
exactly...
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:09 AM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:qjOye.63938$G8.13995@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
>> []
>>>> ... as mud:
>>>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>>>
>>> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
>>> Really?
>>> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot,
>>> this difference would be obvious.
>>> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins
>>> that partiular noise comparison.
>>> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
>>
>> There I would disagree. Yes, the D70 appears noisier, but whether
>> you would actually see that in a real shot would probably depend on
>> the print size. Would you see the different at 7 x 5 inches, for
>> example? I doubt it. Would you see the difference on images which
>> had normal texture rather than colour patches? Debateable.
>>
>> I also disagree about the XT being better on all the patches - to me
>> the green patch on the XT looks noticeably noisier, and perhaps the
>> light blue, but the purple patch less so. Different, yes. Better?
>> Maybe, maybe not. In any case, there is sufficient difference in
>> the colour saturation of the images to make accurate comparison
>> impossible - you are perhaps comparing whatever processing the
>> manufacturers to make the camera defaults.
>
> The reason I am confident the noise would be more obvious in a real
> world shot is because people don't use ISO 1600 in well-lit test
> labs! :)  They use 1600 in poorly lit environments. In these
> real-world, poorly lit environments, you see a LOT more of the noise.
> If you shoot an image at 1600 in bright daylight, it will look darn
> good. Try that same shot in low light (like it would be if you
> really NEEDED 1600) and it quickly separates the differences.

Why would this be, exactly? ISO 1600 is ISO 1600 whether you are in
daylight or darkness. I think you may be saying the noise is more visible
in the dark areas (and I would agree with that), and there may be more
dark areas in a low-light shot than daylight.

In which case, bright, coloured patches may not be the best targets to be
using....

David
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:09 AM

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

"Paul Schilter" <""paulschilter\"@comcast dot net"> wrote in message
news:yKKdnRD6APHrulHfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> Mark and all the other posters,
> I would like to thank you and all the other posters for your input. I can
> conclude that how the camera feels to one's hand is important, I've yet to
> check this out. As far as your link to the site, at first I thought it was
> about color rendition, (I did think the XT was the better of the three
> here)I didn't think about noise. Apparently there's a lot I have yet to
> learn, heck I'm still shaking my head at that "illusion" post. I get the
> impression that the discriminating photographer sees a lot more than the
> casual observer. I also get the impression that either camera's offerings
> in the kit, use lens that are far from the best but yet would serve me
> well. If I ever become discriminating enough I could always buy a better
> lens, the advantage of an SLR. Again, thanks.
> Paul

When you say "discriminating enough"... I really didn't mean that in a bad
way. Many people just don't see...or...just don't care about the
subtle--sometimes tiny--differences...enough to warrant consideration of
some aspects or expenditures. This doesn't mean they are somehow crummy
photogs or "poorly-eyeballed folk." One of the most interesting Disney
animators was a woman who was partially color-blind (rare for women), yet it
allowed her to create some of the most unusual and amazing color uses ever.
WHe just saw differently, and couldn't see the way others do. Many photgs
are very picky, and notice things others would never care about, adn often
notice things that don't matter to the bulk of the population.
Perfectionism often makes you better, but it's also a real pain in the neck
that doesn't necessarily make one happy in the process. :) 

The cool thing about photography (to me) is that images can be fantastic for
so many DIFFERENT reasons. Some are great because they are tack sharp, or
freeze action, or whatever. Other shots are fantastic because they capture
a pattern, or an emotion, or a moment in a way that is compelling--even
though itmight be a technical disaster. This is why for SOME people, al
lthis talk about technical this and that seems such a waste of time. For
many types of shooters, it IS a waste of their time because they make great
images that don't require technical issues as the forefront of creating
great images.

Anyway... All I'm saying is that we all discover what is important to us.
For me, it's a mixture of technical and other less-technical aspects,
because I like all sorts of subjects. The thing about this NG is that
because it's centered around "EQUIPMENT," it tends to focus most attention
on technical stuff--which, in turn, leads some people to assume the
technical aspects are all important to participants here. For SOME people
I'm sure it is, but for many here (including me), it's not as all-important
as the discussions here sometimes imply.

Do I want gret technical gear? Absolutely. But one can find incredible
success without the latest and greatest.

