Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rebel XT vs Nikon D70s

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 10:15:19 PM

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

Hey guys,

I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
question.

What would you suggest for value for the money:
1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens

I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
any thoughts on the camera's as well?

TIA,
Nicholas

More about : rebel nikon d70s

Anonymous
May 25, 2005 10:15:20 PM

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

In article <DJ6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com>,
Nicholas Wittebol <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
> question.
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
> any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>
> TIA,
> Nicholas

You might not want to make a choice based on a single lens, but rather
the lens 'system' - the collection of lenses that are available for
Canon or Nikon. If you are interested in IS, then go with the Canon.
Nikon offers fewer stabilized lenses, and they cost more than Canon's
do.

And of course Minolta has the 7D which has stabilization built in, so
all your lenses become 'stabilized'.

Bob B.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 10:22:06 PM

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

Nicholas Wittebol wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
> question.
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens

Maxxum 7D with any lens including their new 17-35.
A-S is part of the deal with all lenses.

But of the two above, go Canon.

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: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 11:38:32 PM

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

"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:D J6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
> question.
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
> any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>
> TIA,
> Nicholas

Actually, the best value would be the "D70" with the kit lens. The "s" has
so few improvements over the standard D70, and since you can update the
firmware to match the D70s, the prices on D70 kits are pretty good right
now.

I have a D70, and feel the kit lens is amazing, but it's hard to get away
from that Nikon Canon debate. They are both excellent cameras and it would
be hard to wrong with either.
May 26, 2005 12:48:56 AM

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

"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:D J6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
> question.
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens

I'm so new to photography & cameras that I don't even rate on the advice
pole. One thing I do know/think about the Rebel may be worth your
consideration though. If you haven't actually held one for more than a
pick-up & 360 view before putting it down you may want to do so. I just
purchased a Nikon CoolPix 8700 last week and the salesman was pushing the
Rebel XT as an alternative. The Rebel XT felt like it weighed 10lbs. It
was immediately noticable upon picking it up but because very noticable the
longer I held it and played with it in the store. I haven't held a D70 so
maybe their weights are similar but I didn't like how heavy the XT was
particularly when I plan to use the digital camera often.
--
Tara
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 2:39:05 AM

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

I am not sure the lenses are what distinguishes these cameras.
I am not sure that one has clearly indispensable features compared to the
other for most amateur users. All things being equal the software options on
the Nikon are a bit more sophisticated and more than most amateurs will use.
All things being equal the extra 2mps of the Canon sensor are desirable but
will not show up in the final print.
For most amateur users itsthe old Nikon/Canon or Toyota/Nissan debate.
The Nikon kit lens is much better than my first impression. Distortion is
not intrusive. If the Photoshop Raw Plug-in is to be believed chromatic
aberrations at wide angle settings are extremely low.
Come to think of it all of the demonstrations I've seen about how to correct
chromatic aberration using the Photoshop raw plug-in are done using Canon
wide angle lenses!!!!!
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 3:09:41 AM

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

Nicholas Wittebol <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote:


> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
> any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>

This Nikon lens is so much better than the Canon lens listed that it makes
the D70 the better deal in spite of the 15% greater pixel rez of the Canon.
Besides, the D70 has a lot more menu options and is more configurable to
one's particular shooting style.
May 26, 2005 5:38:23 AM

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

"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:D J6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
> question.
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
> any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>
> TIA,
> Nicholas

Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a much
higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic and
too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features that
you will eventually use).

In the long term, your main $$ cost will be lenses, so saving a few $100 on
the body is not worth it. You think you're not "pro" ... now, but believe
me, "amatuers" eventually have "pro" needs - its a sickness. Similar to
audio. You start off with a "good" $1000 system. As you listen more, your
ears become more discerning and before you know it, there are $5000
monoblock amplifiers in your house (not speaking from personal experience
ofcourse, but I know people with the audiophile sickness).

In any case, I think both have good lens systems, but I am partial to Canon.
So again, get neither and buy the 20D. The 17-85 is a _satisfactory_ lens
(expected from a "5X" zoom).

Musty.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:03:08 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> What would you suggest for value for the money:
>> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
> Maxxum 7D with any lens including their new 17-35.
> A-S is part of the deal with all lenses.
>
> But of the two above, go Canon.
>

Why?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:56:39 AM

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

This is a most interesting thread. I started off my Photo Career as an
amature and haven't gone much further however I started with an old Cannon
FT. I loved the results and then finally made the upgrade to a Nikon F2
what a difference a lens makes. Since then (1971) I've graduated to the
D70. You can't beat the Nikon lenses hands down. They are still the
standard in the industry and I would tell anybody if they want the most
advanced system and best lens go Nikon and leave the rest to the amatures.
Good luck on your choice.

Bob
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:W4udnengAdjaswjfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
> "Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:D J6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
>> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
>> question.
>>
>> What would you suggest for value for the money:
>> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>>
>> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
>> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
>> any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>>
>> TIA,
>> Nicholas
>
> Actually, the best value would be the "D70" with the kit lens. The "s"
> has so few improvements over the standard D70, and since you can update
> the firmware to match the D70s, the prices on D70 kits are pretty good
> right now.
>
> I have a D70, and feel the kit lens is amazing, but it's hard to get away
> from that Nikon Canon debate. They are both excellent cameras and it
> would be hard to wrong with either.
>
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 1:48:38 PM

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

>
> Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a much
> higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic
> and
> too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features that
> you will eventually use).
>

What features?

> In the long term, your main $$ cost will be lenses, so saving a few $100
> on
> the body is not worth it. You think you're not "pro" ... now, but believe
> me, "amatuers" eventually have "pro" needs - its a sickness. Similar to
> audio. You start off with a "good" $1000 system. As you listen more, your
> ears become more discerning and before you know it, there are $5000
> monoblock amplifiers in your house (not speaking from personal experience
> ofcourse, but I know people with the audiophile sickness).

In some countries other than the US the difference from the XT to the 20D is
far more marked.


