Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel XT?

johno · May 12, 2005

OK, Just thought I would get the scoop from anyone and everyone on these two cameras. I have a budget and these two seem to be in that price range. So, since I can't afford the Canon 20D, can anyone tell me why I should pick one over the other?

I want this to be a camera that stays with me for a while. A long while. I am new to DSLR's. All my shots have been taken with the Fuji S5000. So the rebel size is not a factor with my hands.

I know most of the specs of each camera, but I am not sure of the differences. Could someone just tell me "it's junk" or "You got to have it"

Since I am new to this, I would use my camera to shoot:
Landscape
Kids/Family
Sports
NO BIRDS! Sorry Harry, I reeeaaalllllly can't afford the lenses for that. HELLO!

Or should I wait another year and save the money to buy a 20D? :scratch Is there another camera I should be looking at?

I am counting on my dgrin friends for help. Thanks.

peace.
johno~

luckyrwe · May 12, 2005

Between those two, I'd get the D70. Canon replaces their lowest end cameras like crazy. The XT will be two generations old in a year. The D70/D70s is current and I believe will be for a bit.

I shoot Canon, but I got my wife the D70. VERY nice camera, no low end appearance at all.

In my opinion I would opt for the D70, but only by a few points. Have you held both cameras in your hands yet?

NHBubba · May 12, 2005

Save yer money..
It's all relative, or maybe subjective, but:

If you are looking to keep a camera for a long time, I'd hold out for the 20D. Up until the 20D came out, I personally looked at each of these dSLRs as intermediate cameras, just like my first P&S. The idea was that I'd buy this camera to hold me over until I could afford something better and/or something better came out at a more reasonable price. The 20D seems to have changed that in my eye. It is the first camera I've held/used where I have not once thought 'Gee, this feature/attribute won't be able to keep up w/ me!' I really think it's got nearly everything you could ever ask for. It has all the 'advanced' features like DOF preview and MLU, the build quality/durability, the speed and buffer depth, and the resolution all wrapped up into one package.

I for one can't imagine how they'd improve the 20D in any way that would make me want to upgrade were I a user.

If you're looking for an SLR you can live w/ for life, I definitely don't think the DRebel, Rebel XT, or D70 qualify. The 20D does seem viable though..

robscomputer · May 12, 2005

Personally I like the feel of the D70 more than the Rebel XT. For me I have normal sized hands but the Rebel XT just felt too small. It's nothing bad about the camera since it's smaller and easier to bring along, but holding the camera with a long lens might prove to be unbalanced.

As a possibility, Canon does provide a battery grip for the Rebel XT. This will add two batteries to the bottom of the camera and from experience on my 10D greatly helps with overall balance. Also the grip is exteneded a little bit farther, allowing you to rest your pinky finger on the battery grip for more support.

When choosing between Nikon or Canon I would highly recommend that you choice does not focus too much on bodies but more so on the entire SLR systems. Every year or two they will change the bodies, improve sensors, battery life, but changes for lens, flashes come less often. In truth either way you can't make a bad decision but if you get heavily into photography it's a large investment and difficult to switch camps.

Hope this helps,
Rob

Seymore · May 12, 2005

D70... personal preference.
Good words by all here... But my reason for choosing the D70 was because I can still mount up a 25yo MF lens on my body and use it. Much of the glass from that time was very high quality... and the build quality means that the lens is still quite usable. This is not possible, that I'm aware of, with any of the newer Canons.

wholenewlight · May 12, 2005

I was faced with the same decision as you. I opted for the D70. I know that Canon has tons of market share and the rebel can certainly deliver quality shots.

I liked the solid feel of the Nikon and I like the menu system and user interface a little better. I also did some test shots and felt the "base" lens was better on the D70 (moot point if you're planning on replacin that lens - I still use mine).

All in all, I'm very happy with the D70. I only wish I had two things: a cable release port (the D70s has this) and less noise on my "high ISO" shots (canon trumps Nikon with the 20d on this).

Good luck:):

johno · May 12, 2005

Thanks everyone. One other question, what does mirror lock up do? Canon has it Nikon doesn't.

peace.
johno~

ian408 · May 12, 2005

johno wrote:

Thanks everyone. One other question, what does mirror lock up do? Canon has it Nikon doesn't.

peace.
johno~

By locking the mirror in the up position, you eliminate the shake introduced as it
moves up during the exposure. So the camera is more stable during the exposure.