-Mark

> Mark² wrote:
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:8BNye.7568$Eo.2323@fed1read04...
>>
>>>"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
>>>
>>>>Dirty Harry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra
>>>>>>>2M
>>>>>>>of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
>>>>>>>the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>>>>>>>Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>>>>>Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>>>>>even less at Dell.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images
>>>>>and the
>>>>>choise should be clear...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>... as mud:
>>>>http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>>>
>>>You don't see a clear difference between those?????
>>>Really?
>>>The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
>>>difference would be obvious.
>>>The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins that
>>>partiular noise comparison.
>>>That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
>>
>>
>> I would add that if you DON'T see a real difference here, then buy
>> whatever the heck tickles your funny bone, because you'll clearly never
>> notice the difference. Some people are more picky than you. That's OK.
>> This is not unusual at all. Most people aren't picky enough to
>> appreciate a lot of visual differences in a lot of different ways.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:16:10 AM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:t4Pye.63964$G8.46757@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>> wrote in message
>> news:qjOye.63938$G8.13995@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Mark² wrote:
>>>> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
>>> []
>>>>> ... as mud:
>>>>> http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>>>>
>>>> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
>>>> Really?
>>>> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot,
>>>> this difference would be obvious.
>>>> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins
>>>> that partiular noise comparison.
>>>> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
>>>
>>> There I would disagree. Yes, the D70 appears noisier, but whether
>>> you would actually see that in a real shot would probably depend on
>>> the print size. Would you see the different at 7 x 5 inches, for
>>> example? I doubt it. Would you see the difference on images which
>>> had normal texture rather than colour patches? Debateable.
>>>
>>> I also disagree about the XT being better on all the patches - to me
>>> the green patch on the XT looks noticeably noisier, and perhaps the
>>> light blue, but the purple patch less so. Different, yes. Better?
>>> Maybe, maybe not. In any case, there is sufficient difference in
>>> the colour saturation of the images to make accurate comparison
>>> impossible - you are perhaps comparing whatever processing the
>>> manufacturers to make the camera defaults.
>>
>> The reason I am confident the noise would be more obvious in a real
>> world shot is because people don't use ISO 1600 in well-lit test
>> labs! :)  They use 1600 in poorly lit environments. In these
>> real-world, poorly lit environments, you see a LOT more of the noise.
>> If you shoot an image at 1600 in bright daylight, it will look darn
>> good. Try that same shot in low light (like it would be if you
>> really NEEDED 1600) and it quickly separates the differences.
>
> Why would this be, exactly? ISO 1600 is ISO 1600 whether you are in
> daylight or darkness. I think you may be saying the noise is more visible
> in the dark areas (and I would agree with that),

Yes. That's what I'm especially referring to. In a lab, you can have
bright...but more immportantly...EVEN lighting that is rarely found in low
light, real-world shots. It's in those less-lit portions that the "men and
boys" are separated.

>and there may be more dark areas in a low-light shot than daylight.

When I said daylight, I was referring to shots I've seen people post using
1600 or 3200 ISO--but of well-lit scenics, or clouds, etc. -An utterly
silly exercise, since this is NOT why people need high ISO.

> In which case, bright, coloured patches may not be the best targets to be
> using....

