My posting said the D40 is smaller than the 400D (XTi) To the best of my knowledge this is correct.
Dave
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon or Pentax?
- Thread starter epicwelshman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My posting said the D40 is smaller than the 400D (XTi) To the best of my knowledge this is correct.
Dave
Nikon or Pentax...
Well, as I have stated inm a previous thread, I am a canon guy. However that being said, when I was in college and in art school, and in photo, they were trying to push Pentax on people who didn't own cameras... Of course this was film and not digital but I looked at my friend's camera and I didn't think it was that great! I woudl have to say Nikon all the way... If nothing more than the glass alone.....
Well, as I have stated inm a previous thread, I am a canon guy. However that being said, when I was in college and in art school, and in photo, they were trying to push Pentax on people who didn't own cameras... Of course this was film and not digital but I looked at my friend's camera and I didn't think it was that great! I woudl have to say Nikon all the way... If nothing more than the glass alone.....
It is often repeated on webforums, that Nikon has better wide angle lenses. This is never actually founded on something though, never backed up with information. If you actually do some real research, you will actually find this not to be true.
Lets take the most obvious wide angle lenses and compare them. The Nikon AF-S 12-24 f4 DX and the Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 USM.
Is the Nikon better? Well... both are of high build quality, both have a plastic body shell. The Canon does not have its (needed with such wide angle lenses) sun hood standard, so you need to still purchase that seperate. But the Nikon costs a LOT more.
Both vignet (light fall-off towards the corners) quite a bit wide open, you need to stop them down a few stops (the Nikon gets sharper and more contrasty then too). But, wide angle shots do usually not need a big aperture so these drawbacks are most of the time no problem.
How about distortion? According to the weird and not so reliable Nikon fan Ken Rockwell, the Canon outperforms the Nikon by a landslide. Other tests seem to vary on this point. But the verifiable tests (show the actual distortion) of http://www.photozone.de do seem to show that the Canon wide angle zoom outperforms the Nikon wide angle zoom both in wide angle barrel distortion and in pin cushion distortion at the long end.
So, all tests and impressions considered, the Nikon is not a better lens than the Canon. It just costs 400$ more.
And both get outperformed in resolution and colour/contrast (and build quality) by the Tokina 12-24 f4.
So where does this wide angle is better on Nikon Myth come from? Maybe the Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX? Hmm.. no... the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM has the edge in resolution, and offers IS for a price that is a bit lower. Build quality of the Nikon is a bit more "rugged" though.
So... where does it come from then? Maybe from the full frame days?
The Nikon AF-S 17-35 f2.8 D performs very good on 35mm film. A bit better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L. But on APS-C it doesn't perform better than the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 SP Di.... and that lens costs less than a 5th of the price of that Nikkor. And it does not perform better than the 17-55 f2.8 DX Nikkor either, in the 17-35 range.
Maybe the Nikon better wide angle myth comes from wide angle primes?
With lenses like the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and Canon 10-22mm outperforming most wide angle primes in sharpness and distortion, wide angle primes are not so hot anymore these days. And if you read the different reviews and data of Nikon and Canon wide angle primes on http://www.photozone.de you will see that most of the times the Canon versions perform better on the whole than their Nikon counterparts.
As for macro lenses: The Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro lenses (both versions) actually are the least sharp of all macro lenses (those include the 60mm and 180mm Nikkors, the 60mm, 100mm and 180mm Canons, the 50mm, 70mm, 105mm, 150mm and 180mm Sigmas, the 100mm Tokina and the 90mm and 180mm Tamrons !!!). So choosing Nikon for macro photography because of that 105mm macro seems a bit odd.
Of course those 105mm nikkors are not crap. But you get sharper (and more contrasty) results with just about any of the above mentioned macro lenses. If you do not believe me, read resolution measurements from both photozone.de and the german magazine ColorFoto.
As far as I can figure it out, this Nikon wide angle superiority myth originates from many years back, where on full frame 35mm film the 17-35mm f2.8 Nikkor outperformed the now discontinued predecessor of the 16-35 f2.8 L Canon, I have forgotten what focal range it had.
But at this moment in time Nikon does not have a wide angle advantage at all. And no macro advantage either, with both camera systems having many good macro lenses available (and the 105mm Nikkor being the least impressive).
