Nikon D50 vs. Cannon Rebel XT

[jak119]

I am looking at digital SLR cameras and I would love to get a general idea of which camera i should get, I mainly am debating between the Nikon D50 and the Cannon Rebel XT, which should I get? Also are there any other cameras out there that I should consider?

 

[TheMasin9]

Thread Search

my gawd do a freakin thread search there are tons of these threads already out there... SAME EXACT TOPIC

 

[D34th]

As said search. But remember it's not about the body...when you buy a camera, plan carefully. The lenses are whats going to cost you. You buy a Nikon camera, you get nikon lenses that last forever, upgrade the body every 3-5 years. Same thing with Canon, you are buying into the company. Unless you have the money to get both cameras and lenses, that's always nice...

 

[kwajo.com]

get a Pentax K100D. It's far better than those two and will probably cost the same, if not less. If you get ahold of a Pentax *ist DL or DS, you'll be able to get it for only around $500 which is pennies compared to the Canon

 

[sethypoo]

get a Pentax K100D. It's far better than those two and will probably cost the same, if not less. If you get ahold of a Pentax *ist DL or DS, you'll be able to get it for only around $500 which is pennies compared to the Canon

Avoid Pentax digital camera's at all costs! The Nikon or the Canon would be better. Pentax's are difficult to find hardware for, and are just plain finicky camera's (at least in my experience). The Canon Digital Rebel XT is really cheap these days on eBay. Check it out.

I own a Canon Digital Rebel XT and I love it. I'm a Canon man for life; the XT has been the most hardy, intuitive, simple to use, yet complex camera I've ever owned. I love all the manual features, yet the auto features are very well balanced. The camera always seems to do exactly what I want it to do, when I want it to.

 

[kwajo.com]

Avoid Pentax digital camera's at all costs! The Nikon or the Canon would be better. Pentax's are difficult to find hardware for, and are just plain finicky camera's (at least in my experience).

what rock have you been living under? Pentax gear has been available at every photo shop for decades, there are hundreds of lenses to choose from, and they are incredibly reliable. There is nothing that makes Nikon or Canon discernibly better than Pentax at the entry and mid-level of SLRs, the only significant different is lack of a high-end model in the 3-6000 dollar range, which is hardly a problem for most people. I appreciate brand loyalty, I am loya to Pentax for example, but I'm sorry Canon and Nikon are hardly the holy grail here, Pentax, Olympus, Konica-Minolta (now Sony ) all make great digital bodies, there is no need to shut them out of the picture

 

[JobsRules]

Both are very good. The 350D loses the B&W LCD from the top, which can be a pain for a quick galnce at certain settings.

Personally, I find Nikon images have far more 'punch' straight off the camera. I do not believe the bog-standard Canon lenses are that good, giving a milky quality and lack of biting sharpness. The ordinary Nikon lenses are better.

However, the 'L Series' Canon lenses are as good as anything Nikon can produce - sharp, detailed rich. I've seen L-series Lenses on cheap 300Ds produce result you'd swear were 'high end'. They are also a fair bit cheaper than the pro-level Nikon lenses.

I want to upgrade my D70s and like the look of the Canon 5D, which is slightly more 'pro' than the D200 and produces fabulous result with a good lens. However, a switch to Canon would mean ditching two half-decent lenses and starting again so I'll probably go for the well-reviewed D200.

As another poster said, when you go for one company or another you're pretty much locked in unless you want a lot of expense.

Also, don't waste money buying lame lenses you'll only want to upgrade later. Buy good glass, which you'll be using for years, and don't get too hung up on the camera back. I'm pretty sure a D50 with Nikon's 17-55 wide angle would produce far more wow-factor than a D200 with Nikon's cheapo 18-55.

And I'd go so far as to call the 18-55 plastic Canon lens you find in kits with the 350D and 30D 'a bit crap'.

 

[ScubaDuc]

Both are very good. The 350D loses the B&W LCD from the top, which can be a pain for a quick galnce at certain settings.

Personally, I find Nikon images have far more 'punch' straight off the camera. I do not believe the bog-standard Canon lenses are that good, giving a milky quality and lack of biting sharpness. The ordinary Nikon lenses are better.

However, the 'L Series' Canon lenses are as good as anything Nikon can produce - sharp, detailed rich. I've seen L-series Lenses on cheap 300Ds produce result you'd swear were 'high end'. They are also a fair bit cheaper than the pro-level Nikon lenses.

I want to upgrade my D70s and like the look of the Canon 5D, which is slightly more 'pro' than the D200 and produces fabulous result with a good lens. However, a switch to Canon would mean ditching two half-decent lenses and starting again so I'll probably go for the well-reviewed D200.