Ian

leebase · May 12, 2005

As a 20D owner, you can guess that I'd go with the 350XT. But really, go hold and shoot both yourself.

As for "technology" -- the Canon is faster, 2 more megapixels -- newer -- and a Canon.

If you had Nikon glass already, then it would make sense to go with Nikon (and vice versa).

Starting out fresh -- Canon makes more sense these days.

But not so much more sense that if you go Nikon you'll be sorry. Both are excellent camera companies. It's just that "lately" (as in the last couple years) -- Canon has been "the one to beat".

IMHO.

Lee

luckyrwe · May 12, 2005

Mirror lockup used to be used also for fisheye lenses which had rear elements projecting into the mirror box. Nikon also had their high speed motors rated based on the mirror being up, that way you got 5 frames per second on the F2 as opposed to only 4 frames. Also in some case having the mirror up can add to the silcen of the shutter firing for times when silence is needed and a mirror is not essential, like when shooting animals remotely.

NHBubba · May 12, 2005

Seymore wrote:

Good words by all here... But my reason for choosing the D70 was because I can still mount up a 25yo MF lens on my body and use it.

Really? My co-worker here at work has had the exact OPPOSITE problem! He passed on the Nikon D70 because while it would mount his older MF Nikkor glass, the metering would not function! From his point of view he was out his old glass either way and ended up picking the Canon DRebel (given that was ~2 years ago!). Since then he found a gentleman on the web that sold him an adapter ring to mount his Nikkors on the Canon cameras.... WITH full METERING! Obviously you must stop down and focus manually, but it will meter.

Seems ironic to me that the older Nikon glass works BETTER on a newer Canon camera than a newer Nikon!

Opinions are like.. well, you know. You're probably going to get opinions for going in all three directions when asking on photo forums like this..

mercphoto · May 12, 2005

Seymore wrote:

Good words by all here... But my reason for choosing the D70 was because I can still mount up a 25yo MF lens on my body and use it. This is not possible, that I'm aware of, with any of the newer Canons.

Huh? How long has the EF mount been around? .....

In my opinion, Nikon is really behind the curve in dSLR's compared to Canon.

robscomputer · May 12, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

Huh? How long has the EF mount been around? .....

In my opinion, Nikon is really behind the curve in dSLR's compared to Canon.

I read many times that Nikon has their sensors developed out of house, typically by Sony where as Canon does everything in house. It's interesting to see how the lack of any Nikon full sized sensor might be from problems with outside developers.

Rob

johno · May 12, 2005

Great discussions. I just got back from the local camera shop and the more mature (older) sales guy said Nikon has a far better lens with the camera kit compared to the canon rebel... Even if I bumped up to the D20 it would be a nice camera but not a nice lens.

In the long haul cameras change... Lenses don't. True?

They didn't have a rebel xt for me to hold today. (I have held one) From what I can remember, the D70 seems more solid. I know it was heavy.

Is the D70 body plastic?

As far as being behind in the dslr making, how long will that be? Any rumors on Nikons next step?

peace.
johno~

DavidTO · May 12, 2005

To say that it's a problem that Canon updates its line often doesn't make much sense to me. I see Canon as aggressively working to improve their line-up. More so than Nikon.

Yes, the kit lens with the Canons aren't fantastic, but then again I didn't buy my 20D with the kit lens.

The thing with DSLRs is that the initial expense is just the tip of the iceberg. There's always more money to be spent.

robscomputer · May 12, 2005

johno wrote:

Great discussions. I just got back from the local camera shop and the more mature (older) sales guy said Nikon has a far better lens with the camera kit compared to the canon rebel... Even if I bumped up to the D20 it would be a nice camera but not a nice lens.

In the long haul cameras change... Lenses don't. True?

They didn't have a rebel xt for me to hold today. (I have held one) From what I can remember, the D70 seems more solid. I know it was heavy.

Is the D70 body plastic?

