And why not a Nikon D70?

[psybear]

Okay, I know I am not going to get unbiased advice on a Canon forum, but I can find loads of people on other sites who are willing to tell all why they made the 'right' choice by buying a Nikon D70 over a Canon 350D/Rebel XT, I just want to hear some counter arguments.

I am about to make the big jump from compact digital cameras to DSLRs and I want to get it right. I have handled both cameras in the shop. I like the Canon's more modern appearance and weight and its autofocus seems superb. The Nikon feels much more than just 110g heavier, but has a much more professional appearance. With cashback offers in the U.K., the cameras are roughly the same price (for the kits), with the Nikon about £50/$90 cheaper.

I know the Nikon kit lens is far superior to the Canon's. But if I get into this DSLR thing, I will be buying more lenses anyway. And if I buy more lenses, they will stand me in good stead for the 20d - a natural upgrade it seems from my research, yet there is no natural upgrade to the D70.

I would be very keen to hear from any 350D owners who bought it as a first step into the DSLR world, and considered/rejected the Nikon.


PB

[tbfoto]

There is no right answer to this. If you buy the Nikon ...you will learn to like it. If you buy the Canon... you will also learn to like it. The best thing you can do is as you have already done....go pick up each camera and hold it and buy which ever feels better to you. The one thing I did was to look down the line at the cost for all the extras..... lenes, flashes etc. Look at what you think you might want and compare the cost. One is not "better" than the other. They are different in style and feel but both can produce quality results. I work for a studio that uses all Nikon equipment. I personally own all Canon equipment. I enjoy using all of it and I can tell you that there is no way to say "This one is better than that one". Buy what YOU want. Dont be sold what someone else thinks you should have. Good luck.

Tom

[the chemist]

Well i just went through the same situation :) I personally couldnt stand the feel/design of the 350 even though i loved the camera. I loved the feel of the d70 and went with nikon. In your case however i would go canon. Nikons lens in general are a few hundred over canon for the same equivelent. So in the long run it would cost less IMO to go canon with just as equal images.

[Medic1]

I cannot say about the 350D, but I made my jump with the 300D and I think it went quite well. My picture quality is quite comparable to the D70 (a good friend has the D70), and it compares well in other areas also. To be honest, it lags behind in a couple of areas, but the 350D looks as if it is going to resolve those differences. If I had to go back, I still would not change my decision because I like the lens lineup Canon has, and I fully intend on going to a 20D at some point in the near future.

I say if you are going to start with an entry level DSLR and go up from there, then Canon is the way to go.

[DocFrankenstein]

Canon has better "top level" digital bodies, better AF more megapixels, cleaner images, all pros shoot canon...

They also seem to release the cameras on time. N**** only promises cameras ;)

[KevC]

Don't look at the body, look at the system. When you are buying a dSLR, you are buying a system. Nikon shines in the wide angle/macro department, while Canon really takes the crown with the longer telephotos and affordable zooms.

I bought Canon because I liked how Canon worked, menus and basically the layout. Also, I already had glass for it. If you buy Nikon, you'll be just as happy I believe. These are two of the market's best players, and they each have very commerable products.

Of course, Canon is on the edge ;) Nikon's D70 is much much older than the 350XT. It's built better, but many could argue it's a class above. However, the standard comparison was D70 vs 300D or even 20D. Now that the 350XT basically has a lot of the features of the 20D, I'd say it wins especially at the price point.

[symes]

I am right now trying to convince my uncle not to buy one only because his needs are sports and from what I have researched the Canon is better...

Here is the post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=61592

Another Quick search will give you plenty of reading on this topic:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=108603

[Hellashot]

Canon has 62% of the dSLR market. Nikon doesn't seem to want to churn our new cameras like Canon does, and Canon has seen the benefits of quick releases!

