Nikon D70 or Canon 350D/Rebel XT

[DJMastaWes]

So, I might be getting a new Camera for christmas; actually, a new, used camera. And I can't pick between the D70, or 350D. So if you guys could please tell me which will show the best results, have most features and so on, that would be great. Maybe even some sample pic.

By the way, I look at http://www.dpreview.com, but I want to know what you guys think, and why.

Thanks.

 

[NoNameBrand]

Have you held the cameras yet? the one that feels the best is the one you should buy, as they both take great pictures.

(FWIW, my hands are too big for the low-end Canon bodies, so I went Nikon)

 

[obeygiant]

I think Nikon is better on the consumer end and Canon is fraction better at the pro end. Go with the Nikon.

 

[Abstract]

I think Nikon bodies are better, and Canon and Nikon have great quality lenses. Canon seems to have better high end telephoto lenses, though. I know Nikon has a few good ones, but not as many of them, and some of theirs don't seem as good as Nikons. Nikon seems more popular for macro and has a lot of fantastic lenses at the wide-end though. That's my impression, anyway.

 

[Silentwave]

That's not entirely true. Nikon has plenty of stellar long telephotos that are every bit as good as canon's, and then some. Canon no longer produces their ultrafast 200mm, Nikon has one with VR. Canon does not offer a long telephoto zoom like the Nikon 200-400 VR. On the cheaper side, people tend to like the nikon 80-400 VR just fine though I hear the 100-400 IS being panned a lot, and the Nikon 70-200 VR is in some cases regarded as having the edge in that area.

 

[ChrisA]

So, I might be getting a new Camera for christmas; actually, a new, used camera. And I can't pick between the D70, or 350D. So if you guys could please tell me which will show the best results, have most features and so on, that would be great. Maybe even some sample pic.

By the way, I look at http://www.dpreview.com, but I want to know what you guys think, and why.

Thanks.

When it comes down to it there is very little difference between the two. What matters far more is al the other stuff. First off I assume you will also be buying a lens or two. Lenses do matter and there are huge differences between them. If people posts pictures here made with either camera body I doubt you could see any difference at all but I if I posted a couple pics I took with my Nikon D50, one with the 18-55 lens and the other with the 50mm f/1.4 I bet you could see a difference in a second. Not that one lens is better, just that they are different.

If you like Nikon and think you will still like Nikon in 10 years then buy the Nikon. Because if you get the D70s then you will be buyif Nikon lenses, Nikon strobe, and later when you upgrade/replace the body another Nikon. So pick a brand.

What I'd do is shop for you first three lenses first, before you even concider which DSLR to buy. Then buy whichever camera body fits the lenses you like. You don't need to buy all three lenses, just pick them out, you will need oof course to buy at least one.

I you like the D70s, then consider buying the D50. It has slightly better low light image quality and costs less. Put the saved money into a lens or buy the Sb600 speedlight with the savings

 

[bozigle]

Canon-Nikon War... again
Well both are really good cameras...
All the comments done on those two cameras 2 years ago were:
the canon is more for little hands (girls?)
the provided lenses is much better from Nikon but if you're planing to buy new ones after they both fit plenty of good quality lenses.
The software provided by canon is much better that the Nikon's one.
The Canon's cmos captor is better than the Nikon's one.
I'm not sure but i think the canon has a plastic lenses fixation whereas the Nikon has a metalic one much more solid.
The Nikon is heavier and feel more solid that the plastic canon.
You have to go and try them on... i would go for the Nikon and my girlfriend would go for the canon... (i myself went for the canon 20D but i can't care less about the brand battle)

bozigle

 

[j26]

I found the 350 too small, and went for the D70. They're both great cameras though, so either will suit you. It just comes down to which set of controls you prefer and which you prefer the feel of in your hand.

 

[Mantat]

First of all, a small body IS an advantage! If you want to increase its size, you just have to get the battery pack. At least, when its small it means that it is lighter and take less room which are two important feature when you carry the camera with you.

Be aware that they are other brands that are good too! you havent said what you want to shoot nor your budget and if you see this as an important long term investment or a hobby.

DSLR are only has good as the lens you put on them. And until you put a 800$+ lens on it (Exception: 50mm 1.8), they will perform equaly or worst than a lot of point and shoot that cost a fraction of the price.

The new Lumix/Leica serie has exellent optic and you should take a look at them.

A lot of advertisement is done currently to motivate buyers toward the DSLR, but as I said, unless you use high quality lens, you arent gonna benefit from them. All this advertisement is just a way to lock you in for furtur lens purchase.

All this said, dont be mistaken! I have an DSLR and love it! It is just that I see countless people with them and 90% of them would be better equiped with a mid level or highend PS.

 

[beavo451]

First of all, a small body IS an advantage! If you want to increase its size, you just have to get the battery pack. At least, when its small it means that it is lighter and take less room which are two important feature when you carry the camera with you.