> In any case, I think both have good lens systems, but I am partial to
> Canon.
> So again, get neither and buy the 20D. The 17-85 is a _satisfactory_ lens
> (expected from a "5X" zoom).
>
> Musty.
>
>
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 3:14:06 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> What would you suggest for value for the money:
>>> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>>> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>>
>> Maxxum 7D with any lens including their new 17-35.
>> A-S is part of the deal with all lenses.
>>
>> But of the two above, go Canon.
>>
>
>Why?


Presumably Alan Browne thinks that 8.0 MP (Canon) is always better
than 6.0 MP (Nikon). He's welcome to his opinion, but ...

The truth is that Canon's noise reduction is very aggressive, making
the results soft. The results from the Canon are actually softer than
those from the Nikon - despite the apparent 2.0 MP advantage.

The Nikon also has the advantage of a very good lens. For a kit lens,
it offers exceptional value for money, and it is optically very much
better than the decidedly average kit lens offered by Canon.

Faced with the choice of these two cameras, I would probably choose
the Nikon simply because of the lens. If I bought the Canon I would
definitely choose a different lens, which would add $$$.

However, in each case you would be buying into a whole system of
camera bodies, lenses and accessories. You should think carefully
about the features you are likely to want in future, and look at the
Nikon and Canon systems to see which would suit you best. For
example, Canon have a wider range of lenses equipped with IS
(anti-vibration) compared to Nikon's smaller range of VR optics.

In DSLR camera bodies, Canon offers an ideal upgrade path via the EOS
20D, still with 8 MP but with much better performer than the Rebel XT
(350D). Nikon doesn't have a better consumer DSLR than the D70 at
this time, so the only upgrade path would be to the far more expensive
D2Hs and D2X, which are designed for professional use and priced
accordingly.

No-one can tell you which to choose. You have to decide for yourself.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 3:21:49 PM

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>What would you suggest for value for the money:
>>>1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>>>2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>>
>>Maxxum 7D with any lens including their new 17-35.
>>A-S is part of the deal with all lenses.
>>
>>But of the two above, go Canon.
>>
>
>
> Why?

As much as I love my Maxxum system, the future of K-M in this market is
not certain. I need the 7D as a digital camera as I have all those
Minolta lenses...

Out of Canon and Nikon, Canon are the trail blazers. They are closest
to the sensor technology (of the SLR OEM's) and have led this segment of
the industry in all respects. They have a great lens and flash system
too. So a very solid choice.

I certainly have nothing against stalwart Pentax, except they are also
followers in the industry with respect to Nikon/Canon.

Olympus 4/3 system has many merits, except as often stated in another
couple threads, an uncertain mpix growth for the future, and the
neccesity of investing in new lenses (which for newcomers is a neccesity
in any case, so a wash). Many of the Oly lenses for the E system appear
to very good to excellent lenses.

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: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:04:01 PM

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> Presumably Alan Browne thinks that 8.0 MP (Canon) is always better
> than 6.0 MP (Nikon). He's welcome to his opinion, but ...

Please indicate where I "think" that.

My opinion is based on many things other than Mpix, including Canon's
overall leadership in DSLR's, control of the fab, a stellar lens system
and other factors.

So, how's your Olympus E-2 working out?

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: Remove FreeLunch.
May 26, 2005 5:00:44 PM

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:WXgle.1723$BR4.1582@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> >
> > Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a
much
> > higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic
> > and
> > too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features
that
> > you will eventually use).
> >
>
> What features?
>

Quite a few of them - enough to make the XT seem very consumer-like
(limiting) compared to the 20D. A quick google would have answered your
question. Some listed here are features and some are capabilities (eg
focusing, speed, rangefinder etc).

Source:
http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digi...

a.. The EOS 20D has a rear QCD (Quick Control Dial) which can be used to set
exposure compensation, flash compensation, shutter speed or aperture in
manual mode and has several other functions. The same functions are
available in the Digital Rebel XT, but require the pushing of buttons. The
advantage of the QCD is you can do things faster and without taking your eye
from the viewfinder.
a.. The EOS 20D can shoot at 5 frames/second, the Digital Rebel XT can shoot
at 3 frames/sec
a.. The EOS 20D can shoot a burst of 23 high resolution JPEG frames before
the buffer fills, The Digital Rebel XT can shoot 14 frames
a.. The EOS 20D has 9 autofocus zones, the Digital Rebel XT has 7
a.. The EOS 20D provides full cross-type performance with maximum apertures
as small as f5.6, yet it achieves up to 3 times the standard focusing
precision when used with EF lenses featuring maximum apertures larger than
or equal to f/2.8. The autofocus system of the Digital Rebel XT is inherited
from the film Rebel XT body and has normal precision f5.6 sensors.
a.. The EOS 20D autofocus is specified to operate in 1 stop lower light than
the Digital Rebel autofocus (-0.5 EV vs +0/5 EV)
a.. The EOS 20D autofocus is faster than the autofocus on the Digital Rebel
XT
a.. The EOS 20D has a top shutter speed of 1/8000s, the Digital Rebel XT has
a top shutter speed of 1/4000s
a.. The EOS 20D has a flash x-sync speed of 1/250s, the Digital Rebel x-sync
speed is 1/200s
a.. The EOS 20D has a pentaprism with a 0.9x viewfinder magnification, the
Digital Rebel XT has a pentamirror with 0.8x magnification.
a.. The EOS 20D has a highest ISO setting of 3200, the Digital Rebel XT has
a high ISO setting of 1600.
a.. The EOS 20D is good for 1000 shots (no flash) on a single battery
charge, the Digital Rebel XT is good for 600.
a.. The EOS 20D has a PC terminal for use with an external flash or strobe,
the Digital Rebel XT does not.
a.. The EOS 20D maximum flash sync voltage is 250v (for both the hotshoe and
PC terminal), the Digital Rebel XT maximum sync voltage is also 250v, not 6v
as I had earlier reported. Canon have recently stated that the Digital Rebel
XT does in fact share the 250v sync voltage with the 20D and other high end
Canon EOS bodies. Sorry for any confusion on this point.
a.. The EOS 20D has a high performance shutter designed for increased
reliability (100,000 cycles), the Digital Rebel XT has the normal Canon
shutter (about 50,000 cycles).
a.. The shutter lag time of the EOS 20D is 65ms, the shutter lag time of the
Digital Rebel XT is 100ms.
a.. The high-speed mirror drive give the EOS 20D a shortened viewfinder
blackout time (115ms) compared to the Digital Rebel XT (170ms)
a.. The EOS 20D sensor (8.2MP, 22.5 x 15mm) is very slightly larger and has
slightly more pixels than the Digital Rebel XT sensor (8.0MP, 22.2 x
14.8mm).
a.. The EOS 20D has a multi-controller on the back of the camera can be
pushed in eight directions, as well as down in the center, to simplify
selection of the AF point, correction of white balance, trimming of images
during direct printing, scrolling of magnified images etc. The Digital Rebel
XT uses push buttons for the same functions.
a.. The EOS 20D has top, front and rear covers made of a magnesium alloy for
added strength and rigidity. The top, front and rear covers of the Rebel XT
are plastic.
a.. The EOS 20D has 18 custom functions, the Digital Rebel XT has 9 (List of
XT custom functions)
a.. The EOS 20D ships with Adobe PhotoShop Elements 2, the Digital Rebel XT
ships with ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5.5. Adobe have an upgrade offer from
Elements to full Photoshop CS for $299. This offer applies to copies of
Elements which were supplied bundled with Canon products. Since Photoshop
retails for up to $599 ($649 list), this can be a significant saving.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 5:47:44 PM