[photopaque]

I also am considering either the 350d or the D70.its a tough one to call.My rule of thumb is to buy the newest when it comes to stuff like this.The nikon has been out for a while so thats why i think im going for the 350d.I am a dslr 'noob' in fact im new really to photography......i think canon has a better support/advice community and i think i can learn better on the 350d........oh Sod it..lol.
I think ive just convinced myself to buy one now.

[HJMinard]

They're both excellent cameras ... you won't go wrong either way. As others have stated, make sure you consider the entire system, particularly lenses. That is where I think you will find Canon has an advantage - a wider compatible range at better prices.

This price point (entry level) is, in my opinion, the only place where Nikon is currently competitive. They have no effective 20D, 1DMkII, 1DsMkII competitors ... or at best they are least one year behind in development of competitors. So if you expect you might upgrade in the relatively near future, that might be something else to keep in mind.

[johneric8]

Nikon??? Get the Heck outta here...........LOL

[eosster]

This price point (entry level) is, in my opinion, the only place where Nikon is currently competitive. They have no effective 20D, 1DMkII, 1DsMkII competitors ... or at best they are least one year behind in development of competitors. So if you expect you might upgrade in the relatively near future, that might be something else to keep in mind.

Hmmm, what about D2X and D2HS, are you implying that it can't compete with Canon.

[karusel]

My 1 cent (that's right, one): when buying and SLR you're not buying an SLR camera, you're buying an SLR SYSTEM (lens, flashes, accessories).

[eosster]

My 1 cent (that's right, one): when buying and SLR you're not buying an SLR camera, you're buying an SLR SYSTEM (lens, flashes, accessories).

Agree and costly to convert. This is coming from my own experience. I've used Nikon D70 and it wasn't for my needs. Do careful research with right selection for you. Ask questions at Nikon forum and explain what is your needs, etc.

[davidwegs]

It depends on your uses and why you want one or the other. I was a long (ish) time Nikon user until I went to Digital capture, then went Canon.

If I had to choose again (the choice I made was when the d100 was their main seller) and considering (I had Nikon glass) the new D2X, I would likely go Nikon.

I can't believe I just said that!!!

Well I am very pleased with Canon and if you have no real investment in glass , I would go with Canon.

[HJMinard]

Hmmm, what about D2X and D2HS, are you implying that it can't compete with Canon.

Where can you buy one? Keep hearing about them, but they appear to be a mirage ...

I'm not saying they can't compete - I'm saying they're way behind Canon's development curve. Even when they do become readily available, they won't match up well against the 1DMkII and 1DsMkII, except with regard to price.

[mjordan]

I heard that a Nikon left in the laboratory caused a bunch of male lab rats to lose their hair and teeth, the female rats showed no interest in them and they went sterile. Unfortunately they ran out of funding before they could obtain conclusive proof it was the Nikon that caused it all.

I understand that another lab that had Canon equipment had no such problem.


;)

Mike

[Johnny V]

To me the bottom line was the image coming off the chip. I've been a Nikon user for almost thirty years and could have gone with the D70. When I was debating between the D70 and Digital Rebel 300D I chose the Rebel...even though I think the D70 has better ergonomics and is built slightly better than the Digital Rebel 300D, it all came down to the image coming off the chip. I just like the creamy smooth grainless but somehow sharp image produced by the Canon chip.

Today with the new Canon 350D/Rebel XT vs. the D70 I think the Canon kicks the D70's pixels big time!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hmmm, what about D2X and D2HS, are you implying that it can't compete with Canon.

D2Hs? You mean the 4 MP camera that competes very well with Canon's discontinued 4 year old 1D?

A Camera that is 4 years too late to the ball game is hardly anything worth talking about :lol:

D2X looks to be a great camera that would be very competitive with the Canon 1Ds... (also discontiued.. )

[michael.luczkow]

for me the D70 was MUCH better than the rebel. but i splurged and got the 20D because I had to have it after I tried it. Then came the XT. If I could have the 90% of the performance at 60 percent of the price.... I'd get the XT. to me there is no Nikon even on the map anywhere (at any price point) that gets considered....