As another poster said, when you go for one company or another you're pretty much locked in unless you want a lot of expense.

Also, don't waste money buying lame lenses you'll only want to upgrade later. Buy good glass, which you'll be using for years, and don't get too hung up on the camera back. I'm pretty sure a D50 with Nikon's 17-55 wide angle would produce far more wow-factor than a D200 with Nikon's cheapo 18-55.

And I'd go so far as to call the 18-55 plastic Canon lens you find in kits with the 350D and 30D 'a bit crap'.

Well said, and well stated. I agree totally...The lens quality is what is important. My nikkor lens collection is over 20 yrs old but if you don't mind manual focus, is still sharper and as good as anything you'd buy today. Long live the F-mount!

 

[jared_kipe]

what rock have you been living under? Pentax gear has been available at every photo shop for decades, there are hundreds of lenses to choose from, and they are incredibly reliable. There is nothing that makes Nikon or Canon discernibly better than Pentax at the entry and mid-level of SLRs, the only significant different is lack of a high-end model in the 3-6000 dollar range, which is hardly a problem for most people. I appreciate brand loyalty, I am loya to Pentax for example, but I'm sorry Canon and Nikon are hardly the holy grail here, Pentax, Olympus, Konica-Minolta (now Sony ) all make great digital bodies, there is no need to shut them out of the picture

No difference? Maybe not out of the box. Does Pentax have anything like E-TTL II or iTTL? There is no equivalent to USM/HSM/AF-S.

And these are not bogus features like the ability to expose two frames on one image or have 4 stopps of exposure compensation. These are things people really want, and there is no reason to buy a camera that doesn't have them.

Plus it appears to use the same 6MP sensor Pentax cameras have had for years. But it does have anti-shake sensor. So will the new Sony A100 which actually looks interesting, it might add HSM support only time will tell.

 

[jared_kipe]

Personally, I find Nikon images have far more 'punch' straight off the camera. I do not believe the bog-standard Canon lenses are that good, giving a milky quality and lack of biting sharpness. The ordinary Nikon lenses are better.

You have this backwards. Nikon images strait from the camera a FARRRR less "punchy" than Canon ones.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page22.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.asp

And I beg you to prove that "ordinary" Nikon lenses are better than "ordinary" Canon lenses. The exception is the 18-55mm kit lens, but thats not an ordinary lens, it doesn't even have USM. But I think it compares well to the kit lens on the D50.

To the OP, it is ridicules to start threads like this here. Not only has the question been debated to death. Why don't you go do comparison shopping yourself. http://www.dpreview.com/ Oh and there is a forum there also if you want to bother.. er I mean ask them too.

 

[garfield2002]

Consider comfort

A colleague of mine was recently faced with the same choice. Nikon D-50 or Canon Rebel XT. After extensive research we found that almost all of the review sites consider the photo quality differences between the two cameras to be very minor, albiet with good glass!!! He decided on the Nikon because it felt better in his larger hands. The Canon gave him a cramp after several minutes. I however experienced the opposite as I have smaller hands. The weight and size of the D-50 gave me a cramp. As you can see the debate between the two cameras and companies is fierce. Hope this helps.

 

[cgratti]

what rock have you been living under? Pentax gear has been available at every photo shop for decades, there are hundreds of lenses to choose from, and they are incredibly reliable. There is nothing that makes Nikon or Canon discernibly better than Pentax at the entry and mid-level of SLRs, the only significant different is lack of a high-end model in the 3-6000 dollar range, which is hardly a problem for most people. I appreciate brand loyalty, I am loya to Pentax for example, but I'm sorry Canon and Nikon are hardly the holy grail here, Pentax, Olympus, Konica-Minolta (now Sony ) all make great digital bodies, there is no need to shut them out of the picture

Canon or Nikon, I wouldn't buy anything else... really.... How many photographers do you see at pro sporting events using Pentax cameras? I see a lot of Nikon and Canon gear out there.

 

[kwajo.com]

No difference? Maybe not out of the box. Does Pentax have anything like E-TTL II or iTTL? There is no equivalent to USM/HSM/AF-S.

Well Pentax has P-TTL which is roughly the same thing with a different name, and as for those auto-focus technologies, while Pentax's may be slightly slower than Canon's, it has a reputation as being very very accurate, probably due to the fact that Pentax invented auto-focus back in the day.