Abstract, try shooting portraits with the much less expensive Tamron 90mm f2.8 sometime too. You will be equally impressed with its results (and is a bit less long).
Oh... and this was Pentax versus Nikon thread. So what about Pentax wide angle? Pentax designed the optics for the Tokina 12-24 f4 and the Pentax 12-24 f4 together with Tokina. The Tokina is very highly regarded. The lenses are not totally identical, it is possible that the Pentax actually outperforms the Tokina. Tokina is owned by Hoya, the company that bought/merged with Pentax.
If you cherry pick lenses, perhaps not. Few of Nikon's DX series lenses are serious glass.
Probably- the 20-35mm AFD lens that I have seems to be better than my 24mm AFD prime image quality wise, and the 20-35mm isn't made any more. The 18mm rectilinear lens was fairly legendary though it doesn't seem to have transitioned well to digital sensors.
The Canon 100mm vignettes horribly wide open, even on APS-C! While the 90mm Tamron is indeed a legend, so's the 105, and lots of people choose it- so there's something the charts aren't saying considering its reputation and the images that get shot with it. The 60mm doesn't give a lot of working distance- so it may limit macro shooters too much. I've always liked the 180mm, but I don't shoot macro regularly.
I hardly cherry picked lenses, I actually covered most available wideangle offerings from Canon and Nikon. The myth is time and time again repeated on forums like this, dcresource, dpreview and what not. About current state of affairs. So I looked at current lenses. That actually are wide angle on current Nikon bodies. So an 28-70 2.8 does not qualify.
So.. when I look at the 12-24, the 17-55, the primes, I really can not see how you can say I am cherry picking. Which obvious wide angle Nikons (wide angle on APS-C) did I leave out?
Mentioning the not available anymore 20-35mm full frame lens does seem like cherry picking, and of course 20mm is not so overly wide anymore on APS-C. That the 24mm is not a very convincing prime matches exactly what I said about the wide angle primes from Nikon and Canon. Nikon does not seem to have an advantage here.
From photozone about the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor:
Now from photozone about the 24mm f2.8 Canon:photozone said:
photozone said:
As you can see.... the Canon wide angle prime performs very favorably compared to the Nikon.
The Canon 100mm f2.8 macro does not vignet horribly. On full frame (EOS 5D) the Sigma 105mm f2.8 vignets 1.0 fstops wide open. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 vignets 1.0 fstops, the Tamron 90mm f2.8 1.2 fstops and the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 1.3 fstops. The results are very close to eachother, so close that it will be hard to see any differences in photos.
On 1.6x crop factor APS-C (EOS 350D), the Tamron vignets 0.4, the Sigma 0.4 and the Canon 0.6. Again, the Canon vignets most, but by a small margin.
On Nikon (D200) the Tamron 90mm f2.8 vignets 0.4 f-stops wide open. The
Sigma 105mm f2.8 vignets 0.4 f-stops, the Nikon nikkor 105mm f2.8 macro (old non-IS version) vignets 0.6 f-stops. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 0.5 f-stops.
(All measurements taken from the tests by ColorFoto magazin)
When you look at the tests by photozone, you will see that their measurements of the Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro vary a little bit of those from ColorFoto, showing that the Nikon vignets in the same order as the Tamron and Sigma, and that their measurements of the Canon 100mm f2.8 are the same as those from ColorFoto. All in all, the differences are very small (0.6-0.4 f-stops wide open (f2.8) on APS-C) between all macro lenses of this ~100mm class.
The 105mm Nikkor vignets about the same amount wide open as the Canon 100mm. As you can see, vignetting is actually not really an issue with any of these macro lenses. And even less so if you consider that you actually (almost) never use a macro lens wide open because of the EXTREMELY shallow depth of field in macro photography.
Sharpness is a much more important issue with macro lenses, and the 2 versions of the Nikon 105mm macro are the least sharp of the whole bunch. Both the results from photozone and ColorFoto show this. Also they are the least contrasty of all mentioned macro lenses. The IS version does of course offer IS, something quite useful for hand held macro photography.
You asked if the reputation was from FF 35mm, I said it probably was and gave examples- take off your rabid fanboy glasses- the 20-35mm zoom is a perfect exmple.