Just my opinion.

[PacAce]

...I will be buying more lenses anyway. And if I buy more lenses, they will stand me in good stead for the 20d - a natural upgrade it seems from my research, yet there is no natural upgrade to the D70.
PB
I think you've already answered you own question. :)

[vwpilot]

D2Hs? You mean the 4 MP camera that competes very well with Canon's discontinued 4 year old 1D?

A Camera that is 4 years too late to the ball game is hardly anything worth talking about :lol:

If you can look through an SI and can, with a straight face, tell me what photos are taken with a MKII and which ones are taken with a D2H, then I will start to believe you have a point.

If you cant, them I'm thinking that it is compteting rather nicely.

[pcasciola]

The D70 is definitely a good body, but I would never buy into the Nikon system. Canon has a far better selection of bodies and lenses, and 3rd party lenses do not hold their value nearly as well as Canon's. I follow a lot of auctions looking for deals on Canon lenses, and it always amazes me that the Nikon mount lenses devaluate so much more than the Canon's. Every time I find what seems like an incredible price, it turns out to be a Nikon mount. I guess that could be a good thing, but not for me. The only two lenses in Nikon's lineup I am envious of are the 200mm f/2 VR and 10.5mm f/2.8.

[Belmondo]

If you can look through an SI and can, with a straight face, tell me what photos are taken with a MKII and which ones are taken with a D2H, then I will start to believe you have a point.

If you cant, them I'm thinking that it is compteting rather nicely.

We do tend to stray from time to time, don't we? :lol:

This is not a discussion of high-end Noinks versus high-end Canons. It's a fair question about whether the D70 is a reasonable point-of-entry camera for a new DSLR user.

The short answer is, 'Yes.' It's a competent, capable camera, and you could do worse.

I think it's important to look at the Canon vs. Noink history of recent years, however. It would appear that Canon always has a slight advantage in coming to market with innovative, ground-breaking designs first. And when Noink does take the lead, as can be argued was the case with the D70, Canon seems to respond quickly with something even better. In short, Noink seems to be in the positions of perpetually playing ‘catch-up.’

Then, there are the lenses…..

[Tom W]

I've handled the 300D/Digital Rebel as well as the D-70. If the original Rebel were the camera in question, I'd say that the D70 is a nicer camera. I didn't use it enough to familiarize myself with all the functions, but it was a good-handling camera that felt good in the hand. And Nikon's kit lens is build a lot like Canon's 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens - that is, a step up the quality ladder to a spot somewhere between Canon's two kit lenses, the 18-55 and the 17-85IS. Optically, the difference diminishes, with Canon's cheap kit lens providing image quality beyond its modest price. I've not done a side-by-side between the two, but I suspect that the Nikon kit lens has a rather modest advantage in image quality (though it is better in other areas).

Now that the 350D is out, the game changes. All of the weaknesses that the original Rebel had when compared to the D70 have been eliminated. Plus, Canon has an 8 Mpx camera that is likely to have noise characteristics similar to the 20D - IOW, it should work better at high ISO than the D70.

Personally, given the price of the two, I'd choose the Canon and spend the difference towards another lens, or a respectable flash unit.

[vwpilot]

Belmondo,

The point I am trying to make is that people keep saying that Nikon is in an perpetual state of catch up as you put it, BUT, if you cant tell the difference in the photos in their final form, then what does it really matter.

People get way to caught up on who has more MP or who has this or who has that. But if you cant tell what shot in SI was taken with a Nikon and what was taken with a Canon then does any of that technical crap even matter?

The answer is no.

Most of what you need to consider when shopping is going to be things like features that relate to actual shooting (MP and noise are not a features I speak of) and how the camera works and functions for you. How does it feel in your hand? Do you understand the settings and the menus easily? Can you reach the controls easily and make the settings you need to quickly and without too much thought?