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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:48:56 -0400, Tee wrote:

> I'm so new to photography & cameras that I don't even rate on the advice
> pole. One thing I do know/think about the Rebel may be worth your
> consideration though. If you haven't actually held one for more than a
> pick-up & 360 view before putting it down you may want to do so. I just
> purchased a Nikon CoolPix 8700 last week and the salesman was pushing the
> Rebel XT as an alternative. The Rebel XT felt like it weighed 10lbs. It
> was immediately noticable upon picking it up but because very noticable
> the longer I held it and played with it in the store. I haven't held a
> D70 so maybe their weights are similar but I didn't like how heavy the XT
> was particularly when I plan to use the digital camera often.

Whatever you do, don't ever lift up a Nikon F4s. If you do, make sure you
have emergency personnel nearby.

--
"I'm here to make pictures, not friends."
~ Chris Buck
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 5:49:56 PM

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

"rlking" <rlking@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:HVale.7888$M36.6388@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> This is a most interesting thread. I started off my Photo Career as an
> amature and haven't gone much further however I started with an old Cannon
> FT. I loved the results and then finally made the upgrade to a Nikon F2
> what a difference a lens makes. Since then (1971) I've graduated to the
> D70. You can't beat the Nikon lenses hands down. They are still the
> standard in the industry and I would tell anybody if they want the most
> advanced system and best lens go Nikon and leave the rest to the amatures.
> Good luck on your choice.
>

The main reason I got the D70 was the fact that I already had an assortment
of Nikkor lenses that would fit the D70. They are all from the late 60's
and 70's and still produce incredible images. True, I don't get to use all
the features of the D70 body, but I was mainly looking for a great all
around lens (the 18~70 kit lens) and a way to take digital photos with my
old lenses. Heck, most of the time I can use a hand-held meter or take a
good guess and just leave the exposure set to that setting for everything
I'm taking at that session. While the extra features and automatic lenses
are nice, sometimes you can just trip over all the whistles and bells.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 7:58:07 PM

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> Presumably Alan Browne thinks that 8.0 MP (Canon) is always better
> than 6.0 MP (Nikon). He's welcome to his opinion, but ...

What a hypocrite you are Tony Polson.
You seemed quite excited about a non existant 8 MP camera last year:

[1]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>"TP" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message

I haven't seen it yet either ... 8 MP, otherwise similar to the E-1.
My Olympus dealer is taking orders.

Apparently there is also due to be a cheaper, consumer E System body
with 5 MP at a price point to compete with the Nikon D70, etc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[2]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: TP <t...@nospam.net>

Hi Bruce,

On the contrary, I found the D2X only after I followed a link to the
F6 page that was posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Anyway, who
cares? I have already ordered an Olympus E-2!

Tony
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


REF: [1]: http://tinyurl.com/by534
[2]: http://tinyurl.com/d25nd

Where has Tony been dead wrong? 8 Mpix E-2 "orders"
Consumer E Sys at 5 Mpix.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 8:28:03 PM

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

Nicholas Wittebol <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in
news:D J6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com:
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
> any thoughts on the camera's as well?

The Nikon D70s kit lens is far better. But might I suggest you just buy a
D70 instead? That'll be incredible value, and the only thing you lose from
the D70s is the 2 inch LCD (the D70 has 1.8 inch). I've played extensively
with the D70 and Rebel, and a little with the Rebel XT and I think I'd
still buy the old D70 even over the XT. The Canon 20D, now that'd be a
tougher choice - I am a bit envious of that silky smooth CMOS.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:39:53 PM

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

Depends on what's important to you.... Is mirror lockup important? Is
ISO 100 important? If so, then go Canon. I wouldn't, however, take
the advice of one poster and buy a particular camera for the kit lens.
Buy the better body and then save your money for the best lenses you
can afford. Both Nikon and Canon have excellent lenses, so that
shouldn't be a consideration IMO. Both also, incidentally, will
warrant using USM in a post process too, so don't be swayed by the
Canon CMOS sensor softness "issue".

Good luck.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:47:02 PM

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

Musty wrote:

>
> Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a much
> higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic and
> too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features that
> you will eventually use).

The XT outer shell is made of polycarbonate while the inner frame is
aluminum just like the 20D. Nice try, though.



> In the long term, your main $$ cost will be lenses, so saving a few $100 on
> the body is not worth it. You think you're not "pro" ... now, but believe
> me, "amatuers" eventually have "pro" needs - its a sickness. Similar to
> audio. You start off with a "good" $1000 system. As you listen more, your
> ears become more discerning and before you know it, there are $5000
> monoblock amplifiers in your house (not speaking from personal experience
> ofcourse, but I know people with the audiophile sickness).