As far as being behind in the dslr making, how long will that be? Any rumors on Nikons next step?

peace.
johno~

I would agree with the statement that the kit lens for the D70 is nicer than either the kit lens for the Rebel XT or 20D. My friend has the D70 with kit lens and it's a very nice, impressive for including with the camera under $1200. The kit lens with the Rebel XT and 20D are not great but at less than $100 not much is expected. Again if you know you won't be changing lens then it's worth while to compare the kit lens but most SLR users change out or purchase more than one lens.

The latest camera for Nikon is the D70S and the D50. I forgot the actual difference for the D70S but it's a slight upgrade from the D70. Some nice features like wired remote but not a huge improvement over the D70. For Canon I expect to see an upgrade of the 20D sometime next year. The prosumer DSLRs come out every 1 or 1.5 years, where as the professional DSLRs come out every 2 or 3 years.

Hope this helps,
Rob

johno · May 12, 2005

Thanks everyone you all have been helpful.
I am still trying to put it all together.

peace.
johno~

ian408 · May 12, 2005

johno wrote:

Thanks everyone you all have been helpful.
I am still trying to put it all together.

peace.
johno~

Let's muddy it up a bit more

One thing you need to keep in mind is that you are not buying the body so
much as you are buying lenses. At the body level, I think a Nikon or Canon
is more personal preference. Both are good cameras and either would be a fine
camera to own. You probably won't have it nearly as long as you will the
lenses you buy for it--and that's the key point.

Spend time evaluating each lineup of glass. If you find your requirements
leaning to one over the other, that's one hint of the way you should go.

Ian

Red Bull · May 12, 2005

If it were me, I would save up and get the 20D. My uncle recently bought the D70 and said that if he could buy over again, he would get the 20D because of the capabilities compared to the D70. I bought a 20D about 2 months ago and it was well worth it to save up. I only have the kit lens, but even that lens isn't that bad and I've gotten some pretty nice pictures with it. You can always get some very nice used glass here on DGrin. I say save up and get a 20D. It will stay with for longer than a Rebel XT would. Although the XT is essentially a 20D in a small body with some features turned off...

david_h · May 12, 2005

Here's my Two Pence.

I have both Nikon and Canon cameras, but my dSLRs are both Nikon. Both companies make great cameras, you can't go wrong whichever you buy.

There is one area where Canon does seem to have a real advantage and that's in the mid-range part of the line up. Nikon don't currently have a real competitor to the 20D. They have the D70s which is a bit less and the D2Hs and D2X that are above, but it's a void in their lineup. The D100 replacement should fill it, but who knows when that will be.

I agree with the folks who suggested that you save a bit more and get a 20D, especially if you are serious about photography. The D70 and the Rebels are great for the money, but you will be wishing for that bit extra before too long.

If you do decide to go with the entry level systems, I'd get the one that feels best for you. Both companies make great lenses and there are good third party options for either. I personally bought a D70 over the original D Rebel. I've not tried the new Canon 350XT so I can't comment on this. My main camera is now a D2H (the perfect example of why megapixels aren't everything), but the D70 still gets plenty of use, especially on hikes to keep the weight down.

The good news is - you can't lose. Both systems can provide a lifetime of photographic fun.

johno · May 12, 2005

ian408 wrote:

Let's muddy it up a bit more

One thing you need to keep in mind is that you are not buying the body so
much as you are buying lenses. At the body level, I think a Nikon or Canon
is more personal preference. Both are good cameras and either would be a fine
camera to own. You probably won't have it nearly as long as you will the
lenses you buy for it--and that's the key point.

Spend time evaluating each lineup of glass. If you find your requirements
leaning to one over the other, that's one hint of the way you should go.

Ian

I think you are right Ian. I have been using a point and shoot camera for the last two years. Anything will be an upgrade. Glass will last longer than the camera. What will the D70 or 20D be worth in 3 or 5 years? How about the lenses?

I have a feeling that bodies are headed in the direction of computers. A new model every other year, every other month, every other day.

still thinking.

peace.
johno~

NHBubba · May 12, 2005

johno wrote:

What will the D70 or 20D be worth in 3 or 5 years?

That's my point though. I think the 20D is one of the first consumer level dSLRs out there that has the feature set that will make it viable for 3-5 years, easily. The Rebel, and I fear Rebel XT lack this in one way or another. I see the 20D as a knee in the progress of dSLRs. There comes a point where the returns on waiting for a new model become less and less. Personally speaking, I think the 20D could hold me for quite some time to come.