These are the kinds of things that will affect you day in and day out, whether it has 2 more mp when you only print up maybe a 16x20 or whether it has lower noise at 3200 ISO when I bet most rarely, if ever, even use it are things that only internet shooters talk about.

Statements like Canon has the better lens linup or Canon has the better system are nothing that have any real basis in any kind of fact.

Both Nikon and Canon lenses are excellent (and if I actually had to choose, having used both systems, I would actually give the nod to Nikon when it comes to sharpness) and any difference between them are going to be very marginal at best and will likely never be noticed by anyone viewing the image.

Point is, is it really a state of catch up if what they are producing is doing the job just as well as Canon's? And if you cant tell the difference in the end, then it is doing it just as well.

Who cares if Nikon is slower to upgrade as long as the current stuff is still doing a good job. And since most normal users will only upgrade every few years anyway, then there really isnt this insane need for new cameras every year and some ungodly race for MP ratings.

I admit, Canon is winning the technology wars right now on the high end but how much of that really matters. A Nikon that took a good photo two years ago is still taking a good photo today. The D70 takes a great photo today, its not going to change in a year, or two, or even three. By then if someone is ready to upgrade, I'm sure Nikon will have a great camera to upgrade to.

Buy the one that feels right to you. Dont take into account too much of this "buy into a system" crap, as both systems are great. Dont worry too much about the fact that Canon has new things out all the time or that Nikon takes longer to come to market, if you arent buying the latest stuff every year, then it wont matter. If you like the Canon better, great, if you like the Nikon better, go for it. You wont be upset with either.

[MrChad]

I love the D70 as DSLR's go....but I love the huge and great selection of Canon lenses more as such lenses make the system more then the body IMO.

But if you only plan to use the kit lenses, you can't go wrong with either.

[defordphoto]

Then why, VW, when you see a huge bank of photogs at a major events, the very large majority are Canons?

Fun point(s) you make VW.

When I first got heavily into photography my dream was a Nikon F1. I drooled bucketfuls in my late teens and 20's over all that.

But, considering the whole EOS versus (whatever Noink call their system) I rate Canon a tick or two above in innovation and lens technology. Granted they are close, and we could beat this horse dead several times over, but currently, Noink is behind. (period)

[SkipD]

In its day, the Nikon F's and their lenses that I own (bought new in 1967) were the best thing available - without question. I've come to the conclusion that Canon EOS is the system to use today, though, when quality and versatility matter.

[Tom W]

Belmondo,

The point I am trying to make is that people keep saying that Nikon is in an perpetual state of catch up as you put it, BUT, if you cant tell the difference in the photos in their final form, then what does it really matter.

People get way to caught up on who has more MP or who has this or who has that. But if you cant tell what shot in SI was taken with a Nikon and what was taken with a Canon then does any of that technical crap even matter?

The answer is no.
You asked the question earlier, but it wasn't answered. The answer lies in the application and size of the final image. Nearly every P&S out there can take a satisfactory 4X6 inch image. Most DSLRs will take a superior image of those dimensions, or full-page. A double page spread - you'd better have more than 4 megapixels. Heavy cropping, ditto.

I'm sure that there's some good Nikon shots in SI, as they are good cameras. But unless identical images are taken and compared, the differences in images won't be noticed. The difference in application, however, will.



Most of what you need to consider when shopping is going to be things like features that relate to actual shooting (MP and noise are not a features I speak of) and how the camera works and functions for you. How does it feel in your hand? Do you understand the settings and the menus easily? Can you reach the controls easily and make the settings you need to quickly and without too much thought?

I beg to differ. While the difference between 6 and 8 megapixels isn't huge, it is a useful difference. If you need to do any cropping and still expect a clean print, the extra megapixels will come in handy. As for noise, that is much more significant. Perhaps your style of photography doesn't require it, but clean ISO 800 and 1600 images are very useful if you intend to shoot indoor sports. Clean 3200 is a bonus, though no camera is real clean at that level - not even the Canons.