Neither the 20D nor the XT would really be considered a "pro" level
camera. And they're both have 1.6x crop factors. Just face it,
between the two there is not going to be any discernable image quality
difference. The 20D does have the two extra auto focus points but
that's kind of silly when you compare the XT's 7 and the 20D's 9 points
to a pro camera like the 1Ds with, what, 45 points!!

IMO the release of the XT put the 20D out of business for while until
its follow-on is introduced.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:28:20 PM

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

In article <jM9le.313$j51.80@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

[ ... ]

>Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a much
>higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic and
>too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features that
>you will eventually use).
>
>In the long term, your main $$ cost will be lenses, so saving a few $100 on
>the body is not worth it. You think you're not "pro" ... now, but believe
>me, "amatuers" eventually have "pro" needs - its a sickness. Similar to
>audio. You start off with a "good" $1000 system. As you listen more, your
>ears become more discerning and before you know it, there are $5000
>monoblock amplifiers in your house (not speaking from personal experience
>ofcourse, but I know people with the audiophile sickness).

Even worse are the ones who spend something like $250 *each* for
wooden knobs to "improve the sound" of their preamps. Those move from
"audiophile" to "audiophule". :-)

>In any case, I think both have good lens systems, but I am partial to Canon.
>So again, get neither and buy the 20D. The 17-85 is a _satisfactory_ lens
>(expected from a "5X" zoom).

I happen to already be well supplied with Nikon lenses, so I
selected the D70, and have been quite pleased with it.

But whichever you get you should be able to get good photos from
them. (I would suggest -- if you are limiting your choices to the D70
or the Rebel XT 350, to go to a photo store where you can handle both,
(and try the controls) to see which *feels* better to you. Being
comfortable in holding the camera and working its controls helps greatly
in making its use second nature, so you don't have to stop and think
where the controls are, perhaps losing a good shot due to the delay.

Good Luck,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 12:16:04 AM

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

I agree with the features thing...I think I saw ISO 3200, 5fps instead
of 3, 9 point focus instead of 7, and one more thing....not worth the
extra $600 CDN here.

Pete D wrote:
>>Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a much
>>higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic
>>and
>>too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features that
>>you will eventually use).
>>
>
>
> What features?
>
>
>>In the long term, your main $$ cost will be lenses, so saving a few $100
>>on
>>the body is not worth it. You think you're not "pro" ... now, but believe
>>me, "amatuers" eventually have "pro" needs - its a sickness. Similar to
>>audio. You start off with a "good" $1000 system. As you listen more, your
>>ears become more discerning and before you know it, there are $5000
>>monoblock amplifiers in your house (not speaking from personal experience
>>ofcourse, but I know people with the audiophile sickness).
>
>
> In some countries other than the US the difference from the XT to the 20D is
> far more marked.
>
>
>
>>In any case, I think both have good lens systems, but I am partial to
>>Canon.
>>So again, get neither and buy the 20D. The 17-85 is a _satisfactory_ lens
>>(expected from a "5X" zoom).
>>
>>Musty.
>>
>>
>
>
>
May 27, 2005 12:29:08 AM

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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:19 -0400, Nicholas Wittebol
<nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote:

>Hey guys,
>
>I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
>getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
>question.
>
>What would you suggest for value for the money:
>1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
>I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
>guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
>any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>
>TIA,
>Nicholas

Get the Nikon. Far better lens and it's still the best body in it's
price range according to the publications I have read.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 2:49:04 AM

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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:19 -0400, Nicholas Wittebol
<nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote:

>What would you suggest for value for the money:
>1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens

Interesting question, as I've spent the past couple of months deciding
on which DSLR to purchase. Eventually my shortlist was whittled down
to these two. Here in the UK the above Nikon kit is markedly cheaper
than the Canon body + lens combo, so on pure value-for-money the
former wins. However I eventually decided on the Canon pairing because
(a) I'm moving from Olympus OM kit and the Canon felt more comfortable
in my hands than the Nikon, (b) my main area of photography is
landscape/travel so I wanted a body + lens that would cover a wide
range of useful focal lengths while saving space and weight, and (c)
there are a lot of good second-hand lenses available. Thus the Canon
combo fitted *my* defintion of 'value' better.

>any thoughts on the camera's as well?

Both are stunning pieces of kit at the price. Handle them both, take
some test shots, and make the decision based on what *you* need.

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 4:27:21 AM

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

Sandy Engrenage <Sandy@Gearbox.com> wrote:
>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
> > Presumably Alan Browne thinks that 8.0 MP (Canon) is always better
> > than 6.0 MP (Nikon). He's welcome to his opinion, but ...
>
>What a hypocrite you are Tony Polson.
>You seemed quite excited about a non existant 8 MP camera last year:


Non existent, eh? I have it now, beside me. It is called the Olympus
E300, or E-VOLT. I use it as a spare body. Before its release, it
was apparently referred to as the E2.

For several months I also had an E1 body that was fitted with an 8 MP
sensor. It was a prototype - one that I assume eventually led to the
release of the E300.

I believe Olympus are currently testing two models with higher than 5
MP) pixel counts. One of the projects is apparently referred to as E3.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct your unfortunate
misunderstanding. Or was it ignorance ... or sheer bad manners ...

;-)
May 27, 2005 6:48:53 AM

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

<briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117158422.492861.63490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Musty wrote:
>
> >
> > Get the 20D. Its really not that much more than the XT and you get a
much
> > higher quality camera. I think the XT is great but it is made of plastic
and
> > too small in my opinion (not to mention missing quite a few features
that
> > you will eventually use).
>
> The XT outer shell is made of polycarbonate while the inner frame is
> aluminum just like the 20D. Nice try, though.
>

(polycarbonate == plastic)

>
> Neither the 20D nor the XT would really be considered a "pro" level
> camera. And they're both have 1.6x crop factors. Just face it,
> between the two there is not going to be any discernable image quality
> difference. The 20D does have the two extra auto focus points but
> that's kind of silly when you compare the XT's 7 and the 20D's 9 points
> to a pro camera like the 1Ds with, what, 45 points!!
>

No one is calling 20D a pro camera (at least I did not). The XT feels very
consumer "wannabe" and the 20D feels less consumer and closer to pro build
(but not pro). But see the list of differences here:

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digi...