On the EOS 350D with its reduced format (APS-C) the (full format) lens exhibits quite pronounced vignetting at wide-open aperture which is a little surprising for a full format lens. However, from f/4 & up the problem is quite negligible.
and
However, it is worth to notice that the lens showed a rather unusual behavior in the lab - during the initial tests the performance dropped from f/2.8 to f/4 without improving till f/8. Quite bizarre (normally the focus distance at (~60x focal-length) remains untouched during a test across the aperture range). Upon discussing the effect in the local forum (thanks, Joachim!) one explanation for this may be that the focus point moves slightly dependent on the aperture (residual spherical aberration). Usually this is nothing to worry about because the increased depth-of-field hides these minor focus effects. However, it seems as if this focus shift is more pronounced with this lens.
So is this behavior field relevant ? Yesno. You will not see any effect e.g. in landscape shots but you may experience slight focus errors at closer focus distances (at least at the used test distance of ~1.5m). In manual focusing mode you focus at working aperture (f/2.8) and when choosing a medium aperture you'll ultimately run into this situation - it's a good idea to take advantage of the depth-of-field preview here.
Changing focus points when stopping down is hardly stellar performance.
Six tenths of a stop on APS-C, compared to .37 for the Nikkor.
The ColorFoto results for vignetting are almost twice those of the Photozone ones.
That, of course depends heavily on what you're photographing and the depth of the detail you're trying to capture.
But again, this lens has gotten rave reviews for decades, and has been used to produce some spectacular work- so obviously there's some serious disconnect between the charts and the results.
Either way you go, Canon or Nikon, you will have plenty of quality lens and good bodies to choose from. I would check the used markets and look at the prices of lens and make your choice that way.
I haven't used the D50 or D80. But, I do have a D70s and love it. I would recommend that body.
I do sports photography and I use a Nikon. The D2 bodies with an AF-S lens focuses as fast as the Canons. The difference in the telephoto lens between Canon and Nikon isn't noticeable in the sports shooter's world. Vibration Reduction isn't used all that often. In fact, most of the photographers down on the field turn off VR. The biggest advantage Canons have over Nikons in the sports world is the noise reduction at high ISO. I shoot with a D2h and a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S normally and I try and stay under 800 ISO. Otherwise, I have to do some noise clean up post production.
I haven't used the D50 or D80. But, I do have a D70s and love it. I would recommend that body.
I do sports photography and I use a Nikon. The D2 bodies with an AF-S lens focuses as fast as the Canons. The difference in the telephoto lens between Canon and Nikon isn't noticeable in the sports shooter's world. Vibration Reduction isn't used all that often. In fact, most of the photographers down on the field turn off VR. The biggest advantage Canons have over Nikons in the sports world is the noise reduction at high ISO. I shoot with a D2h and a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S normally and I try and stay under 800 ISO. Otherwise, I have to do some noise clean up post production.
I did not ASK, I merely said if that is where it stems from, giving the example of the 20-35's follow-up, the 17-35 f2.8.
I never said there was stellar performance in all points, I just point out that the Canon 24mm f2.8 is a better lens than the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor you mentioned, and this confirms what I said in general about current Nikkor wide angle primes.
What is your point? I myself gave that information about the vignetting figures on both lenses from 2 sources, and already pointed out the difference measured on the Nikon, where the other results mostly match exactly. So I really fail to see your point. My point is that all lenses in this group have good vignetting values for a macro lens. All are between 0.4-0.6 f-stops.
You are the one labeling the Canon EF 100 f2.8 as vignetting "horribly", which is clearly not the case.
As you as macro photograph will know, you (almost) never use f2.8 for macro photography. This is just a reality.
And as for the measured vignetting, in case you are still convinced 0.6 f-stops is a real problem, just take the reviewers word for it that it is not... I quote from the Review of the 85mm f1.4 D Nikkor:
"The AF 85mm f/1.4D is a full-frame lens so it can take advantage of a sweet spot effect on the D200. Vignetting is very well controlled even at max. aperture with a relative light loss of only 0.5EV which is generally irrelevant. "
That should tell you a bit about just how relevant these figures are. And of course, the f2.8 aperture of the 100mm macro will most often only be used when you use that lens for for instance portrait photography.