These are the kinds of things that will affect you day in and day out, whether it has 2 more mp when you only print up maybe a 16x20 or whether it has lower noise at 3200 ISO when I bet most rarely, if ever, even use it are things that only internet shooters talk about.

Clean 3200 is a nice bonus, but 800 and 1600 are very useable, as I noted above. And the Canons have superior performance at those ISO settings.

Statements like Canon has the better lens linup or Canon has the better system are nothing that have any real basis in any kind of fact.

Both Nikon and Canon lenses are excellent (and if I actually had to choose, having used both systems, I would actually give the nod to Nikon when it comes to sharpness) and any difference between them are going to be very marginal at best and will likely never be noticed by anyone viewing the image.

Yes, they both have great lenses. I don't see a great deal of superiority with either brand, with a few exceptional areas.

Point is, is it really a state of catch up if what they are producing is doing the job just as well as Canon's? And if you cant tell the difference in the end, then it is doing it just as well.

But are they doing it "just as well"? Nikon is currently producing the equivalent of a Canon 1D, which has been out of production for over a year. Its a very good camera, but it's not a 1D Mk II.

Who cares if Nikon is slower to upgrade as long as the current stuff is still doing a good job. And since most normal users will only upgrade every few years anyway, then there really isnt this insane need for new cameras every year and some ungodly race for MP ratings.

If you're about to invest in a system, you should care. Its not just about upgrading - its also about buying the best product for the money. The D70 is good. The 350D is better (and cheaper), and the 20d is even better yet.

I admit, Canon is winning the technology wars right now on the high end but how much of that really matters. A Nikon that took a good photo two years ago is still taking a good photo today. The D70 takes a great photo today, its not going to change in a year, or two, or even three. By then if someone is ready to upgrade, I'm sure Nikon will have a great camera to upgrade to.

Buy the one that feels right to you. Dont take into account too much of this "buy into a system" crap, as both systems are great. Dont worry too much about the fact that Canon has new things out all the time or that Nikon takes longer to come to market, if you arent buying the latest stuff every year, then it wont matter. If you like the Canon better, great, if you like the Nikon better, go for it. You wont be upset with either.

On that note, I agree. Just make sure to do the research and buy the best product that your dollars, pounds, or Euros will buy today. In all likelihood, the best today will pale when compared to the best in 5 years. But it will still be good.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you can look through an SI and can, with a straight face, tell me what photos are taken with a MKII and which ones are taken with a D2H, then I will start to believe you have a point.

If you cant, them I'm thinking that it is compteting rather nicely.

Or a four year old 1D? ...or a D30 for that matter?
I don't see your point?

Someone could get a great looking image with a 1D, D30, Drebel, D70, etc.. none of that has any bearing on my position that Canon is well ahead of Noink in DSLRs

[charlesu]

What a funny discussion. You know, somewhere someone is using an original Nikon F to make excellent picures. Shoot, forget that. Someone somewhere is using a 60 year old Leica to do the same.

Maybe you should go with the Leica! Or, what about a nice Bronica? Shoot, they'll compete with and beat the image quality of anything Nikon has ever made.

I don't get your point here and it sounds like you're really just trying to justify an irrational position. Can you take a great picture with a lesser camera? Sure! The fact that Canon has led this market since the introduction of the 1D is pretty much indisputable. Can Nikon regain the lead? Maybe but that seems doubtful and frankly, it's irrelevant to your situation. So is the fact that some photojournalists are still using Nikon.

If you want the D70, buy the D70. There's nothing wrong with it. But don't you want the most capable camera system available?

[eosster]

Wow, this new guy sure caused a commotion in Canon forum, LOL.

[Belmondo]

Wow, this new guy sure caused a commotion in Canon forum, LOL.

You're right! Not bad return for an entire history of just one post so far.

[eosster]

You're right! Not bad return for an entire history of just one post so far.