Of course I'm no good at predicting the future. This is just a shot from the hip guestimate. I could very well end up eating my words! I had a college professor who loved to rag on a fellow member of the faculty who once very boldly stood in a classroom and demonstrated mathmatically how it was physically impossible for semi-conductor manufacturing processes to ever deliver feature sizes smaller than 1 micron.. They were hitting 0.18 micron by the time he retired!

You see it in the PC industry too. People are starting to buy new computers at a somewhat slower pace. Mostly because the computers they have are fast enough as it is. Heck, I'm typing this very message on a ~6 year old laptop that features an 800 Mhz P3 processor! .. It is not the latest technology, yet it browses the web and will edit photos in a pinch when needed just fine. I see the 20D serving in the same capacity. In 5 years I think it too will be functional and viable..

ubergeek · May 13, 2005

Another two cents
Both are fine cameras. Try shooting them both; look at the lens selections available (as others have pointed out, you are after all buying into a system rather than just a body); decide whether you can live without things like mirror lockup. Other than a handful of features here and there, they are very comparable cameras.

Between those two, I'd get the D70. Canon replaces their lowest end cameras like crazy. The XT will be two generations old in a year. The D70/D70s is current and I believe will be for a bit.

I don't understand this mentality--if Canon were to introduce a replacement for the Rebel XT next week, would that suddenly cause your XT to perform worse? If the camera does what you want, who cares how often a newer model is introduced?

As for the 20D, if you can't identify why you might want/need it over the XT, you probably don't need it. The major advantages are the somewhat better build quality (but I still wouldn't drop it), better AF (although we're still not talking 1-series here), a bit faster performance (5 fps vs. 3) and a deeper buffer (I don't remember how many shots). I have the original Digital Rebel and just upgraded to the XT. I could have gone for the 20D, but I couldn't convince myself that I actually needed those features. If you can't convince yourself that you need those features either, consider an XT and buy yourself a nice lens with the difference.

As for the kit lenses, it's true that the Nikon offering is better. But there's nothing that says you have to get the kit lens. There's not much out there for the same money that goes as wide, but if you're willing to give up some wide-angle for a faster lens, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a good alternative. Or if you have to have the wide angle and your budget right now won't support anything beyond the kit lens, go for the Nikon--it's a great choice as well.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Matthew Saville · May 13, 2005

Thank you Jeremy for beginning to get everyone to think sensibly.

Cameras are still cameras, no matter how computer-like they get. You need to buy a new computer once every few years BECAUSE the software you use, especially the games you play, become more and more demanding on your system. Remember when a 3.5" floppy was commonplace and standard? Not anymore; you'd need a whole case of DVD's to back up that new 80 gig hard drive you have.

On the other hand, your camera does not get introduced to new software, in fact it gets free, very helpful firmware upgrades that can enhance performance a little and make it compatible with your silly computer. Your camera will stay the same, it will take the same pictures, just like your 35mm Rebel or N65 will.

Albeit in the beginner, low budget SLR genre I'm still using 35mm because no sub $800 digital camera can match Velvia, in my humble opinion.

But my point was, cameras like the Rebel 350 and the Nikon D50 will still work with the lenses they work with now, and they'll still produce excellent photos of your family events and travels, no matter what new decade it is. Back in the day yes, Canon changed their mount. But that was because the AF technology scene was changing rapidly and going from crummy to good. Now, your EF-S lens will focus lightning quick; I hardly doubt "lightning quick" will become obsolete after they change to EF-Z or whatever.

Personally, for my professional work I've owned a D70 for over a year and have spent 30,000 frames, at least. It's been working perfectly; I just got it back from a nice spring cleaning at Nikon repair in Torrance and the only thing wrong with it was that the apeture preview was buggy. No big deal, for 30,000 frames! I plan on using it for years to come, no matter what new camera "blows it away"...

The D70 is made of plastic; that question was not yet answered. However I've beaten the crap out of mine, it's taken a handful of two, three, and four foot falls with no damage. Just don't "whiplash" it (mount it on top of a tripod and then push the whole tripod over) or run it over with your car. (I saw pictures of that, it made my stomach turn...)