I am well aware of that this lens is highly regarded by some. That it is the least sharp of all is a plain fact though. And it is not even less sharp by a small margin either. And that it is less contrasty than for instance the Canon, Sigma and Tamron is a fact too. Again not by a small margin.
And I do not see a reason for the conclusion you draw, it just shows that the people who like it so much have not compared it to:
Sigma 105mm f2.8
Tamron 90mm f2.8
Canon 100mm f2.8
(and the Sigma 50mm, Canon 60mm, Nikon 60mm, and so on).
Again, it is not a crap lens. It just is also not something special.
Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f2.8mm Micro D, Colorfoto 5/2006
To quote the ColorFoto testers (translation is mine from German):
"The Nikon tele does not come to the same level as the other fixed focal length lenses, though the sharpness is already with fully opened aperture good upto the corners, the contrast values are altogether a bit too low."
Vignetting wide open 0.5 f-stops
Edge sharpness 880/996 line pairs per image height (fully open/stopped down 2 f-stops)
Center sharpness 1006/1090
Contrast 32.5 points
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f2.8 G IF-ED VR Micro, Colorfoto 9/2006
To quote the ColorFoto testers (translation is mine from German):
"The Nikon-macro tops the competition with image stabilization and USM, for which although 800 euro are on the bill. The optical performance does not follow these complete specs. Although the image quality is over the total image area very even, the clearly less expensive Tokina is in contrast and sharpness a bit ahead."
Vignetting wide open 0.9 f-stops
Edge sharpness 938/968
Center sharpness 1006/1065
Contrast 34 points
For comparison the Tamron AF 90mm f2.8 SP Di, ColorFoto 5/2006:
To quote the ColorFoto testers (translation is mine from German):
"The Tamron can win itself the highest points of the test field, even though the centering is mediocre. But the tele regains the one point minus of that, easily with its, at open aperture already, high contrast"
Vignetting wide open 0.4 f-stops
Edge sharpness 1006/1049
Center sharpness 1100/1139
Contrast 38.5 points
Unless you want me to, I will not bore you at this moment about how the Canon 100mm f2.8 performs (or the Sigma and Tokina) in all these areas, since this was never supposed to be about a Canon macro, it just got introduced by you in this thread. But let me suffice to say that the Canon compares quite favorably... The Nikon without VR gets 70.5 points on their scale on a D200. The 105 with VR also gets 70.5 points, losing a bit in the resolution and vignetting scores where it gains a bit in contrast.
The Tamron on the D200 scores 78.5 (take this lens as benchmark).
The same Tamron on an EOS 20D scores 74 points on their scale, and Canon 100mm f2.8 also 74 points.
Despite this apparant Canon vs. Nikon debate I've started here, I'm actually learning a fair bit about the various lenses. I know that in the big scheme of things the lenses between companies are not that much better or worse. If one company was so much better than another, then the worse company would cease to exist. However, I don't want to make the "wrong choice" when buying into a system.
I like telephoto lenses. But, I don't use my full zoom a lot on my camera now, so while it would be nice to have a large telephoto, it wouldn't be used a lot. I'm more interested in the macro, wide-angle and "normal range" lenses. The body itself right now isn't all that important. If I had to "suffer" through an XTi in order to later truly appreciate Canon's lens offerings, so be it.
So the question remains. Canon lenses vs. Nikon lenses. Which one?
I like telephoto lenses. But, I don't use my full zoom a lot on my camera now, so while it would be nice to have a large telephoto, it wouldn't be used a lot. I'm more interested in the macro, wide-angle and "normal range" lenses. The body itself right now isn't all that important. If I had to "suffer" through an XTi in order to later truly appreciate Canon's lens offerings, so be it.
So the question remains. Canon lenses vs. Nikon lenses. Which one?
Didn't you answer your own question ?
On which I agree..
Upon your first point or comment, it would make sense to get the Nikon for yourself, since that is something you like, and also since no real (easily tangible, or repeatable) proof exists that says any one lens offering is better than the other.
Even if there was allot of good proof, who is stopping both companies from coming out with newer better lenses in 2007
The Tamron 90mm Macro comes in either mount. Both companies make great, fast, cheap 50mm lenses, which is a 75mm FOV. Wide-angle wise, Sigma makes an interesting superwide in either mount, but all superwides have trade-offs in terms of distortion, you can do some post processing to eliminate most of it though, or for static landscapes you can stitch multiple shots with a longer lens.