Exactly.
-Mark
July 7, 2005 12:07:16 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120641295.804340@ftpsrv1...
>
>>Dirty Harry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lilo" <lilo@normal.com> wrote in message
>>>news:WKydnVkLjZXWz1bfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Schilter > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>> I'm considering getting a dSLR. The afore mentioned cameras is where
>>>>>I'm targeting. Is the D70s worth the extra over a D50. Are the extra 2M
>>>>>of pixels on the Canon the decisive factor? I had also planned to get
>>>>>the 55-200mm lens to round out the package. Any opinions.
>>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>there is no hard choice if you do not already have Nikon lense, 8MP
>>>>Canon Rebel XT is the best value at around $800.00. I sometimes find
>>>>even less at Dell.com
>>>
>>>
>>>Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images and
>>>the
>>>choise should be clear...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>... as mud:
>>http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/D50vsXTvsD70s_1600I...
>
>
> You don't see a clear difference between those?????
> Really?
> The D70 is clearly the most noisy of the bunch. In a real shot, this
> difference would be obvious.
> The D50 is better than the D70, but the far right image clearly wins that
> partiular noise comparison.
> That is also in keeping with every other noise comparison I've seen.
>
>
Look at the question again....
"Take a look at some XT iso 800 images beside some d50 iso 800 images
and the choise (sic) should be clear..."
AS MUD!!!!
I couldn't find a side by side iso800 comparison, but thought iso1600
might give you some idea.
The D70 image is noisier - sure. Everyone expects that.
Between the D50 and XT, there is so little difference it's not worth
even arguing about which is better.
July 7, 2005 1:46:53 PM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
>>I've only been at this for a few decades, so it's not unexpected that
>>the technical photography term "nasty" has escaped my ken. I wonder what
>>it means, especially in relation to the Canon 18-55mm "kit" lens.
>>http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
>>http://www.fototime.com/46AFA181D207F41/orig.jpg
>>Full-size untouche crop:
>>http://www.fototime.com/8987E3E43BEC63F/orig.jpg
>
>
> Nice shots Frank. I also have had good results with that lens. I have been
> into photography since the 1950s and have learned to look at my own results
> and ignore the snobs and self-anointed high-priests. Keep on truckin!
>
>
It has _nothing_ to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with my
mean penny-pinching attitude - where value for money is paramount.
Putting skinny cheap Indonesian tyres on a Ferrari is a dumb idea.
Buying the Ferrari might have been motivated by snobbery.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:46:54 PM

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

> It has _nothing_ to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with my
> mean penny-pinching attitude - where value for money is paramount.
> Putting skinny cheap Indonesian tyres on a Ferrari is a dumb idea. Buying
> the Ferrari might have been motivated by snobbery.

You posted: I'm not Canon bashing - but the 18-55 lens is nasty, and worth
no more than the low price asked for it. "Nasty" is not fair and I think
that the lens is worth more than the low price asked for it. I have L
lenses and consumer lenses and am weary of the outlandish comparisons. I
have taken my own test shots and can't see the justification for L glass for
most folks. Look up "the law of diminishing returns".

I'm sorry, but it has everything to do with snobbery!
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:46:54 PM

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

frederick wrote:
> Charles Schuler wrote:
>>> I've only been at this for a few decades, so it's not unexpected
>>> that the technical photography term "nasty" has escaped my ken. I
>>> wonder what it means, especially in relation to the Canon 18-55mm
>>> "kit" lens. http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
>>> http://www.fototime.com/46AFA181D207F41/orig.jpg
>>> Full-size untouche crop:
>>> http://www.fototime.com/8987E3E43BEC63F/orig.jpg
>>
>>
>> Nice shots Frank. I also have had good results with that lens. I
>> have been into photography since the 1950s and have learned to look
>> at my own results and ignore the snobs and self-anointed
>> high-priests. Keep on truckin!
> It has _nothing_ to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with
> my
> mean penny-pinching attitude - where value for money is paramount.
> Putting skinny cheap Indonesian tyres on a Ferrari is a dumb idea.
> Buying the Ferrari might have been motivated by snobbery.

Nasty.

What it has to do with is making a good picture. For some, a "good"
picture doesn't require a Ferrari with the best possible tires;
properly driven, a Ferrari on anything that will hold the wheels off
the ground will carry anyone from one place to another. That
destination is a good picture.

Introducing histrionic language doesn't further understanding and
exchange of ideas. It's just nasty.

Nasty.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:46:55 PM

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

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gqednXFY4Yy2-FHfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
>
>> It has _nothing_ to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with my
>> mean penny-pinching attitude - where value for money is paramount.
>> Putting skinny cheap Indonesian tyres on a Ferrari is a dumb idea. Buying
>> the Ferrari might have been motivated by snobbery.
>
> You posted: I'm not Canon bashing - but the 18-55 lens is nasty, and
> worth no more than the low price asked for it. "Nasty" is not fair and I
> think that the lens is worth more than the low price asked for it. I have
> L lenses and consumer lenses and am weary of the outlandish comparisons.
> I have taken my own test shots and can't see the justification for L glass
> for most folks. Look up "the law of diminishing returns".
>
> I'm sorry, but it has everything to do with snobbery!

