SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Alice, Mar 6, 2005.

  1. Alice

    Alice Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Alice

    Sheldon Guest

    Sheldon, Mar 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alice

    G.T. Guest

    G.T., Mar 6, 2005
  4. Alice

    Clyde Torres Guest

    I'm not sure this review puts to bed anything. The Nikon/Canon zealots will
    read what they want out of it and come up with different conclusions.

    I for one have both a D70 and 20D. They are far superior cameras to the
    original Digital Rebel, and from what I can see, the D70 is still superior
    to the 350D DRXT. Oh,well, to each her own.

    Clyde Torres
    Clyde Torres, Mar 6, 2005
  5. Alice

    Fitpix Guest

    I went from the 10d to the 20d and the big difference I noticed was a much
    better contrast in the 8mp camera. Not sure if it translates the same w the
    300 and 350.

    However the kit lens on the 70D seems to blow away the Canon version. Had I
    not already had Canon lenses a couple years ago I may have gone Nikon. For
    me the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is like eating a steak with a sterling
    silver vs a silver-plated's the steak (ie the image) that counts.
    Fitpix, Mar 6, 2005
  6. Alice

    ian lincoln Guest

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

    ian lincoln Guest

    going onto the second page the kit lens for the nikon is far superior.
    ian lincoln, Mar 6, 2005
  8. Alice

    Sheldon Guest

    Canon is no slouch when it comes to lenses. Do you think the inferior
    (according to some) lens is to save money and bring the price of the camera
    down? Or, does Nikon just have the edge in this genre of lens? After all,
    when you buy a "kit," the lens is often as important or more important than
    the camera, and will make a huge difference when comparing images. A crappy
    lens on a 16 megapixel camera won't compare favorably to a great lens on a 5
    megapixel camera, even if you blow up the prints.
    Sheldon, Mar 6, 2005
  9. Alice

    Steve Wolfe Guest

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

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

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

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

    Steve Wolfe, Mar 6, 2005
  10. Alice

    measekite Guest

    Which is better, D70 or 20D?
    measekite, Mar 6, 2005
  11. Brian C. Baird, Mar 6, 2005
  12. As far as just image quality is concerned the Canon, with more pixels and
    larger ISO range, probably has a slight edge. But I agree that the Nikon
    wins feature-wise. One thing that stands out is the lack of wireless flash
    control on the Canon. I bought a D70 last year, and hadn't really thought
    about the feature before the purchase. After using it, I wouldn't do without
    it. The problem with the Canon is not that it doesn't some with the camera,
    but that they want 1/3 the price of the body to add it. You can get a decent
    lens for that.
    Steve Gavette, Mar 6, 2005
  13. Alice

    ian lincoln Guest

    considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an
    inferior lens on the front seems pointless. On the other hand i have read a
    review of the 1ds mkII where they say "due to the incredible resolution of
    this camera's sensor it will show up any imperfections in your glass so you
    should only be using L lenses but with cameras at this level this should be
    a given". This may be an indication that a better lens would be wasted on a
    6 or 8mp camera. Unless any imperfections are very pronounced then there
    won't be a problem. I have fitted the sigma equivalents to a normal camera
    as they aren't ef-s mount, the vignetting is terrible. Basically the
    smaller sensor size means you can make a cheap lens that would useless on a
    35mm film camera use it on digital because the majority of imperfections are
    nearer the edges which are conveniently cropped away. No doubt this is why
    dedicated digital lenses are so cheap. Also the canon ef-s lenses go deeper
    into the body than standard ones. The smaller the distance you have to
    "project" the image in order for it to reach the film the fewer corrections
    are needed for aberrations. I imagine this is why the rangefinder is so
    good. With no reflex mirror you can have the film plane a hell of a lot
    closer to the front. Rangefinder lenses are typcially smaller in diameter,
    in fact most compact cameras have very small diameters but can be
    surprisingly good.
    ian lincoln, Mar 6, 2005
  14. Alice

    JohnR66 Guest

    The Nikon lens is 3x the price. It had better be superior. I've not seen
    image quality comparisons. From my experience, the Canon zoom has been very
    good in image quality given the price.
    JohnR66, Mar 6, 2005
  15. Alice

    ian lincoln Guest

    There certainly are more custom functions on the nikon, i wonder how many
    budding amateurs would comprehend the real world practical use of each one
    let alone use them to their full artistic potential. My main concern is the
    sensor itself. Very low noise images even at high iso is a good thing. No
    need for IS lenses if you can increase the sensitivity by 3 stops without a
    serious compromise on noise.