If you really want w-i-d-e though, you'll need full-frame, which would mandate Canon at the moment (rumors abound about a FF Nikon body, but I wouldn't necessarily hold my breath.) That rules out the low-end bodies though.
If you're in an area where you can try the cameras and your most likely first lens out though, I'd encourage you to do that and compare the results and how each body fits your shooting style. You really can't go wrong either way.
If you have to suffer with one maker's body to get the same quality of lenses that are available with the other, why suffer?
I'm pretty much a beginner and went through a similar decision making process when I chose my first DSLR in October.
What I found out is the following:
* Both Nikon and Canon have enough quality lenses and enough glass that lenses became a non-issue for me. My skills as a photographer have to grow a lot before it becomes an issue (if it ever does so). Both are used by professionals and photographers with more talent than myself; both are really good choices. I'm sure that Pentax is a good brand, too, but support by local camera shops in my area was a little weak so I didn't give it a lot of time. That could be different for you.
* I was wasting valuable time researching cameras for over a month instead of shooting and learning. I do this a lot-- I researched and waited over a year before buying my 12" Powerbook! So I decided just to go with the system that I felt I would be more likely to use. I didn't want to "suffer" with a camera... I wanted to enjoy the time I spent with it.
I went with the Nikon D80, but also was able to do some testing with a Canon 5D and thought it felt much, much better than the Rebel series. I'm sure that the 20D/30D would feel nice as well.
I'm very happy with my Nikon D80. I even like the 18-135 kit lens that others have described as a "dog" in this forum in the past. It produces nice enough photos that any problems are due to "user error" rather than the limitations of the glass. I'll upgrade it to something better if/when I notice the limitations in the future. I also have a 50mm prime and think it's a good lens to use to learn about bokeh, depth of field and aperture, and other concepts.
I use a Canon point and shoot camera that used Compact Flash cards and the same battery that used with the XT/XTi. I like the camera, and I had good service support from Canon when a problem came up. I don't think it's fair to degrade or blast either company; they both produce nice equipment.
I think no matter which camera you choose you will be happy with your results.
Firstly, it depends on what review you read, which is why I always say that reviews based on one or two samples of a lens aren't so useful. I have also read that the Nikon 12-24 mm performs better than the Canon and Tokina equivalent, although some reviews state that they can't seem to see how the Tokina 12-24 mm is inferior to the Nikon, Canon, or any other wide-angle at all, and yet they still say the Nikon is probably better if you're a pro. I don't get it that reasoning either, but that's what some reviews have said. It's all probably sampling/statistical error anyway.
eg:
Secondly, I never trust Ken Rockwell's reviews, because they're not reviews at all.
Thirdly, I own the Tokina 12-24 mm f/4 because I'm not going to pay another $600 USD (where I live) to get a Nikon lens that's 1% better than the Tokina (if it's better at all). Brand name means nothing to me, and I don't believe that the Nikon is better than the Tokina 12-24 mm. The only Nikon lens I own is the 105 mm f/2.8, and I know Photozone.de or SLRGear.com (one or the other) says it's not as sharp as the older model. Doesn't matter, really. I got the Nikon because of the VR, as I won't be using it exclusively for macro. And besides that, the VR still works a little bit when shooting at or near 1:1 reproduction, despite what reviewers say. It just doesn't work as well.
Also, the Nikon 105 mm VR is internal focus. I didn't want the Tamron 90 mm because it's not long enough for my tastes, and the Sigma 105 mm extends WAY too much to give me real working distance.
And I've only read one review that said that the Canon 100 mm is better than the Nikon 105 mm in resolution, and it's probably the same review that you read.
All I know is that the Tamron 90 mm is likely sharper than both the Nikon and Canon ~100 mm lenses, while the Sigma 150 mm is probably sharper than all of them, which is why I considered buying it over the Sigma 150 mm. That, and I wanted something long. Too bad getting a 150 mm lens would take away from its usefulness as a portrait lens.Comparing the Canon and Nikon 60 mm macros to the Nikon 105 is horribly unfair. Different beast in the macro world.
You make too much sense.
I was actually wondering the same thing. Get the Nikon.
If you are looking for an entry into the DSLR world and don't like the XTi and D40, get a 30D or D80!!