I am not making this up, its for real and should be considered, since the
difference in cost of the 20D over the XT is chump change compared to what
you get.

> IMO the release of the XT put the 20D out of business for while until
> its follow-on is introduced.
>

Thats a funny one (LOL), you're really in denial here. You need to step back
and look at the big picture here (pun intended) - the 20D and XT are
different cameras both presenting excellent value. One is _slightly_ more
expensive than the other and removes many of the compromises.

Canon didnt get to the top of their game by putting out competing product!

XT - aimed at amatuers OR those new to DSLR OR those with a tight budget but
want DSLR
20D - aimed at amatuers who have less financial restrictions, or pros with
financial restrictions/backup camera. Seen many a pro shooting with 10D and
20D. Never seen one with an XT or rebel (but who knows)
1D Mk II - Pros mainly and amatuers who want the next level (that will be me
in a very near future)
1Ds Mk II - Pros and those who have really caught the sickness :-)

The XT market is for the masses, the honda civic (the money maker for
Canon). Read the link I have posted and tell me that the 20D does not have
clear and distinct advantages for most shooters over the XT.

I think the XT is great, but it is what it is - a small, cheap,
ergonomically challenged SLR full of compromises for the more discerning and
demanding shooter. The 20D removes many of those compromises in a far
tighter package.

Many people (yourself included, obviously) do not require these extra
advantages. For me the following are key:

- Body ergonomics and build
- Shutter lag
- QCD (when shooting in manual, this is a requirement)
- 9 AF (great for portraits with my 70-200 f2.8LIS)
- AF works down another full stop, thats in half the light! - and its
faster.
- Slightly better sensor

Anyway - I think your comment that XT takes away from 20D business, clearly
shows that you do not appreciate or require these advantages. They are
simply not important to you - welcome to the masses.


Cheers
Musty
May 27, 2005 6:57:48 AM

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

"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:eqednV0RDcVZ-wvfRVn-hA@rogers.com...
> I agree with the features thing...I think I saw ISO 3200, 5fps instead
> of 3, 9 point focus instead of 7, and one more thing....not worth the
> extra $600 CDN here.
>

Did you read:
http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digi...

I think this sentence sums it up:
"It's likely that the difference in image quality will be small, but that
also applies to film cameras, where the image captured by a $200 film Rebel
T2 is the same as the image captured by a $400 Elan 7N, an $800 EOS-3 or a
$1600 EOS-1v, so clearly people don't buy cameras based only on image
quality."

Most of the people who are not willing to spend the extra few $100 because
those "other" differences are not important to them. These "other"
differences are only important to the more discerning shooter:

Here is another quote from Bob Atkins which sums up this sentiment:
"The Digital Rebel XT is designed more for the newcomer to digital SLRs and
for users who don't need the added features and durability of the EOS 20D.
The EOS 20D is designed more for the serious amateur and professional who
work their cameras harder and expect them to do more"

Its not important to _you_, but it may be important to the OP, so I want the
OP to consider other choices before spending money with too many
compromises. For example I clearly think that the 1D MkII is a worthy
upgrade from the 20D, because for _me_ I can make use of the additional
features (I am not going to kid myself and think otherwise).

Musty
(running the risk of being labelled a paid 20D advocate....)
May 27, 2005 7:13:47 AM

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

"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:D J6dne2jwpd2ZQnfRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hanging around here lately soaking up all of the wisdom...and
> getting bored with the continuous threads of insults...anyway, here's my
> question.
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>
> I'm not a pro that's for sure, just wondering which is a better lens I
> guess, cause the camera's are pretty equal as far as I'm concerned...but
> any thoughts on the camera's as well?
>
> TIA,
> Nicholas

Nicholas,

If these are your _only_ two choices (I am assuming cost is an issue here
since you are looking at general purpose kit lenses), then the D70 is the
way to go (but keep in mind that you will commit to some degree to the
Nikkor lenses which are great BTW).

The D70 has better build/ergonomics and the kit lens is superior to the
17-85. And here I am a Canon owner telling you this, and one that owned the
17-85 (before I Ebayed it when I saw what L glass can do).

BTW, you dont have to be a pro to have discerning eyes and tastes.

Musty
May 27, 2005 2:02:23 PM

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

Nicholas Wittebol <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in
news:eqednV0RDcVZ-wvfRVn-hA@rogers.com:

> I agree with the features thing...I think I saw ISO 3200, 5fps instead
> of 3, 9 point focus instead of 7, and one more thing....not worth the
> extra $600 CDN here.

Not worth it for many people, if those were the only differences!

What about the better ergonomics of the 20D (Quick Command Dial, multi
controller) and the better viewfinder?

What about the better (higher precision, faster, better low light
capability) AF?

What about the higher performance shutter with more durability?


Personally I would buy the 20D if I were buying a camera today because I
value the better AF, higher shooting speed, bigger buffer and better
ergonomics.

I think that for most people trying to decide between the 2, it would be
worth handling both and considering the comfort with the different
size/weight.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 2:23:35 PM

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

Musty wrote:
> 20D - aimed at amatuers who have less financial restrictions, or pros with
> financial restrictions/backup camera. Seen many a pro shooting with 10D and
> 20D. Never seen one with an XT or rebel (but who knows)


I think alot of people seem more concerned about looking like a pro
than actually shooting like one. If you need to see a pro shooting
with a Digital Rebel (though she recently upgraded to the XT) then look
no further than this gallery: www.pbase.com/zylen I know I'll be
spending ALOT of time with my XT before I'm able to produce shots like
that. So for the time being, ya, the XT is more than enough for a
whole lot of people.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:04:00 PM

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

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:g97b91hrnppue94l8qm6vmig4vgup01895@4ax.com:

> Presumably Alan Browne thinks that 8.0 MP (Canon) is always better
> than 6.0 MP (Nikon). He's welcome to his opinion, but ...
>
> The truth is that Canon's noise reduction is very aggressive, making
> the results soft. The results from the Canon are actually softer than
> those from the Nikon - despite the apparent 2.0 MP advantage.