I have a D2H and would not ever trade it in for anything smaller or lighter. The size and weight makes holding telephoto shots easier and more steady. Plus, it balances better.

A lot of advertisement is done currently to motivate buyers toward the DSLR, but as I said, unless you use high quality lens, you arent gonna benefit from them. All this advertisement is just a way to lock you in for furtur lens purchase.

Many SLR lenses are better than P&S lenses, even the cheap ones (50mm anyone?). The sensors are also better in the noise department. So no, you do not "need" a high quality lens to benefit from a dSLR. Different lenses is just one benefit.

 

[Mantat]

I have a D2H and would not ever trade it in for anything smaller or lighter. The size and weight makes holding telephoto shots easier and more steady. Plus, it balances better.
Many SLR lenses are better than P&S lenses, even the cheap ones (50mm anyone?)

Funny how you talk about the 50mm when I specified that it was an exception (like the Sigma zoom macro). Other than that, the PS lens will be better than 90% of the others since it will focus way faster (anyone tried the 70-300?!?) and the image quality will be better.

Of course, I am not talking about the 300-500$ PS here, but about the highend models with Leica lens and good IS systems.

PS have smaller sensor but the size of the sensor is mostly relevant when shooting in low ligth since the sensor can catch more light. In good light, it doesnt change much for the <normal> users.

Of course DSLR will produce better image in worst conditions, but dont forget that the quality of a pic is not determined by its best component but by its worst. And the kit lens or any entry level zoom are the weakest link!

I dont know whats in your gear bag but do yourself a favor and rent a pro level prime for a weekend and you will see that the difference is much greater than what you would have thougth!

 

[beavo451]

My contribution to this thread:
Buy what feels comfortable in your hands and you like. Everybody here preaches buying a "system". This may be true, but in the end it really doesn't matter. You buy a nice starter SLR by picking what you like and you just grow into the system if you continue your trek in photography. If you decide you want a different system, selling your old stuff isn't too hard and lenses retain value very well (especially Nikon and Canon stuff). Life is too short to agonize over such trivial differences.

Funny how you talk about the 50mm when I specified that it was an exception (like the Sigma zoom macro). Other than that, the PS lens will be better than 90% of the others since it will focus way faster (anyone tried the 70-300?!?) and the image quality will be better.

Don't know what lenses are in your bag, but the image quality of most "consumer" grade SLR glass is better than any P&S. Sorry, missed your exception part. I would like to add the 85mm f/1.8 lens to your list. Oh and also the Nikon D70 kit lens as well. Image quality is excellent and gives the wildly more expensive 17-55 f/2.8 (yes I have shot with that) a run for its money. Focus slow? Learn manual focus and then you will either appreciate AF or just use MF all the time.

Of course, I am not talking about the 300-500$ PS here, but about the highend models with Leica lens and good IS systems.

Like the Panasonic FZ-50 (or Leica brand equivalent)? Or maybe a (non-Leica) Sony R1? For that price, why not an SLR? If you really like Leica, the Panasonic L1/Leica Digilux-3 seem to be decent SLRs. A little awkward for my hands though.

PS have smaller sensor but the size of the sensor is mostly relevant when shooting in low ligth since the sensor can catch more light. In good light, it doesnt change much for the <normal> users.

Didn't mention anything about sensor size. I guess you inferred it from my noise comment. On the topic of sensor size, wide-angle capability is very much as relevant as noise levels are.

Of course DSLR will produce better image in worst conditions, but dont forget that the quality of a pic is not determined by its best component but by its worst. And the kit lens or any entry level zoom are the weakest link!

Again, I don't know what is in your bag, most kit lenses and "consumer" grade lenses are better than a P&S lens. I have heard that the Sony R1 (yikes expensive!) lens is very tough to beat in quality though.

I dont know whats in your gear bag but do yourself a favor and rent a pro level prime for a weekend and you will see that the difference is much greater than what you would have thougth!

Oh I have seen it.

 

[dogbone]

D70 or 'rebel',

think Mac or PC,

They'll both get the job done but one is crap to work with and one isn't.

 

[Mantat]

D70 or 'rebel',

think Mac or PC,

They'll both get the job done but one is crap to work with and one isn't.

Actually, both would be considered PCs... Hasselblad would be the Mac thingy....

 

[xPismo]

My contribution to this thread: Buy what feels comfortable in your hands and you like... selling your old stuff isn't too hard and lenses retain value very well... Life is too short to agonize over such trivial differences.

Well said. My mentor always said grab what you think feels best in your hands. Modern SLR gear is all good quality. Canon for me due to my large hands.

 

[BryanP]

This is coming from someone who switched from Nikon to Canon (mainly because of what I had to shoot).

I've owned a D70 and had a lot of experience with the XT.