Brands aside, if you're not putting thousands into a full frame Canon body from the start, the wide angle lenses will all be about the same. (Full frame Canon bodies will be reeeeally wide). So, you're back to square one...again.
Go to a store and compare a 30D and D80. Entry and mid-level glass is going to be the same price/quality for both companies.
Brands aside, if you're not putting thousands into a full frame Canon body from the start, the wide angle lenses will all be about the same. (Full frame Canon bodies will be reeeeally wide). So, you're back to square one...again.
Go to a store and compare a 30D and D80. Entry and mid-level glass is going to be the same price/quality for both companies.
Alright. Well, thanks guys. I was just deathly afraid of making the "wrong choice", but I feel much more confident now. Almost all of photography is based upon the photographers skill anyway. I'm getting images with my lil DSC-H1 that blow away some photos I've seen from DSLR's. I believe that the D80 is my #1 choice, now I just need to make sure I'll get it!
I beg to differ. You only need full frame if you want a fast (f/2.8) wide-angle lens. The EF-S 10-22mm has equivalent field of view to a 16-35mm lens on a full frame body, which is as wide as any zoom lens out there. Nikon's 12-24mm has equivalent FOV to an 18-36mm (remember: Nikon has a 1.5 crop factor; Canon, a 1.6 crop factor). So Canon has a slightly wider lens there. The only advantage in going full frame, assuming you want a zoom lens at the wide end, is the speed: the Canon 16-35mm is f/2.8, whilst the EF-S 10-22mm is f/3.5-4.5. That's less than one stop at the wide end (and a bit over one stop at the telephoto end - heh, "telephoto end" on a wide angle zoom lens is still pretty wide.
)Now, if you want to go primes, Canon makes a rectilinear EF 14mm lens. This is very much not a cheap option, though (RRP over $AU3700, compared with $AU3000 for the 16-35mm f/2.8, or $AU1400 for the 10-22). The vast majority of users won't need a lens that wide, or at least not so badly that they'd shell out such a large wad of cash for one; if you did need it, you'd know it already.
As for the general choice: if bodies like the 30D are out of your price range, and the XTi (aka 400D) seems like it'd cramp your style, go with Nikon. Neither company has enough of an edge, at either the wide angle or the telephoto end of the market (especially for non professionals) to lose sleep over picking one over the other. I'm a Canon shooter (20D, three lenses in effect), but my masculinity isn't tied to the company I chose for my camera.
Good deal,
Even though I am a Canon user, and a Canon fan, I will never recommend a brand (With the exception of Apple
) that someone isn't comfortable with, nor likes. Since the lens battle is almost a wash, I think you will do fine in the Nikon camp. This ongoing debate of Nikon v.s. Canon is going to continue for a long time, but what does it matter to you, if you are taking the pictures you like, having fun, and getting high quality results!I am sure you will love the camera, and now you just have to learn how to use it!
840quadra
still learning his 30d and has a long way to go!
You can differ, here's how I see it:
The Sigma 12-24mm is a full frame rectilinear 12-24. There's a lot of field of view between 12mm and 16mm. It's 122 degrees vs 96.7 degrees, a full 25.3 degrees of difference. That's why I emphasized w-i-d-e. Personally, I'd go get an X-pan if I really needed wide, but for digital, the full frame sensor gives the ability to get an extreme field of view. If that's your bag, I don't see APS-C as a contender, though I'm not sure how easy it is to keep your tripod/feet out of the frame!
It's a good choice, even if the Canon fanatics don't agree. You'll find that it will perform better and more quickly than your current camera and, with the right lenses, you'll be surprised how much better the D80 is. Remember that economy lenses yield economy results, no matter who makes them.
First off, whatever you decide, avoid the D80's kit lens. I saw above that someone is ok with the results... it is a very soft lens though, not very contrasty (a haze from internal reflections makes the photos a bit dull, just like with the Canon 17-85 IS USM) and it suffers from quite some CA).
Second, focussing on the XTi as being inferior to a D80 is just nonsense. It is a very complete and very good camera, but it is smaller.
If you really do not like how it handles, then do not consider it. But the focus many lay on "how the camera feels in your hands" is getting more and more absurd. One starts to wonder how people used to make photos before the Canon T90 (first one with moulded grip). Or how they manage with compact cameras. Or viewfinder cameras from Leica and Contax that cost many 1000's of dollars.