    I have heard of problems with moire patterns such as that of photographing a
    roof with uniform slates lined on it. I've been shown an example of the
    nikon censor producing interesting patterns of its own under these

    The bundled raw processing software with the d70 is said to be shite too.

    My main concern as someone who sells both and is not on commission is that i
    am giving an honest and informed opinion. The typical person who asks me
    won't have done his reading and asks very basic questions about the cameras.
    This makes me think things like custom functions and other things buried
    deep in menus aren't going to be used so though on paper the D70 is better
    you are paying for alot of stuff you aren't going to use. There is also the
    issue of plain old image quality, how does the nikon cope in both raw and
    jpeg. Such a user is more likely to be a jpeg user so which is the better
    using that format?

    A typical example is of someone who thinks he is going to make it as a
    wedding photographer (don't ask). Typically alot of flash used to flash
    exposure control is important. This means the d70. On the other hand you
    aren't going to stick with the built in flash and the ex550 has flash
    exposure compensation so is it an issue?

    In a reasonably lit church were people aren't groping around in the dark
    the EV0.5 sensitivity compared to the EV1 of the canon for metering and
    focusing isn't really an issue. Black cats in coal scuttles may be one
    thing but comparitively ordinary conditions i doubt it. On paper the nikon
    is better but it costs £200 more even with cashback in our store.

    The 350 is a nice compromise in price performance and features between the
    300 and the 20D. With enlargements and cropping in consideration i think
    the final resolution and sensor qualities tilt the balance in such a
    customers hands.
    ian lincoln, Mar 6, 2005
  16. Alice

    ian lincoln Guest

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

    My advice was that genuine fractals and noise ninja would be of more use to
    them than spending on the extra 2megapixels. AP said that the noise and
    quality of the 300D was so good that even the bicubic resampling gave pretty
    good results. I suggested they only increase the size by 20% at a time
    rather than one jump. Finally i gave them a disk of my own work and said
    "print that at A3 without any manipulation and see what happens". They also
    wanted to know if they could take me home ;)

    Based on the same situation what would you have advised?
    ian lincoln, Mar 6, 2005
  17. Alice

    Bill Guest

    I agree, the Nikon gets the edge in image quality due to the better
    glass on it. Perhaps if you couple the 350/XT with a similar quality
    lense like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, that optical edge is removed and it
    once again becomes more a comparison of the bodies.

    It's too bad Canon didn't have an 18-70 or similar lense to compare with
    the Nikkor 18-70. Now that I think about it, I'd like to see Canon come
    out with a non-IS version of their 17-85 with the same optical quality,
    as it would be a good everyday lense for a good price. It would be an
    excellent starter lense for the Rebel series and 20D too.
    Bill, Mar 7, 2005
  18. Alice

    Fitpix Guest

    yep John, I agree that at 3x the price it should be better and I also own
    the Canon lens and have been happy.
    Fitpix, Mar 7, 2005
  19. And far more expensive. Also, Canon has an IS kit lens alternative.

    That page does make the spot-on point that the D70 is an excellent camera,
    but it's a stretch to argue that it's better than the 350D, which was
    designed to respond to the areas where the D70 killed the 300D while edging
    it out in resolution and noise.

    My prediction: Nikon will have a roughly US$1700 camera with the D2x's
    sensor in it out before the year is out.

    Snore: Nikon has one lens at a price point Canon doesn't. Canon has a lot of
    lenses at various price points all around that. I'd rather the 17-40 +
    (Tamron) 28-75/2.8 than any of those lenses.

    No. The system MTF is the product of the MTFs of the components, so
    improving any component improves the system MTF. Also, "crappy" lenses
    aren't all that crappy at f/8 or f/11.
    See above: although you'd prefer better glass with the better sensor, there
    really isn't all that much difference in the f/8 to f/16 range. It's at
    f/4.0 and f/5.6 that the better glass struts its stuff.

    Also, the main selling point of the 350D is extremely low weight and price
    without sacrificing image quality.
    Again, since the system MTF is the product of the component MTFs, poor glass
    will slow down even a 3MP camera. There's a review of the Canon 17-35/2.8
    vs. the 16-35/2.8 on Luminous Landscape that shows that the differences
    between those lenses can be seen clearly even on a D30.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 7, 2005
  20. The best way to compare the two would be to put either a third-party
    lens on each, or use the respective 50mm primes from Nikon and Canon,
    which are pretty much identical in quality.

    As far as the kit lenses, Canon doesn't have a equivalent to the 18-70
    Nikon, but the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS certainly has a lot going for it.
    If only it were closer in price to the 24-135mm version.
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.