Belmondo,

Maybe he will set new record here for replies, LOL.:lol::lol::lol:

[xdjoynerx]

i just jumped ship to a nikon d70 after being an loyal canon user for years. im happy to say the least that i made the choice.

[DocFrankenstein]

i just jumped ship to a nikon d70 after being an loyal canon user for years. im happy to say the least that i made the choice.
What motivated you to do that? :confused:

[vwpilot]

Then why, VW, when you see a huge bank of photogs at a major events, the very large majority are Canons?

But, considering the whole EOS versus (whatever Noink call their system) I rate Canon a tick or two above in innovation and lens technology. Granted they are close, and we could beat this horse dead several times over, but currently, Noink is behind. (period)

Depends first of all on what you are watching. If its sport, its undisputed that Canon is more popular than Nikon, not going to argue that.

But in other areas of photography its not the case, but you arent seeing the average advertising or landscape photographer on TV and most of them dont congregate like sports photographers do. I know quite a few of them using Nikon systems and doing just fine with them.

I'll give you the lens technology thing only because Canon has more IS lenses, but that is changing as Nikon adds VR to all their new ones and personally I find IS, while handy at times, nothing I would ever really take into account when buying or judging quality of a lens. Again, as an ex Nikon user and a current Canon user, I still maintain that my Nikkors were sharper (ever so slightly) than my Canon counterparts. But not enough to say one is better than the other.

As far as cameras go, I'll still give you that Canon is a tick ahead of Nikon, never said anything against that, especially if all you are counting is megapixels.

However, I dont think its enough either way to make a decision based solely on that because while Canon may be slightly ahead, Nikon is more than well enough along to make wonderful photos, so buying a camera you may not like as much or dont consider as good (DRebel over D70) in order to buy into a "better system" is not the smartest move.

[vwpilot]

You asked the question earlier, but it wasn't answered. The answer lies in the application and size of the final image. Nearly every P&S out there can take a satisfactory 4X6 inch image. Most DSLRs will take a superior image of those dimensions, or full-page.

No argument

A double page spread - you'd better have more than 4 megapixels. Heavy cropping, ditto.

Really? You must be right because I never saw a double truck image in SI till the MkII came out, did you? Yeah, that must be. Sure, since SI went nearly fully digital years ago they never did a double truck from anything till the MkII came out. There was never one from an original 1D, nor from a D1H or D2H for that matter. I guess I must have been dreaming them since you must know what you are talking about and you MUST have more than 4mp to get a double truck image.

I'm sure that there's some good Nikon shots in SI, as they are good cameras. But unless identical images are taken and compared, the differences in images won't be noticed. The difference in application, however, will.

But only internet measurebators are caring about taking two photos and putting them side by side and finding whatever extremely slight difference there may be.

Again, if YOU cant sit down and look through a magazine and go "that image is bad and that one is good and that one must be from a Canon and that one must be from a Nikon" then how can you say that Nikon does not compete?

Sure you can look at specs and say it doesnt have as many MP or whatever, but if 4mp produces enough that you cant tell the difference then I dont see the big deal.

Now if you are doing posters or billboards on a regular basis and you were someone that used medium format on a regular basis than sure, more MP the better, I'm not arguing that more MP is not necessarily a good thing. But too many folks base way to much on it and say that the MKII must be a better camera because it has 8mp and the D2H only has 4. But if the people using those cameras are either PJs that dont require that much resolution or they are sports shooters that at most get a double truck image and we know that 4 can be done for that since it has been done more than a couple times in SI and other mags, then I say the D2H is competing with the MKII very nicely.

I use the MkII. I went to them because I do a lot of poster printing and of course the higher resolution helps when you are doing 24x36 prints. But, if most of my work was going into magazines, newspapers, on the web or only printing up to double truck size, I never would have upgraded from my regular 1D. 4mp was plenty for all of that work. And on top of that, if you dont need 8, why deal with it. I have had to buy a new laptop to deal with the larger images and still process them fast enough, had to get a DVD burner since the files are almost three times the size of the 4mp camera and am spending more money on DVD media since I am burning more. So there are a lot of benefits to the lower resolution if you dont NEED the higher one.