Sometimes it does.
Nikon makes incredible stuff.
Canon does too, and many of their consumer lenses are fantastic (speaking as
someone who uses L lenses, but also non-L).
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:46:56 PM

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

> I'm sorry, but it has everything to do with snobbery!
>
> Sometimes it does.
> Nikon makes incredible stuff.
> Canon does too, and many of their consumer lenses are fantastic (speaking
> as someone who uses L lenses, but also non-L).

Of course Nikon makes incredible stuff. I don't currently own any of their
products but respect their gear.

Here is a shot taken with a CONSUMER Canon 75-300 IS lens at full-zoom,
hand-held from a moving tram in the Florida Everglades:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/29130...

Based on some of the denigrating drivel that I have read here about that
lens, that is an impossible shot! I also own a Canon 100-400 L lens and it
is indeed a tad sharper but weighs a ton, costs more than my camera body,
and is a perfect example of the "law of diminishing returns."
July 7, 2005 4:19:54 PM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
>>It has _nothing_ to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with my
>>mean penny-pinching attitude - where value for money is paramount.
>>Putting skinny cheap Indonesian tyres on a Ferrari is a dumb idea. Buying
>>the Ferrari might have been motivated by snobbery.
>
>
> You posted: I'm not Canon bashing - but the 18-55 lens is nasty, and worth
> no more than the low price asked for it. "Nasty" is not fair and I think
> that the lens is worth more than the low price asked for it. I have L
> lenses and consumer lenses and am weary of the outlandish comparisons. I
> have taken my own test shots and can't see the justification for L glass for
> most folks. Look up "the law of diminishing returns".
>
> I'm sorry, but it has everything to do with snobbery!
>
>
Good. Whether you think it's good value is your subjective opinion, not
something able to be quantified. Our opinions differ.
I am absolutely aware of how diminishing returns apply, and am probably
just as critical or cynical as you are about how snobbery influences
many opinions expressed in this forum and elsewhere.
It isn't just about fancy labels. It makes a difference. The Nikkor
18-70 is a stunning lens (that still has some faults) that by my
subjective judgement is right at the position above which diminishing
returns really start to bite. You could spend a lot more for very
little gain. Nikon make some lenses "better" than the 18-70 that cater
well for this market (although some people may see or need the small
gains, I don't). Spend less, and you will lose some real benefits that
will make a real difference to how you take a photograph, and to the result.
We could argue about the optical qualities endlessly - about whether it
is "worth" the extra $ for the better optical performance of the Nikkor.
The mechanical/ergonomic superiority of the Nikkor is something that
cannot be disputed - but the significance of real HSM (USM in Canon
parlance), non-rotating front element, and a nice focus ring is
something that a casual inspection in a camera store, by someone who is
not familiar with using slrs or dslrs is likely to either miss - or if
not may underrate the significance of these improvements to the tools
used for their art.
The original poster was asking some questions/seeking advice. He should
be made aware of the failings of the Canon kit lens (much of which
probably applies equally to the Nikon 18-55 - as I pointed out). It is
most likely to be the most frequently used lens, and as such it is the
one lens that I would put most emphasis on with regard to quality,
unless the user has some specific specialised needs.
July 7, 2005 6:32:59 PM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
>>I'm sorry, but it has everything to do with snobbery!
>>
>>Sometimes it does.
>>Nikon makes incredible stuff.
>>Canon does too, and many of their consumer lenses are fantastic (speaking
>>as someone who uses L lenses, but also non-L).
>
>
> Of course Nikon makes incredible stuff. I don't currently own any of their
> products but respect their gear.
>
> Here is a shot taken with a CONSUMER Canon 75-300 IS lens at full-zoom,
> hand-held from a moving tram in the Florida Everglades:
> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/29130...
>
> Based on some of the denigrating drivel that I have read here about that
> lens, that is an impossible shot! I also own a Canon 100-400 L lens and it
> is indeed a tad sharper but weighs a ton, costs more than my camera body,
> and is a perfect example of the "law of diminishing returns."
>
>
I wish that Nikon had a decent (fast focusing, reasonably robust, sharp
wide open, affordable and reasonably compact) zoom in that focal length
range. They currently don't.
!