I've never seen any test or review saying the 350/XT's noise reduction is
anywhere near aggressive, all to the contrary - very little NR applied. The
soft appearance is due to the minimal use of sharpening and lower contrast
curve. This is consistant for all Canon DSLRs' JPEG images and can easily be
altered to taste by processing RAW.

Re: the 350/XT's extra 2 MP, it actually really gives a little higher
resolution and higher level of details than any 6MP cameras in all the tests
and comparisons I've seen.

> The Nikon also has the advantage of a very good lens. For a kit lens,
> it offers exceptional value for money, and it is optically very much
> better than the decidedly average kit lens offered by Canon.
>
> Faced with the choice of these two cameras, I would probably choose
> the Nikon simply because of the lens. If I bought the Canon I would
> definitely choose a different lens, which would add $$$.

The OP was already looking at a different lens for the Canon.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:53:35 PM

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

Tony Polson wrote:
> Sandy Engrenage <Sandy@Gearbox.com> wrote:

>>What a hypocrite you are Tony Polson.
>>You seemed quite excited about a non existant 8 MP camera last year:
>
> Non existent, eh? I have it now, beside me. It is called the Olympus
> E300, or E-VOLT. I use it as a spare body. Before its release, it
> was apparently referred to as the E2.

BS. When you made the claim that you ordered "an E-2" from your "Olympus
dealer" it was the next version of the E-1 you were referring to.

For that matter, nor is it the "cheaper, consumer E System body
with 5 MP" that you reffered to in the same post.

You got it all wrong because you were just jumping on the speculation
bandwagon.

> For several months I also had an E1 body that was fitted with an 8 MP
> sensor. It was a prototype - one that I assume eventually led to the
> release of the E300.

Prove it.

> I believe Olympus are currently testing two models with higher than 5
> MP) pixel counts.

Duh.


> One of the projects is apparently referred to as E3.

What? You don't have the prototype yet?

> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct your unfortunate
> misunderstanding. Or was it ignorance ... or sheer bad manners ...

No, just the fact that you are a BS artist.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:07:26 PM

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

Nicholas Wittebol wrote:
> Hey, anyone know what lens was used for those awesome photos?
>

Daniella has a huge inventory of lenses. If you're referring to the
gallery I posted, that is....
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 9:20:57 PM

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

Hey, anyone know what lens was used for those awesome photos?

briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Musty wrote:
>
>>20D - aimed at amatuers who have less financial restrictions, or pros with
>>financial restrictions/backup camera. Seen many a pro shooting with 10D and
>>20D. Never seen one with an XT or rebel (but who knows)
>
>
>
> I think alot of people seem more concerned about looking like a pro
> than actually shooting like one. If you need to see a pro shooting
> with a Digital Rebel (though she recently upgraded to the XT) then look
> no further than this gallery: www.pbase.com/zylen I know I'll be
> spending ALOT of time with my XT before I'm able to produce shots like
> that. So for the time being, ya, the XT is more than enough for a
> whole lot of people.
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 10:19:38 PM

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 03:13:47 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> BTW, you dont have to be a pro to have discerning eyes and tastes.

Shhh. Let people keep using "amateur" as a put-down. And only those
with discerning tastes in language will proudly call themselves amateurs.

--
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
May 28, 2005 12:26:57 AM

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

<briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117214615.142385.280200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Musty wrote:
> > 20D - aimed at amatuers who have less financial restrictions, or pros
with
> > financial restrictions/backup camera. Seen many a pro shooting with 10D
and
> > 20D. Never seen one with an XT or rebel (but who knows)
>
>
> I think alot of people seem more concerned about looking like a pro
> than actually shooting like one. If you need to see a pro shooting
> with a Digital Rebel (though she recently upgraded to the XT) then look
> no further than this gallery: www.pbase.com/zylen I know I'll be
> spending ALOT of time with my XT before I'm able to produce shots like
> that. So for the time being, ya, the XT is more than enough for a
> whole lot of people.
>

You may be right about people wanting to look more pro. Its actually not
such a bad thing you know - at events or around town, when people see my big
white 70-200 they make space for me and move out my way (as if somehow its
more important for _me_ to get the shot). On the downside, pro-gear attracts
attention, weighs a ton and costs quite a bit.

I never said the XT was a bad camera - I just feel that it lacks on certain
features (and build) that are more synonymous with pro gear. This is not
about looking pro, but having certain features and flexibilities. SLR to me
is all about flexibility. I think the extra cost of the 20D is very small
and it removes those compromises. The next step (1D MkII) removes even more
compromises, but you now take a $2500 price hike! That $2500 can buy some
nice glass.

Actually for me, I am all about glass (or should I say gla$$). No matter if
you got XT, 300D, 20D, 1D - its all about the gla$$ when it comes to
flexibility (fast apertures) and technically acceptable shots (sharpness,
color, contrast).

Regarding the gallery you pointed me to, the composition is mostly good
(although I suspect low quality lenses on the land-scape shots). Also many
of the flower shots were not well composed (too busy), but this is not a
photo competition and I am not a judge. I cannot however, tell how good the
shots would be on a large print and how much "touch-up" has been done. The
dragonfly in mid-flight is a really cool shot!

Musty!
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:31:44 AM

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> You may be right about people wanting to look more pro. Its actually not
> such a bad thing you know - at events or around town, when people see my big
> white 70-200 they make space for me and move out my way (as if somehow its
> more important for _me_ to get the shot).

Maybe it is! If nothing else, you cared enough to lug that heavy
stuff out there. Maybe the person getting out of your way just
wanted to snap a picture as an afterthought, and figured, "This
shooter has more of an investment in getting a shot than I do."
Sounds like admirable courtesy to me.