Okay so once again, the reality check:

Cameras may be released as frequently as computers, but they are still cameras. The myth that your DSLR will be obsolete in 6 months is no longer valid. A few years ago when the first DSLR's were being released at 1-3-5 megapixels, buying a new and ridiculously priced camera every year was the way it worked. But now we've hit 6-8 megapixels, and that's good enough for any enlargement size that you would have dared to do with your entry level 35mm SLR. Now, we've hit a price point and a megapixel standard, more or less, and the quality that these cameras produce is quite acceptable.

And about the people who are reccomending the 20D, John, actually we should know what exactly your background in photography is before we reccomend a pro level, expensive body to you, if all you've been using is a Fuji S5000.

Have you shot any SLR before at all? Do you fully understand the three light controling tools- apeture, shutter speed, and ISO? Cause I mean, some people buy a DSLR and they ask "what's the CORRECT exposure?" and they don't understand that 1/125 sec @ f/16 is the same exact exposure as 1/250 sec @ f/11. Let alone the fact that you can't take pictures from the LCD, lol... So of course you probably "know your stuff" and have done lots of research, but before we reccomend the D50, the 350D, the D70, the 20D, or anything, we need to know not only what you'll be shooting, but what your experience is and what you'd like to learn in the future. Back in the day, the vast majority of SLR owners were people who did just fine with their Rebel or N65, or even their AE-1 or FM-10! If you're interested in things like super macro that requires mirror lockup, or fast-paced sports like racing that require many FPS, then we can definitely reccomend saving up for the 20D. Or, waiting for the D200, WHICH WILL BE RELEASED THIS FALL! (since apparently nobody knew)

Currently, the best all-around reccomendation would be the D70, hands down. It is the best combination of low cost and "control in the hands of the photographer".

~Three frames per second, CONTINUOUS, until the card is full, in JPG "fine, medium/small", instead of the 350D's mere 3 FPS for what, six shots?

~Two command dials; the 350D has only one and you have to press a "compensation" or "apeture" button which totally ruins any remaining hope of shooting action.

~The 20D does better the D70 in the fact that it has mirror lockup and a few other quite advanced features, but I don't think that merits the few hundred extra you'd pay. Unless, like I said, you feel you'd need the 5 FPS or the MLU, even just somewhere in the distant future.

Sorry for being long winded,
-Matt-

ian408 · May 13, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

Sorry for being long winded,

Matt, your post was very thoughtful as well.

Just so we're all clear. When *I* say buy for the lens, I mean
that for the foreseable future (unless you have only the kit lens), your
investment in glass (assuming you plan on having several) will likely be
more significant that the body you put them on. By selecting for the
lens system, you have a better chance of preserving that investment
when you do decided to upgrade bodies in 3-5 years.

I don't advocate the body de jur club either.

Ian

Nee7x7 · May 13, 2005

From One Who's Been There...
John,

I recently went through mental torment over which camera to buy (I don't care what anyone says...$1,000 is NOT a "cheap" camera price!). I also waffled between the 20D and D70 for months, pitting price against function against megapixel count against kit lenses again build. And here's what I ended up doing...

Right at the peak of my mental flip-flopping, Canon threw in a curve ball with the XT! Darn...I almost had it figured out! Nikon's D70 is a sweet deal, and the kit lens is by FAR much better than the kit lens you get with Canon. However...the XT ended up being the winner for me, and here's why...

Megapixels? You bet! 8 of 'em (though 6 mp is no slouch, either!). Lack of Noise...just like the 20D...silky smooth! 3 fps...just as fast as the D70. Mirror Lock-up...yes! Battery grip...yes! Ease of use...quite! Price...was very nice! Size and weight...for me, a big plus! Feature set...so close to the 20D, the XT has been called the "baby 20D"...and it is! Wired remote...yup...great for macro shots.