I have big hands, and the 350D I have is fine to use all day, it is compact and light which I found to be important, without making it a stripped down camera. The XTi has three main advntages over the D80, which are a better sensor (less "grainy", less noise... just because Nikon applies noise reduction in the D80 and not in the D200 does nt mean the D80 has a better sensor... the D80 loses some definition with every step up in ISO), mirror lock up (not important for everyone) and comes standard with high quality RAW convertor (Nikon has very good RAW conversion software too, but it will cost you an extra 150$).
The Pentax K10 D is more complete than the D80 and XTi, also much bigger. It's image quality is a bit less in higher ISO though.
The Canon 30D of course is a very good camera too, but it costs a bit over 1000$, where the XTi, K10D and D80 do not.
If you go for cheap and cheerful lenses, it does not matter much which system you choose. When you look at a bit more quality lenses it does matter a bit more.
For instance, in wide angle the Canon 10-22mm USM is about 400$ less than the Nikon wide angle zoom (the 12-24 f4).
Still a bit less is the very good Tokina 12-24 f4, which is available for both cameras (I own this Tokina). But this one has quite some CA at 12mm (and the Canon focusses more accurately).
Then if you want some tele zoom power that does not weigh a ton but does perform really well, the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM has to be seen to be believed. It is as sharp as Canon's and Nikon's top offerings, and with its IS it is a very usable lens. Nikon has introduced a new 70-300 VR too, but it has to be seen whether it delivers as impressively sharp and contrasty results as the Canon one.
For a "standard zoom" you could choose of course the Nikon 18-70 "kit lens", but I am not too big a fan of it because it has switched the zoom and focus ring (normally tge focus ring is at the end), it is quite expensive for a lens with that aperture range, and it gives considerable distortion at wideangle. For both the Canon and Nikon there are the affordable but good Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro (the new version has this macro addition to its name), Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (check on the D80 if it will focus precisely) and the hopefully soon to be available Tokina 16-50 f2.8. Both Canon and Nikon have also lenses in this class, but they cost more than twice as much.
Those are the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX (nice sharp and contrasty at wide angle, loses a bit of resolution at the long end) and the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS USM (very sharp through its entire range, offers IS). If you decide for a wide angle zoom, you can also consider the following lenses which miss a bit on the wide side:
Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II (very affordable at around 210$, good colour and contrast with fast accurate focus, a real steal).
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG, lens with godo contrast again, good on both Nikon and Canon.
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. If you get a good copy it will be very sharp.
If you decide to go for the complete Pentax offering, you should wait till march with lens choices, because then the 60-250mm f4(not 100% sure if I have the focal range correct), 16-50 f2.8 and another one (is that the 12-24 f4?) will be introduced, which I have the feeling will be very nice lenses.
All mentioned cameras are of course capable of good image quality. The differences are in the details and it is personal if you place importance in those details.
Second, focussing on the XTi as being inferior to a D80 is just nonsense. It is a very complete and very good camera, but it is smaller.
If you really do not like how it handles, then do not consider it. But the focus many lay on "how the camera feels in your hands" is getting more and more absurd. One starts to wonder how people used to make photos before the Canon T90 (first one with moulded grip). Or how they manage with compact cameras. Or viewfinder cameras from Leica and Contax that cost many 1000's of dollars.
I have big hands, and the 350D I have is fine to use all day, it is compact and light which I found to be important, without making it a stripped down camera. The XTi has three main advntages over the D80, which are a better sensor (less "grainy", less noise... just because Nikon applies noise reduction in the D80 and not in the D200 does nt mean the D80 has a better sensor... the D80 loses some definition with every step up in ISO), mirror lock up (not important for everyone) and comes standard with high quality RAW convertor (Nikon has very good RAW conversion software too, but it will cost you an extra 150$).
The Pentax K10 D is more complete than the D80 and XTi, also much bigger. It's image quality is a bit less in higher ISO though.
The Canon 30D of course is a very good camera too, but it costs a bit over 1000$, where the XTi, K10D and D80 do not.
If you go for cheap and cheerful lenses, it does not matter much which system you choose. When you look at a bit more quality lenses it does matter a bit more.
