 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / December 2004Nikon D70 Or Canon Digital Rebel (Yes, A Tired Thread) (Little Long)
I can't believe I'm even having to ask this question, as I am a long-time Nikonian. However I did just purchase a Canon Digital Rebel at a killer price--used, 8,000 shutter actuations WITH the 18-55 lens & all box contents--only $565 w/shipping at a private Fred Miranda sale. But in the meantime, since then, I've seen on Rob Galibrath's website a guy selling a D70 body for $750. I've seen the DR selling for close to $650 or so on eBay, so I could be $100 away from a D70 (although I'd need a lens too; but the 28-80 sells for a small amount). The Nikon D70 is without a doubt more feature-filled. However, one thing largely mitigates that--the Wasia hack. It does somewhat shrink many of the D70 advantages features-wise. Also, despite my "Nikonian" label I started out "blank" with this--no lenses or accessories from my Nikon (N80 most recently) days, save for a Sunpak 433AF flash which I actually use with my Nikon Coolpix 5700. I only have the 18-55 lens for the Canon so far, and no hot-shoe flash or "propreitary" supplies yet save for a spare battery ($11) and the corded release ($17). As I see it, here are the main advantages/disadvantages of each, accouting for the Wasia hack for the DR, and adjusting for my particular circumstances ================ Digital Rebel advantages ================ Major: I already own it. Can select size of JPEG in "RAW + JPEG" mode (thanks to the hack) Mirror lockup (thanks to the hack) According to dpreview.com, slightly lower noise at lower ISOs (esp 100) Minor: Faster AF in low-light than D70 (according to dpreview.com) ================ Nikon D70 advantages ================ Major: It's a Nikon (I'm biased towards Nikon) Faster startup time & faster reflexes (though so far DR has actually been plenty quick even in faster situations) Lower noise at higher ISOs (though DR isn't shabby either) Faster AF-point selection (thumbpad instead of push-button/turn dial) Can specifically select Continuous (Servo) AF Minor Viewfinder gridlines Familiarity with it since it's a lot like the N80 I once owned Faster flash x-sync (1/500 vs 1/200) Separate aperture-shutter speed dials I BELIEVE it has an LCD/viewfinder indication if flash-exposure compensation is in use AF-assist doesn't require flash to be up Integration into Nikon View/Capture which I already have installed for the CP5700 The hack mitigates the D70 advantage of flash exposure compensation, ability to lock-out 'slow-sync' flash in aperture-priority, and ability to prevent shooting photos if no CF card is present. The D70 has the advantage also of being to specifically select metering mode regardless of shooting mode, rather than doing the DR's funky thing of changing to center-weighted in manual mode or partial-weighted in exposure-lock situations--but frankly, I use aperture-priority or shutter-priority and matrix (or evaluative) metering 98% of the time anyway, and that's what the DR gives me. I also never use the rear-curtain sync of the D70 (my N80 had it, I never used it). However, one thing could turn the tide, as petty as it seems--I've noticed my DR is sllooooooow at browsing images in playback, especially if you zoom out to thumbnail view. Even my CP5700 is faster, even when I put a new SanDisk Ultra II card in the DR (the 5700 has a Lexar 12x card, 512 megabytes). Also--and this is covered somewhat by the minor point under D70 of N80-famaliarity--but I LOVED using the AE/AF button on the back as AF-lock only; I could make it to where when I pressed it there was no autofocus-delay when pressing the shutter release. In situations where I had prefocused and was shooting at like f/8 or smaller and depth-of-field would cover small focusing errors, that button was a very handy way to "force-fire" the camera--make it take the photo immediately without autofocus-lag. I find that handier than having to hold-down the shutter release halfway the entire time. What do you guys think? I know I've given you a lot. One of the main points that's a priority for me is the slow image-preview of the DR; does anyone else notice this? Do they observe the D70 being quicker? Tips? LRH You can get a brand new D70 for under $700.00 here. http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=102119&start=1&OVRAW=Nik on%20D70&OVKEY=nikon%20d70&OVMTC=standard > I can't believe I'm even having to ask this question, as I am a long-time > Nikonian. However I did just purchase a Canon Digital Rebel at a killer [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > LRH > You can get a brand new D70 for under $700.00 here. > http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=102119&start=1&OVRAW=Nik > on%20D70&OVKEY=nikon%20d70&OVMTC=standard No, you can't. You'll never see it, "anonymous". Check out the reviews of this sumbag store here: http://www.price.com/vendor_review_display.html?vid=-2147483331 > You can get a brand new D70 for under $700.00 here. Well, you could certainly order it. In short order you will receive a phone call to confirm" your order, during which time the scumbag will surreptitiously slide in an offer to "upgrade" the camera to the "metal" version, or some similar bait-n-switchesque lie, plus many other "opportunities" to buy lots of other stuff. Now, granted, it's a pleasure telling them to f.ck off, but you won't be getting a D70 for a low price. > You can get a brand new D70 for under $700.00 here. > http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=102119&start=1&OVRAW=Nik > on%20D70&OVKEY=nikon%20d70&OVMTC=standard Check this: http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1805.html A Customer Satisfaction rating of 1.47 (out of a possible 10) doesn't bode well for the transaction going as planned...  