--
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
May 28, 2005 12:50:30 AM

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

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 75nku$flt$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <3fkkniF8as3tU1@individual.net>,
>
> From what I have heard, the most often voiced complaint about
> the Rebel XT is that it feels too small and light. :-)
>
> Since you state that you are new to photography and cameras, it
> *might* be that you are holding the camera wrong. For a SLR (film or
> digital), the normal way to hold most versions* is:
>
> Right hand grips body with index finger on shutter release, and
> thumb on the rapid advance lever (older film), or near the cluster of
> buttons and wheels to adjust options (DSLRs and more recent film with
> motor film advance).
>
> The left hand does *not* grip the left side of the body, but
> rather is turned to cradle the lens, with the thumb and index finger on
> the zoom (or focus, if it has manual focus and no zoom), and the thumb
> can move back and forth to work in concert with the index (focus), the
> middle fingers (zoom), or the little finger (aperture ring, if you are
> using a camera which allows such control.
>
> In any case, the left elbow is placed against the side of the
> body, or even the belly. The longer the lens (and thus the heavier),
> the farther from the camera body will be the hand, as the hand should be
> placed about at the balance point of the lens/camera combination.
>
> Held this way, the weight is far less of a problem than holding
> the body with both hands and trying to support the weight of the lens by
> twisting the body.
>
> Obviously, with a Coolpix, without interchangeable lenses,
> the above does not apply.
>
> Just some thoughts,
> DoN.
>
> * Above I said "Most versions". One exception to this is the (now
> very old) Ziess Super Contaflex, which had two projections on
> the focus ring which was the closest to the body, and focusing
> was accomplished by alternately pressing on these projections
> with the second finger of each hand as you gripped both sides of
> the body.
>
> The weight of the lenses was not as much of a problem with this,
> as only the front element of the lens was interchangeable, with
> limited wide angle and telephoto replacements.
>
> This comes to mind because it was the first SLR of any sort
> which I ever owned -- and I rapidly discovered the limitations
> of the camera. :-)

Yes, I'm very new! Thanks for your patience and explanation. I am feeling
the weight with a film SLR when lenses are attached. If the XT is
considered too light and/or small by alot of people then I can only assume
that it won't be long before the CP, without add-ons, feels like a toy. I
did order 4 lenses for it with adapters and filters and whatnot but since
they haven't arrived I haven't been able to try them out.

--
Tara
May 28, 2005 12:50:51 AM

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

"Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.05.26.11.47.39.920000@home.com...
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:48:56 -0400, Tee wrote:
>
>> I'm so new to photography & cameras that I don't even rate on the advice
>> pole. One thing I do know/think about the Rebel may be worth your
>> consideration though. If you haven't actually held one for more than a
>> pick-up & 360 view before putting it down you may want to do so. I just
>> purchased a Nikon CoolPix 8700 last week and the salesman was pushing the
>> Rebel XT as an alternative. The Rebel XT felt like it weighed 10lbs. It
>> was immediately noticable upon picking it up but because very noticable
>> the longer I held it and played with it in the store. I haven't held a
>> D70 so maybe their weights are similar but I didn't like how heavy the XT
>> was particularly when I plan to use the digital camera often.
>
> Whatever you do, don't ever lift up a Nikon F4s. If you do, make sure you
> have emergency personnel nearby.

I made a mental note :) 

--
Tara
May 28, 2005 1:16:40 AM

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

"Ben Rosengart" <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd9f0tg.su1.br@panix5.panix.com...
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > You may be right about people wanting to look more pro. Its actually not
> > such a bad thing you know - at events or around town, when people see my
big
> > white 70-200 they make space for me and move out my way (as if somehow
its
> > more important for _me_ to get the shot).
>
> Maybe it is! If nothing else, you cared enough to lug that heavy
> stuff out there. Maybe the person getting out of your way just
> wanted to snap a picture as an afterthought, and figured, "This
> shooter has more of an investment in getting a shot than I do."
> Sounds like admirable courtesy to me.
>

Its definitely a courtesy - and one that is appreciated.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:40:43 AM

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

> Source:
> http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digi...
>
> a.. The EOS 20D has a rear QCD (Quick Control Dial) which can be used to
> set
> exposure compensation, flash compensation, shutter speed or aperture in
> manual mode and has several other functions. The same functions are
> available in the Digital Rebel XT, but require the pushing of buttons. The
> advantage of the QCD is you can do things faster and without taking your
> eye
> from the viewfinder.
> a.. The EOS 20D can shoot at 5 frames/second, the Digital Rebel XT can
> shoot
> at 3 frames/sec
> a.. The EOS 20D can shoot a burst of 23 high resolution JPEG frames before
> the buffer fills, The Digital Rebel XT can shoot 14 frames
> a.. The EOS 20D has 9 autofocus zones, the Digital Rebel XT has 7
> a.. The EOS 20D provides full cross-type performance with maximum
> apertures
> as small as f5.6, yet it achieves up to 3 times the standard focusing
> precision when used with EF lenses featuring maximum apertures larger than
> or equal to f/2.8. The autofocus system of the Digital Rebel XT is
> inherited
> from the film Rebel XT body and has normal precision f5.6 sensors.
> a.. The EOS 20D autofocus is specified to operate in 1 stop lower light
> than
> the Digital Rebel autofocus (-0.5 EV vs +0/5 EV)
> a.. The EOS 20D autofocus is faster than the autofocus on the Digital
> Rebel
> XT
> a.. The EOS 20D has a top shutter speed of 1/8000s, the Digital Rebel XT
> has
> a top shutter speed of 1/4000s
> a.. The EOS 20D has a flash x-sync speed of 1/250s, the Digital Rebel
> x-sync
> speed is 1/200s
> a.. The EOS 20D has a pentaprism with a 0.9x viewfinder magnification, the
> Digital Rebel XT has a pentamirror with 0.8x magnification.
> a.. The EOS 20D has a highest ISO setting of 3200, the Digital Rebel XT
> has
> a high ISO setting of 1600.
> a.. The EOS 20D is good for 1000 shots (no flash) on a single battery
> charge, the Digital Rebel XT is good for 600.
> a.. The EOS 20D has a PC terminal for use with an external flash or
> strobe,
> the Digital Rebel XT does not.
> a.. The EOS 20D maximum flash sync voltage is 250v (for both the hotshoe
> and
> PC terminal), the Digital Rebel XT maximum sync voltage is also 250v, not
> 6v
> as I had earlier reported. Canon have recently stated that the Digital
> Rebel
> XT does in fact share the 250v sync voltage with the 20D and other high
> end
> Canon EOS bodies. Sorry for any confusion on this point.
> a.. The EOS 20D has a high performance shutter designed for increased
> reliability (100,000 cycles), the Digital Rebel XT has the normal Canon
> shutter (about 50,000 cycles).
> a.. The shutter lag time of the EOS 20D is 65ms, the shutter lag time of
> the
> Digital Rebel XT is 100ms.
> a.. The high-speed mirror drive give the EOS 20D a shortened viewfinder
> blackout time (115ms) compared to the Digital Rebel XT (170ms)
> a.. The EOS 20D sensor (8.2MP, 22.5 x 15mm) is very slightly larger and
> has
> slightly more pixels than the Digital Rebel XT sensor (8.0MP, 22.2 x
> 14.8mm).
> a.. The EOS 20D has a multi-controller on the back of the camera can be
> pushed in eight directions, as well as down in the center, to simplify
> selection of the AF point, correction of white balance, trimming of images
> during direct printing, scrolling of magnified images etc. The Digital
> Rebel
> XT uses push buttons for the same functions.
> a.. The EOS 20D has top, front and rear covers made of a magnesium alloy
> for
> added strength and rigidity. The top, front and rear covers of the Rebel
> XT
> are plastic.
> a.. The EOS 20D has 18 custom functions, the Digital Rebel XT has 9 (List
> of
> XT custom functions)
> a.. The EOS 20D ships with Adobe PhotoShop Elements 2, the Digital Rebel
> XT
> ships with ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5.5. Adobe have an upgrade offer from
> Elements to full Photoshop CS for $299. This offer applies to copies of
> Elements which were supplied bundled with Canon products. Since Photoshop
> retails for up to $599 ($649 list), this can be a significant saving.