Now for some inside info... I actually got used to the smaller grip very quickly. The XT is especially well suited for a woman's smaller hands, but I've heard that men adjust nicely to the grip as well. The camera is fast, focuses well, and I've yet to have to do more than downsize my pics for posting on the web. Colors are great, images are sharp, and the ONLY thing I didn't like with mine was the kit lens. I ended up returning my first XT with a kit lens and opted for an upgraded (deluxe) XT kit with the 17-85 Image Stabilized (IS) lens which is every bit as good as the Nikon D70's kit lens (probably even better!). My biggest nit right now is Canon's metering system, which I'm still getting used to. I'm still using auto settings quite a bit as I figure out how things work, and so far, I've had very few photos that didn't come out nicely exposed and sharply focused right out of the box (and I'm sure it was user error the few times they didn't).

But the bottom line is that either way you go, you can't really go wrong (and for you, the Nikon might be the better choice...I still have misty thoughts about it). The D70 is a great camera (and the D70s appears to be even better!). I'd say it's better built...more solid feeling than the XT, perhaps more likely to last for years and years and years. For me, the noise issue was a strong factor...but the noise you get with the D70 mimics film cameras more closely (than Canon's noise, which is more smudgy looking), so even with a bit more noise in it's images, it's still a really fine dslr.

Anyhow, don't know if any of my ramblings will help you, but I wanted to let you know that I feel very strongly that the XT is a very viable alternative to the 20D, and the D70 also rocks!

~Nee

ps. here's an example of a photo from my XT for you...one of my first tries at shooting with RAW~

colourbox · May 13, 2005

johno wrote:

Great discussions. I just got back from the local camera shop and the more mature (older) sales guy said Nikon has a far better lens with the camera kit compared to the canon rebel... Even if I bumped up to the D20 it would be a nice camera but not a nice lens.

I am going to get an XT but the sales guy is right. I've seen multiple articles stating that the kit lens for the XT is not so great, that if you want an XT get the nicer but expensive 17-85 lens (click here for one lens comparison). That's what I'm going to do. The long-term lens question is tricky. Some claim these new EF-S lenses won't stay current that long if Canon moves this portion of their DSLR line up to a sensor size closer to 35mm film. That's not a concern to me because I don't collect that many lenses.

My reasons for getting the XT are personal and won't apply to everyone. The XT shares the battery and card with my Canon point-and-shoot. There is an industry shift to Canon from Nikon (click here to try and find a Nikon camera at this world event). And I have had long-standing disapproval with Nikon's software philosophy, from how they didn't support my Nikon film scanner in OS X (I drive it with 3rd party software now) to today's heated controversy over Nikon's white balance encryption (click for VERY interesting Nikon interview and the comments after it).

johno · May 14, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

And about the people who are reccomending the 20D, John, actually we should know what exactly your background in photography is before we reccomend a pro level, expensive body to you, if all you've been using is a Fuji S5000.
-Matt-

Well Matt, Good questions. In my starting thread, I said, "Or should I wait another year and save the money to buy a 20D? Is there another camera I should be looking at?"

I had a long time ago a canon ae1 program. what a fun camera. i sold it to pay for a video camera when my daughter was born. I thought video would be better. My mistake.

I know just enough to want to learn more. What I love about the Fuji S5000 is the Manual control. I use it more than Auto when taking pictures. It's a great camera. I was blessed to be picked for KPOTD with my Fuji S5000. It can't be that bad a camera.

KPOTD 04/11/05

I love taking pictures of people, landscapes and have just started taking some sports shots for a local semi pro football team.

The $1000 dollar price tag is the gripper. I am a youth minister in real life... I didn't sign up for this job because of the money. So I have financial responsibilities... Three kids and a beautiful wife. If I could Get a camera with a nice wide angle lens and something in the 300m to 400mm zoom range, I could be "happy."

I most likley will not be making money from taking pics. The more I think about it the more I think I should just be happy with what I have. Sure I get frustrated with the limited features with the fuji, but.?

These are not the best picts, I know, but it's nice to be able to take shots that most people will ever see and share the world with them.

I love the quote, "Every man dies, not every man lives." Sharing photos, to me, is sharing a view of life that most people don't stop to see. I would like my pictures to show people life. Life abundantly!

peace.
johno~

Matthew Saville · May 14, 2005

Yes, I bet that 17-85 IS is an absolute GEM for $600!!! I'm ever so jealous of this EF-S Lens, I wish Nikon had an equivalent.