For instance, in wide angle the Canon 10-22mm USM is about 400$ less than the Nikon wide angle zoom (the 12-24 f4).
Still a bit less is the very good Tokina 12-24 f4, which is available for both cameras (I own this Tokina). But this one has quite some CA at 12mm (and the Canon focusses more accurately).
Then if you want some tele zoom power that does not weigh a ton but does perform really well, the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM has to be seen to be believed. It is as sharp as Canon's and Nikon's top offerings, and with its IS it is a very usable lens. Nikon has introduced a new 70-300 VR too, but it has to be seen whether it delivers as impressively sharp and contrasty results as the Canon one.
For a "standard zoom" you could choose of course the Nikon 18-70 "kit lens", but I am not too big a fan of it because it has switched the zoom and focus ring (normally tge focus ring is at the end), it is quite expensive for a lens with that aperture range, and it gives considerable distortion at wideangle. For both the Canon and Nikon there are the affordable but good Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro (the new version has this macro addition to its name), Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (check on the D80 if it will focus precisely) and the hopefully soon to be available Tokina 16-50 f2.8. Both Canon and Nikon have also lenses in this class, but they cost more than twice as much.
Those are the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX (nice sharp and contrasty at wide angle, loses a bit of resolution at the long end) and the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS USM (very sharp through its entire range, offers IS). If you decide for a wide angle zoom, you can also consider the following lenses which miss a bit on the wide side:
Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II (very affordable at around 210$, good colour and contrast with fast accurate focus, a real steal).
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG, lens with godo contrast again, good on both Nikon and Canon.
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. If you get a good copy it will be very sharp.
If you decide to go for the complete Pentax offering, you should wait till march with lens choices, because then the 60-250mm f4(not 100% sure if I have the focal range correct), 16-50 f2.8 and another one (is that the 12-24 f4?) will be introduced, which I have the feeling will be very nice lenses.
All mentioned cameras are of course capable of good image quality. The differences are in the details and it is personal if you place importance in those details.
Great thread!!
I just got my D70s with the Nikon 18-70MM lens. I've not enjoyed a Christmas gift more. I did lots of research over the past few months, both here at MR and on my own. In the end, I went with Nikon because I loved the bodies offered much more than any entry level Canon or Pentex model. I knew the D40 was too low-end for what I wanted, andthe D50 was fine, but I got the D70s simply becauseit was a better value, and the features it offered was a significant advantage. The D80's 10.2 MP resolution wassimply unnecessary for my needs, and the D70's body is nearly identical (larger, but size didn't matter since I have a good point and shoot for other occasions). I've used both the Sony A100, Canon XT.. Models, and the range of Nikons from the D40 up the D200. In the end, any choice will make you happy so as long as you yourself are happy with the choice!
Welcome to the DSLR world! It's quite a blast!
I just got my D70s with the Nikon 18-70MM lens. I've not enjoyed a Christmas gift more. I did lots of research over the past few months, both here at MR and on my own. In the end, I went with Nikon because I loved the bodies offered much more than any entry level Canon or Pentex model. I knew the D40 was too low-end for what I wanted, andthe D50 was fine, but I got the D70s simply becauseit was a better value, and the features it offered was a significant advantage. The D80's 10.2 MP resolution wassimply unnecessary for my needs, and the D70's body is nearly identical (larger, but size didn't matter since I have a good point and shoot for other occasions). I've used both the Sony A100, Canon XT.. Models, and the range of Nikons from the D40 up the D200. In the end, any choice will make you happy so as long as you yourself are happy with the choice!
Welcome to the DSLR world! It's quite a blast!
I really think when it comes to reviews of lens quality you should look at the actual photo sites and not MacRumors. You'll find that many of them think the Nikkor 18-70mm is a decent lens, and (unless things have changed recently) generally think it's a better piece of glass than the what comes in the Digital Rebel kit.
But either way, the kit lens should suit someone starting out just fine.
You'll find that many of them think the Nikkor 18-70mm is a decent lens, and (unless things have changed recently) generally think it's a better piece of glass than the what comes in the Digital Rebel kit.But either way, the kit lens should suit someone starting out just fine.
That is a really bold statement and it could mean many things. Care to clarify? I don't think any camera company deserves such a lashing but that's just me.