Thanks for that, why would you ever buy an XT? The answer is of course that
a lot of those features are nice but not used by a lot of people that will
be quite happy with what the XT will do.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:47:11 AM

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

>
> I am not making this up, its for real and should be considered, since the
> difference in cost of the 20D over the XT is chump change compared to what
> you get.
>

The difference here in Australia is more like AU$1,000 and the 20D will come
with no lens, not exactly chump change, if it was that small a difference
here I would only consider the 20D as well (I have neither).
May 28, 2005 2:10:27 AM

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:zzMle.3491$BR4.186@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> >
> > I am not making this up, its for real and should be considered, since
the
> > difference in cost of the 20D over the XT is chump change compared to
what
> > you get.
> >
>
> The difference here in Australia is more like AU$1,000 and the 20D will
come
> with no lens, not exactly chump change, if it was that small a difference
> here I would only consider the 20D as well (I have neither).
>
>

I feel for you. I lived in Australia most of my life - but moved here
several years ago. When I go to visit (once a year usually), I cant believe
some of the gear pricing. I dont want to depress you, but computers,
televisions and especially cars(one of my other obessions) are _much_
cheaper here also. Only problem is we have a numbskull chimp running the
country, that and good food & coffee is harder to find. Bring back that pimp
Clinton I say! Lose the chimp and bring the pimp! hehe.

Musty.
May 28, 2005 6:24:49 AM

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

Nicholas Wittebol wrote:
>
> What would you suggest for value for the money:
> 1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> 2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>

What are you going to shoot with them and how are you going to view the
output? You know each camera system has advantages and disadvantages.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 10:58:38 AM

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>You may be right about people wanting to look more pro. Its actually not
>such a bad thing you know - at events or around town, when people see my big
>white 70-200 they make space for me and move out my way (as if somehow its
>more important for _me_ to get the shot).


I think what makes people move out of your way is your big ego.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:16:15 PM

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

Tony Polson wrote:
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> You may be right about people wanting to look more pro. Its
>> actually
>> not such a bad thing you know - at events or around town, when
>> people see my big white 70-200 they make space for me and move out
>> my way (as if somehow its more important for _me_ to get the shot).
>
>
> I think what makes people move out of your way is your big ego.

I think what results in your compulsion to post every stray "thought"
that crosses your mind is overcompensation for your teeny-tiny one.

--
Frank ess
"Always go for the laugh."
-Oscar Levant
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:48:23 PM

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

I'm going to shoot just about everything...with animals and scenery
(plants etc) being the most frequent). I've also been considering the
D50. It seems that the only things I can find that are different from
the D70s are the size, the lack of a 1/8000 shutter, no WB tuning in
camera, 420 segment RGB instead of 1005. Anybody know of any other
differences. There must be some to separate the two cameras by about
$300 CDN

Stacey wrote:
> Nicholas Wittebol wrote:
>
>>What would you suggest for value for the money:
>>1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
>>2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
>>
>
>
> What are you going to shoot with them and how are you going to view the
> output? You know each camera system has advantages and disadvantages.
>
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:29:26 PM

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You may be right about people wanting to look more pro. Its actually not
>>such a bad thing you know - at events or around town, when people see my big
>>white 70-200 they make space for me and move out my way (as if somehow its
>>more important for _me_ to get the shot).
>
>
>
> I think what makes people move out of your way is your big ego.

What makes people move out of your way is the urge to be closer to humans.


--
-- 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: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 7:06:34 PM

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

There is a feature comparison here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond50/

"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:EJadnWRb--U_6wXfRVn-jA@rogers.com...
> I'm going to shoot just about everything...with animals and scenery
> (plants etc) being the most frequent). I've also been considering the
> D50. It seems that the only things I can find that are different from
> the D70s are the size, the lack of a 1/8000 shutter, no WB tuning in
> camera, 420 segment RGB instead of 1005. Anybody know of any other
> differences. There must be some to separate the two cameras by about
> $300 CDN
>
> Stacey wrote:
> > Nicholas Wittebol wrote:
> >
> >>What would you suggest for value for the money:
> >>1) Canon Rebel XT with 17-85 IS USM
> >>2) Nikon D70s with 18-70 kit lens
> >>
> >
> >
> > What are you going to shoot with them and how are you going to view the
> > output? You know each camera system has advantages and disadvantages.
> >
!