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com My concern, and the reason I will probably pick the Canon, is the cost of lenses. I priced an EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS and an EF 75-300 f4-5.6 IS for just a little over $800 for the pair. Nikon has a 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR for a little over $500, but the larger VR zoom is closer to $1400. I think that image stability is important enough to spend the extra money on the IS or VR lenses and Canon is definitely less expensive. > My concern, and the reason I will probably pick the Canon, is the cost of > lenses. I priced an EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS and an EF 75-300 f4-5.6 IS for > just a little over $800 for the pair. Nikon has a 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR for a > little over $500, but the larger VR zoom is closer to $1400. I think that So is also Canon 100-400 L IS ($1400), which compares to the 80-400 VR Nikkor. > image stability is important enough to spend the extra money on the IS or VR > lenses and Canon is definitely less expensive. Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make a difference, at least in my purchase. > Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive > series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make a difference, at > least in my purchase. The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and 80-400 f4-5.6 VR are in a class with the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS. The 75-300 IS lens is a consumer lens fpr which Nikon, currently, has no competitor. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and 80-400 f4-5.6 VR are in a class with the Canon > 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS. The 75-300 IS lens is a consumer > lens fpr which Nikon, currently, has no competitor. True, but that brings us to the question, what if one is happy with the consumer grade lens? And as the OP points out, with the Wasia hack the difference between the D70 and the DR closes pretty much to D70's faster startup times. Infact, with the hack the DR gains a few features above the D70 like MLU, FEC and ISO3200. Cheers, Siddhartha >> The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and 80-400 f4-5.6 VR are in a class with the > Canon [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Siddhartha The OP just asked if the Nikon lenses compare to the Canon "L" series lenses, or the consumer types. That's all I commented on, the relative merits of the DR vs. the D70, I'll leave to others. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and 80-400 f4-5.6 VR are in a class with the Canon >70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS. The 75-300 IS lens is a consumer >lens fpr which Nikon, currently, has no competitor. Some of these lenses are reviewed at http://www.exc.com/Photography/Lenses.cgi If you have the other ones, perhaps you'd consider adding some information to help future shoppers? For some reason, the database has much more information about Canon lenses. (And by the way, I think the IS lenses are reason enough to purchase the Canon line, as I've stated frequently on r.c.e.35mm. Just one more vote for what the OP already has.) -Joel >Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive >series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make a difference, at >least in my purchase. I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp enough to warrant L lenses. Is that still the consensus? Thanks. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive >>series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make a difference, at >>least in my purchase. > > I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp > enough to warrant L lenses. Is that still the consensus? I saw a published astrophotography test of a 10D which showed a distinct advantage of the 200/2.8 Canon L lens on a 10D versus 180/2.8 Nikon lens on D70. Either the D70 sensor is inherently less sharp, or the 10D picked up a very subtle difference between the lenses. My understanding is that the Digital Rebel sensor is similar to the 10D. Also, the L lenses are much more mechanically rugged, and that should be an advantage apart from sharpness. In message <41af4914$1@mustang.speedfactory.net>, "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote: >I saw a published astrophotography test of a 10D which showed a distinct >advantage of the 200/2.8 Canon L lens on a 10D versus 180/2.8 Nikon lens on >D70. Either the D70 sensor is inherently less sharp, or the 10D picked up a >very subtle difference between the lenses. I doubt it's the sensor. The D70 is more prone to color moire than the 10D, so the D70 sensor/filter combo is not going to be the bottleneck. The 20D is somewhere in-between; It can produce color moire by shooting the solid white screen of my laptop from about 5 feet away with my sharpest lens, at 90mm. I have never seen it in any of the pictures I've taken that weren't for the purpose of producing moire. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I saw a published astrophotography test of a 10D which showed a distinct > advantage of the 200/2.8 Canon L lens on a 10D versus 180/2.8 Nikon lens on > D70. Either the D70 sensor is inherently less sharp, or the 10D picked up a > very subtle difference between the lenses. > > My understanding is that the Digital Rebel sensor is similar to the 10D. Something to do with CMOS vs CCD sensor at long exposures? - Siddhartha >> I saw a published astrophotography test of a 10D which showed a > distinct [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > picked up a >> very subtle difference between the lenses. I may be misremembering which lens it was -- sorry. >>Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive >>series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make a difference, at >>least in my purchase. > > I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp > enough to warrant L lenses. Is that still the consensus? Don't believe that "observation" reached anything like the level of a consensus. The image sensor is the same as the 10 D, and is sharp enough. -- John McWilliams >>Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive >>series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make a difference, at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >-Joel I've never heard that before. I have a DR, but no L lenses, so I certainly can't say one way or the other. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp >>enough to warrant L lenses. Is that still the consensus? > >I've never heard that before. >I have a DR, but no L lenses, so I certainly can't say one way or the >other. Have you ever used a film EOS camera? Do you find the sharpness of the DRebel to be as good as film cameras? (Please, let's not start the discussion of whether digital itself is as good as film. I'm asking if a 5x7 from the DRebel will be about as sharp as one from ordinary consumer film processed by, say, Fuji.) Thanks. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp >>>enough to warrant L lenses. Is that still the consensus? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >-Joel No, no film EOS cameras at all. As for the sharpness, yes. I have a Friday Geek Dinner group, and I often take a 4x6 of an image I've shot that week. Comparing to any such pic from my Konica FT-1 Motor (which I haven't used in a while) the DR compares very well; I dare say that comparing 4x6's side by side, the difference (same subject, same light) couldn't be told. Now, having said that, let me say this: I'm not one of those who will get a loupe to check my pics, and neither are the people who look at them. We are much more interested in the subject, and how well the photographer captured it according to his own way of seeing it. We see the camera as a tool, not as the point of the whole exersize. Obviously, others will see this differently, at least to the extent of the technical excellence of the print/camera combo, or lack thereof. And such people are a valuable part of the photographic community; it's because of them that we get the excellent cameras we have today, and can look forward to better tomorrow. They drive the designers, who in turn let the manufacturers offer us better cameras. My opinion, of course. :-) SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" If you compare 4x6 prints side by side with a loupe, you will be evaluating somebody's enlarger. >If you compare 4x6 prints side by side with a loupe, you will be evaluating >somebody's enlarger. IIRC, I specifically said we don't do that. And, yes, I know people who do, but they aren't (IMO) comparing hopw the photo looks, but are instead comparing the printing technique, or how the print was made. I'm one of those funny people who sees the object of photography to be the representqation of the subject, not a contest to see who can best whom at using the 'superior' technology. It's the final image as seen by the viewer that counts. If that viewer wants to examine the print to see how it was made, he's no tinterested in the image, but the technology behind it; that's finer, in itself, but it's not the purpose of photography, IMO. But that's me. I just enjoy what I do. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp >enough to warrant L lenses. Is that still the consensus? Even if it *were* true, what difference would it make in the long run? The DR will be old hat long before the lenses are. The person with the DR now, buying lenses, may have a 25MP camera in a few years. In any event, the DR has the same exact resolution to the 10D, and the same resolution as a D60 (but with somewhat different filtering). Good lenses make a big difference on any of these DSLRs; they filter out the high frequencies to prevent aliasing, so a lens that gives more pixel-to-pixel contrast will take images that sharpen better in software. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less >> expensive series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make >> a difference, at least in my purchase. > I remember reading a while back that the Digital Rebel wasn't sharp > enough to warrant L lenses. Huh? Resolution i cumulative, so very crisp glass will yield criper images on /any/ film/sensor - even if the the lens can boast an MTF well beyond the film or sensor. The sensor in the Rebel has a theoretical limit of 67 lpmm (this is just computed from pixel pitch, and assumuning you need two pixels to capture a line pair). The actual resulation is probably a lot lower (it is reduced by the AA-filter, sensel crosstalk, etc.) With a hight-contrast target, L-glass resolution is in triple digits, so if somebody has argued that the Rebel isn't "sharp enough" to warrant L-glass - their argument has probably been based upon the observation that 67 lpmm is less than what L-glass can deliver, and they've come to the (wrong) conclusion that the higher resolution is "wasted". This is wrong, for the reasons given in the introductory paragraph. > Is that still the consensus? What consensus? Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? >With a hight-contrast target, L-glass resolution is in triple digits, >so if somebody has argued that the Rebel isn't "sharp enough" to >warrant L-glass - their argument has probably been based upon the >observation that 67 lpmm is less than what L-glass can deliver, >and they've come to the (wrong) conclusion that the higher >resolution is "wasted". Also, you could use a teleconverter, or extension tubes, and make the optics more of a limiting factor. Your pixel-to-pixel contrast will be lower, but your absolute subject detail will be higher. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less expensive > series? At the same price point, the performance is similar. The best data I've found is at http://www.photodo.com/. Andrew. > Do the Nikon lenses compare to the L series lenses or the less > expensive series? I have not seen a comparison and this could make > a difference, at least in my purchase. Nikon both make consumer grade lenses and professional grade lenses. Nikon just don't have a label like Canon's "L"-designation for the latter. (Btw. I don't believe all Canon's L-glass is top grade, most of them are - but some of them are /just/ very expensive without being in any way excellent.. With Nikon, to tell the difference between the good and the not so good, you look at the MTF-plots, the specifications and some sample shots (and usually the price tag matches the performance). IMHO, the top grade Nikkors tend to be better value for money than Canons L-glass. Also: Because of the long legacy of the F-mount, there are some real bargains in the second hand market for Nikonians. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? > With Nikon, to tell the difference between the good and the not > so good, you look at the MTF-plots, the specifications and some > sample shots (and usually the price tag matches the performance). Does anyone publish a comprehensive set of Nikon lens performance tests, comparable to the MTF curves in "EOS Lens Work III" from Canon? >> With Nikon, to tell the difference between the good and the not >> so good, you look at the MTF-plots, the specifications and some >> sample shots (and usually the price tag matches the performance). > Does anyone publish a comprehensive set of Nikon lens performance > tests, comparable to the MTF curves in "EOS Lens Work III" from > Canon? Nikon. You'll find them on their Japanese web site. Scroll down to the botom of the page. Here is an example: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/normal/ai_af_35-70mmf28d.htm Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? >> Does anyone publish a comprehensive set of Nikon lens performance >> tests, comparable to the MTF curves in "EOS Lens Work III" from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to the botom of the page. Here is an example: > http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/zoom/normal/ai_af_35-70mmf28d.htm Outstanding!!! Many thanks! I don't read Japanese, but I think I can reverse-engineer their file and directory naming system... If you do not have any Canon lenses and you do not want to spend more than $1000 for the body, the D70 is by far the better choice. That's a nobrainer. No reason to ask this questions. Just look at dpreview and compare. Gregor > I can't believe I'm even having to ask this question, as I am a long-time > Nikonian. However I did just purchase a Canon Digital Rebel at a killer > price--used, 8,000 shutter actuations WITH the 18-55 lens & all box > contents--only $565 w/shipping at a private Fred Miranda sale. I'm not trying to scare you, but how do you know it hasn't had 18000, or 28000 shutter actuations? It's for that reason that I am hesitating to buy a second hand DSLR. SignatureBen Thomas Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. > As I see it, here are the main advantages/disadvantages of each, > accouting for the Wasia hack for the DR, and adjusting for my [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > According to dpreview.com, slightly lower noise at lower ISOs > (esp 100) The D70 doesn't have ISO 100. > Minor: > Faster AF in low-light than D70 (according to dpreview.com) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Integration into Nikon View/Capture which I already have installed > for the CP5700 The D70 is has less shutter lag then the Rebel (you may already have it in your list - I am unsure what you mean by "faster reflexes"). This IMHO is what really makes the D70 a better camera than the Rebel.) Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.