The first thing I noticed about the D70 is that it handles much better than the XT. I like how it felt to the hand much better than the XT which was a little bit "narrower" to my hand. However, this is all personal preference so it may feel different to you, so I strongly suggest you try it out yourself.

The D70 controls were also much better than the XT's. I just didn't like having to navigate using the SET button and stuff every single time.

However, in terms of image quality, both are very similar until you hit the higher ISO ranges. The XT does not even compare to the D70 in terms of high ISO noise control. It is much better in handling noise than the D70, but Canon pretty much had the edge in that for quite awhile (especially during the time of these two cameras).

Thus, for low light photography where you may be using high ISOs, the XT is definitely recommended.

Thus theres sort of a balance here. If you don't take many shots that require the noise handling in high ISO ranges, then you may want the Nikon for the better handling (in my hands at least). But in terms of image quality, and versatility in that field, the XT is better. At least you have the option to shoot in low light, compared to the D70, where there's definitely no option there.

edit: I would also like to add, that if you already have a system of lenses from either brand that is compatible with the cameras you're mentioning, then I would definitely recommend sticking with that brand. It's quite expensive switching when you already have a system of lens, unless you're willing to take the time to sell them all privately.

That's not entirely true. Nikon has plenty of stellar long telephotos that are every bit as good as canon's, and then some. Canon no longer produces their ultrafast 200mm, Nikon has one with VR. Canon does not offer a long telephoto zoom like the Nikon 200-400 VR. On the cheaper side, people tend to like the nikon 80-400 VR just fine though I hear the 100-400 IS being panned a lot, and the Nikon 70-200 VR is in some cases regarded as having the edge in that area.

The problem with Nikon that I noticed when I was using their equipment is that they don't carry a good line of budget-line lenses in the telephoto range.

The last time I checked, for the 70-200s, they only offered one version, the 70-200/2.8 VR.

Canon has the 70-200/4L (both IS and non-IS), as well as both tastes of the 70-200/2.8L.

Thus, if you wanted that range, you would need to get the 80-200/2.8 or the 70-200, which are very expensive lens. A lot of amateurs usually don't have money like that, so it would have been great to have the f/4 versions that Canon been offering for a while.

The same applies to the wide lenses. Nikon doesn't even offer anything equivalent to the 17-40/4L for example. This is one of the cheapest high quality lens you can get from Canon, but it's still somewhat reachable by amateurs at least.

It all depends on the photographer, but one of the things I've noticed was that Canon really had lenses of high quality that could be much more easily accessible than the Nikon equivalents.

 

[beavo451]

The last time I checked, for the 70-200s, they only offered one version, the 70-200/2.8 VR.

Canon has the 70-200/4L (both IS and non-IS), as well as both tastes of the 70-200/2.8L.

Thus, if you wanted that range, you would need to get the 80-200/2.8 or the 70-200, which are very expensive lens. A lot of amateurs usually don't have money like that, so it would have been great to have the f/4 versions that Canon been offering for a while.

The AF 80-200mm f/2.8 is still made and is ~$900 while the Canon 70-200 f/4L is ~$1050.

The same applies to the wide lenses. Nikon doesn't even offer anything equivalent to the 17-40/4L for example. This is one of the cheapest high quality lens you can get from Canon, but it's still somewhat reachable by amateurs at least.

It all depends on the photographer, but one of the things I've noticed was that Canon really had lenses of high quality that could be much more easily accessible than the Nikon equivalents.

The 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (D70 kit lens) is optically excellent and not bad build wise. It is so good that many people complain about the lack of apparent image quality improvement when they buy the 17-55mm f/2.8. I would venture to offer this lens as the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 17-40 f/4L (it is also cheaper).

 

[BryanP]

The AF 80-200mm f/2.8 is still made and is ~$900 while the Canon 70-200 f/4L is ~$1050.



The 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (D70 kit lens) is optically excellent and not bad build wise. It is so good that many people complain about the lack of apparent image quality improvement when they buy the 17-55mm f/2.8. I would venture to offer this lens as the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 17-40 f/4L (it is also cheaper).

The 18-70 doesn't even come CLOSE to the build quality of the 17-40.

I've used both lenses and theres no point in comparing them. The 18-70 is a capable kit lens, but the 17-40/4L is made for rugged use and is comparable to the image quality of the 16-35/2.8Ls (which is somewhat in the line of Nikon's 17-35/55). It also has weather sealing as well. You can't beat bringing a professionally built lens into the line for around 600 dollars (you can easily find them for 500 dollars used).

The 70-200/4L IS is over 1000. The 70-200/4L non-IS can be had for around 500 dollars. If you wanted to spend around 900, for an 80-200, canon offers the 70-200 with the extra 10mm for 100 dollars more. If you want to go used, you can easily find the 70-200/4Ls which has comparable optics to the 2.8 version for around 400 dollars. There's nothing that Nikon offers that even comes close to that.

Nikon doesn't have f/4 equivalents of those lenses.