Plus it appears to use the same 6MP sensor Pentax cameras have had for years. But it does have anti-shake sensor. So will the new Sony A100 which actually looks interesting, it might add HSM support only time will tell.

well by the end of the summer Pentax will also have a 10MP shake reduction body that will compete directly with the D200 and 30D/5D range, and will have more features than the A100 which competes with the lower-end Pentax models that cost hundreds less. I admit there was a bit of stagnation for a year or so, but things are picking up, there is no need to poo-poo the whole brand because you aren't familiar with all that it offers.

 

[kwajo.com]

Canon or Nikon, I wouldn't buy anything else... really.... How many photographers do you see at pro sporting events using Pentax cameras? I see a lot of Nikon and Canon gear out there.

it's a different market. I know quite a few professional photographers that use Pentax gear, but no, not for sporting events. Canon (and to a lesser degree Nikon) have the lenses for these sorts of things and the larger advertising budgets, but there are plenty of pro. photographers who use Pentax gear for things like portrait and landscape work and they produce fabulous results.

I see most athletes wearing Nike footwear but I wouldn't limit my choice of shoes to just that brand

 

[jared_kipe]

Well Pentax has P-TTL which is roughly the same thing with a different name, and as for those auto-focus technologies, while Pentax's may be slightly slower than Canon's, it has a reputation as being very very accurate, probably due to the fact that Pentax invented auto-focus back in the day.

Not just faster, full time manual focus. I'm poopooing the brand because I think its fallen behind the times. You can almost see it just looking at Pentax lenses, they look so old and outdated. Pentax medium format is a different matter, though they've fallen behind there.

Would I shoot pentax if given a pentax, sure. I just won't recommend to someone starting out to get a pentax. They are just not the best. If you want the best, most up to date and complete system, you'll go Canon or Nikon.

EDIT: Its funny OSX spellcheck doesn't know the word Pentax, but knows Canon Nikon Minolta and Sony.

 

[kwajo.com]

Not just faster, full time manual focus. I'm poopooing the brand because I think its fallen behind the times. You can almost see it just looking at Pentax lenses, they look so old and outdated.
.

what does that mean? the lenses look old? who cares what they look like, they are among the best lenses in the world. I guarantee there is Pentax glass available that is every bit as sharp, flare resistant, bright, with good colour and fast as Canon and Nikon offer in most focal ranges (except extreme tele-photo).
I mean maybe I could accuse Nikon and Canon of being behind the times because they do not offer a fast pancake lens

also I'm not sure what you mean by 'full time manual focus' because obviously you can use manual focus, and Pentax has continuous auto-focus as well, so maybe I'm missing something.

 

[bousozoku]

Canon or Nikon, I wouldn't buy anything else... really.... How many photographers do you see at pro sporting events using Pentax cameras? I see a lot of Nikon and Canon gear out there.

I see a lot of people using Windows. That's a good reason to buy it, according to your logic.

The original poster isn't talking about becoming a professional sports photographer and Pentax certainly offers great equipment and currently has quite a few good choices in the same price range.

While I think the Nikon D50 is a good choice, I wouldn't pick the Canon 350D/Rebel XT, even if someone gave it to me for free.

 

[kwajo.com]

actually I should apologize, I got too excited, and I should have never brought in another model into the discussion to confuse things. Sorry about that. If it's just Nikon and Canon you want to look at, you can't really go wrong. Personally I like the Nikon models better, they feel much better built and I like their output better, but you can't go too far wrong with either

 

[ChrisA]

I am looking at digital SLR cameras and I would love to get a general idea of which camera i should get,

Yes. Have you concidered the Pentax K100D. The Pentax is VERY impressive and the cost is about what you are looking to spend. It has "Shake Reduction" built into the body (not the lens like Nikon/Canon) Worth looking at. The Olympus eVolt has some good point too.

Between the Canon & Nikon. Look at where you want to be in 3, 5 and 10 years and look at the total system. Lenes cost way more then the entry level body but wich body you buy in 2006 will determine which lenes you CAN buy for years to come. Look ahead and think "system".

So many beginners spend way to much time thinking about which SLR body to buy when what makes the picture is the lens. Look at lenses. Figure you will own a set of them (and if not why buy an interchangable lens camera?)

Oh yes, I can predict the answers you get: Everyone will tell you to buy whatever they happen to own. This should tell you that people are generally happy with whatever they own. In the end so will you.

 

[jared_kipe]

I guarantee there is Pentax glass available that is every bit as sharp, flare resistant, bright, with good colour and fast as Canon and Nikon offer in most focal ranges (except extreme tele-photo).

also I'm not sure what you mean by 'full time manual focus' because obviously you can use manual focus, and Pentax has continuous auto-focus as well, so maybe I'm missing something.

I don't think you can guarantee that. Is this all of the current Pentax lenses? http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses Cause they look pretty anemic to me. And I can't even find where it says the aperture of these.