I believe that you can get the Rebel XT and the 17-85 IS for a mere $1400, give or take. If you plan on sticking with the EF-S sensor size, then this is going to be a killer all-around lens. And don't worry, the 1.6x cropped sensor size (and 1.5x for Nikon) is NOT going to just disappear, let me also dispell that MYTH. Cropped sensors are going to be the new 35mm, while FF sensors will be the new medium format. Still today, 35mm and 6x6cm both co-exist quite peacefully; both are valid (and lucrative) forms of photography. Not all pro digital shooters will "require" a full frame sensor; some will opt for the lighter and smaller DX / EF-S size DSLR's and this will be perfectly acceptable. It will of course also be a very desirable "format" for average shooters who simply prefer the SLR setup over the P&S cams.

Take good care of the 350D and that lens though, it's not all-metal and will break if it takes too many falls.

colourbox · May 14, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

I believe that you can get the Rebel XT and the 17-85 IS for a mere $1400, give or take.

Yes, you are quite correct, not only is that the typical online price but it is the price of my local retailer for the XT/17-85 combo. Also your comments about the "cropped" vs. "FF" sensor size in the future make a lot of sense.

ubergeek · May 14, 2005

18-55mm vs. 17-85mm IS
A word about (Canon) lenses: There's no question that the 17-85mm is superior to the 18-55mm (it should be; it costs nearly five times as much!) But if you're a fan of big aperture like I am, then neither would be the lens for you. It's important to keep in mind that, should you decide on the Rebel XT or the 20D, you don't have to get either lens. (I have an 18-55mm which I keep on hand because it's the widest thing I've got. But sooner or later I'll get a super-wide-angle such as the Tokina 12-24mm, after which I'll have no need for the 18-55mm.)

It's probably worth reviewing your stated purposes for buying a camera system, and seeing how the various kit lenses stack up. If none of them meets all of your initial needs, then you'll find yourself shelling out for more glass in fairly short order.

Landscape: If a 28mm equivalent provides enough field of view for you, then any of the kit lenses (Canon or Nikon) will likely serve well (note that the Rebel XT and 20D offer mirror lockup, which may be helpful). I assume you'd be stopping the lens down for this kind of shot, and even the "lowly" Canon 18-55mm performs well in these situations. If 28mm field of view isn't wide enough, none of the kit lenses will do.

Kids/Family: To me, this means big aperture, and none of the kit lenses really offer this. Nikon's 18-70mm is the fastest at f/3.5-4.5, so if I could only have one lens, Nikon would get the nod from me.

Sports: Most sports require much more telephoto than the various kit lenses can serve up. So the Nikon 18-70mm might work in a pinch (f/4.5 helps as well, relative to the f/5.6 of the Canon 17-85mm); the Canon 17-85mm gives a little extra reach (the 8MP sensor also allows for more cropping, increasing the effective focal length of the cropped image) and its IS may help in some situations as well. Here I'd give the edge to Canon, although I suspect that 85mm isn't going to be enough.

Here's what I think would offer the most bang for the buck for both systems (pricing info from B&H, which you may be able to beat by shopping around):

Canon: Rebel XT kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ($929.95); Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ($339.95); Canon 70-200mm f/4L ($554.95)--total $1824.85.

Nikon (f/2.8 midrange zoom): D70 ($799.95); Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 ($119); Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 ($339.95); Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 ($549.95)--total $1808.85.

Nikon (f/3.5-4.5 midrange zoom): D70 kit with 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ($959.95); Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ($819.95)--total $1779.90.

I provided two Nikon configurations because Nikon's kit lens is almost fast enough that you might decide you don't need an f/2.8 midrange zoom. There are no Canon-mount lenses which combine max aperture, zoom range and price in such a way, so we make do with a combination of the kit lens for those wide, stopped-down landscape shots and the well-regarded Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for kids and family.

Also, just to mix things up a little, both Canon and Nikon offer a sub-$100 50mm f/1.8, which is a great lens for shooting family/kids as long as the space isn't too tight. Depending on how much you value big aperture, a fast 50mm may alleviate (some of) the need/desire for an f/2.8 midrange zoom. It's great to have choices, isn't it?

Well, enough of my yakking. I think we can all agree that there are some very nice options from Canon and Nikon (as well as various third party lens manufacturers), and you really can't go wrong with either one.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel XT?

Comments