Full time manual focus means you can do manual focusing without having to flip a switch to change it from manual to auto focusing.

As for the "pancake lens", what is so special about a 40mm f2.8 other than it being so short? I'd rather put my hand under it and be able to feel the focusing knob. But it sure looks flat.

 

[ChrisA]

How many photographers do you see at pro sporting events using Pentax cameras? I see a lot of Nikon and Canon gear out there.

How many of those pro photographers are using the Canon 350D or the Nikon D50. I'd bet not one single one of them.

But then many other pros are big fans of Haselblad or Sinar. Would you recommend either of these brands?

Pro sports photography is almost as specialized and removed from amature photography as is high fashion or comercial studio work. Those pros at the football games are using $5,000 camera systems the have little to do with the canon rebal except for the name plate

There may be good reson NOT to buy a Pentax SLR (I use Nikon gear) but what some profesional doing a highly specialized job uses is not a good way to decide.

 

[kwajo.com]

I don't think you can guarantee that. Is this all of the current Pentax lenses? http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses Cause they look pretty anemic to me. And I can't even find where it says the aperture of these.

Full time manual focus means you can do manual focusing without having to flip a switch to change it from manual to auto focusing.

As for the "pancake lens", what is so special about a 40mm f2.8 other than it being so short? I'd rather put my hand under it and be able to feel the focusing knob. But it sure looks flat.

well I was including available lenses from retailers, and most stores still have numerous models brand new that aren't listed on that page. Pentax has only listed the lenses produced for the reduced form factor APS sensors in its digital cameras, they still have a ton of full-frame ones as well (not to mention used lenses, Pentax having the best backward compatibility of any SLR maker).

oh okay I see what you mean, Pentax calls it Quickshift or something, that's why I didn't recognize the term, and yes you can do that

I don't know why I like it, it's a great walk-around lens, takes great photos, is very quick to focus, is a unique design. It's all personal taste, you might not find it interesting, but I find it more interesting than many of the "exciting" C/N offerings.

all in all, like I always say, for 90% of people any of the major brands are fine, you just have to pick which on offers the best equipment for the type of photographs you want to take

 

[Abstract]

You have this backwards. Nikon images strait from the camera a FARRRR less "punchy" than Canon ones.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page22.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.asp

Disagree. Well, the D50 produces more punchy photos than the D70s and RebelXT (although this sort of result is the idea behind the creation of the D50.....less post-processing, if any at all), and since he's considering the D50 and Digital Rebel XT, I'll say that this is significant if he's considering cameras.

He decided on the Nikon because it felt better in his larger hands. The Canon gave him a cramp after several minutes. I however experienced the opposite as I have smaller hands. The weight and size of the D-50 gave me a cramp. As you can see the debate between the two cameras and companies is fierce. Hope this helps.

Yeah, I have regular sized hands, and the camera is still much too small for my hands. My 5'3" female friend held a Rebel XT and said it was very comfortable. Her hands are small though.

Canon or Nikon, I wouldn't buy anything else... really.... How many photographers do you see at pro sporting events using Pentax cameras? I see a lot of Nikon and Canon gear out there.

Who cares what the pros use? These Pentax cameras are aimed at a completely different, non-pro market.

But despite that, if I had to go with a non-Nikon "starter" camera, it wouldn't be the Rebel XT or a Pentax (although the anti-shake feature built into the camera body is something that's highly highly highly tempting because Nikon and Canon lenses (they don't have it in the body) with this feature make the cost of those lenses a lot more than what they should be). It would be an Olympus. Olympus, then Pentax, then Canon. I'd never get the Rebel XT. On the other hand, a Canon 20D on sale might be tempting as a first DSLR, but I wouldn't go with the XT.

 

[cgratti]

How many of those pro photographers are using the Canon 350D or the Nikon D50. I'd bet not one single one of them.

But then many other pros are big fans of Haselblad or Sinar. Would you recommend either of these brands?

Pro sports photography is almost as specialized and removed from amature photography as is high fashion or comercial studio work. Those pros at the football games are using $5,000 camera systems the have little to do with the canon rebal except for the name plate

There may be good reson NOT to buy a Pentax SLR (I use Nikon gear) but what some profesional doing a highly specialized job uses is not a good way to decide.

I was generalizing and using sports to prove a point, Pentax has a small piece of the photo market share, for a reason. The reason is that Canon and Nikon make better cameras and lenses. Otherwise Pentax, Olympus, and Sony would be have much larger sales.

 

[kwajo.com]

IMO much of the reason that Canon have a huge market share is advertising budget/effectiveness. but then again maybe you're right