Now in my case, if I had a choice between an 8 and a 4 I would go 8. But it doesnt mean that 4 is bad, it doesnt mean that for much of what someone would use it for they cant and it doesnt mean that if you put two of them next to each other you would be able to sit there and say that without doubt you can tell which is which. Unfortunately we cant do it, but I have with folks and put two 8x12 prints in front of them, one off a mkI and one off a MkII and they could not tell which was which. I've even gone bigger, and until you start to get real big, it doesnt make a big difference with the right post processing on the 1D. They might be able to tell the difference in terms of color or something, but not because of resolution.

I beg to differ. While the difference between 6 and 8 megapixels isn't huge, it is a useful difference. If you need to do any cropping and still expect a clean print, the extra megapixels will come in handy. As for noise, that is much more significant. Perhaps your style of photography doesn't require it, but clean ISO 800 and 1600 images are very useful if you intend to shoot indoor sports. Clean 3200 is a bonus, though no camera is real clean at that level - not even the Canons.

Again, not saying that the differences dont matter or that they dont exist, but the original statement was that the Nikons cant compete, and if I can take a D2H image and make it so that you cant tell one from the other in the end, then the camera CAN compete. Sure, it might have a little more noise and less resolution, but upsizing the 2mp difference will make absolutely ZERO visible difference in print and when you run the image through a noise reduction program once and in print you will likely not tell a difference.

My argument is that in the end, if you cant tell the difference than the camera did exactly what it was supposed to do and the images that come from it compete nicely.

But are they doing it "just as well"? Nikon is currently producing the equivalent of a Canon 1D, which has been out of production for over a year. Its a very good camera, but it's not a 1D Mk II.

But do you know that its because they cant build a MKII or because they chose not to? Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of folks that do not need the higher resolution and would gladly take the benefits of the smaller file size and less expensive camera. I Believe that Nikon thought that most PJs and sports shooters that would be buying that camera did not need the higher resolution and in many ways they were right (see my argument about not being able to tell the difference in normal magazine or newspaper print).

Now with the D2X, which is still slightly behind the 1DsMKII in resolution, Nikon users that need the high resolution will have it. Again, I have seen nothing that 16mp will do that 12 wont, so I dont consider the D2X to be a lesser camera than the MkII. I think its just as good and from several side by side comparisons I have seen, takes just as good a photo as the MkII if not better in some ways.

If you're about to invest in a system, you should care. Its not just about upgrading - its also about buying the best product for the money. The D70 is good. The 350D is better (and cheaper), and the 20d is even better yet.

Dont agree with that. I dont think the new XT is better than the D70 at all. Again, in my eyes the MP difference is negligable at best and I think that the D70 is more feature rich and also built better. Except for the abiltiy to take a battery grip, there is nothing in the new Canon that I think is better than the D70. As a matter of fact, I have seen a couple side by sides of the two and folks are still saying that the Nikon is taking a better photo than the Canon.

The Canon is definately a nice camera and takes a great photo, but I dont see how you can say so blatantly its a better camera than the Nikon.

Are there things better about the Canon line than the Nikon's? Yes.

But is Nikon so far behind that it cant compete? Not by a longshot.

That was my argument. Someone said that Nikons cant even compete, my argument is that it can. And if you cannot look at photos on an everyday basis and figure out which ones are Nikon because they are no good, then I believe that my opinion is pretty valid.

[vwpilot]

=Someone could get a great looking image with a 1D, D30, Drebel, D70, etc.. none of that has any bearing on my position that Canon is well ahead of Noink in DSLRs

But that is not what you said before that I rebutted.

You said that a D2H cannot compete with the current offering from Canon.

I said that if you cant tell the difference in print between one and a MKII than it was competing.

The only thing it has less than the MkII is MP rating. It shoots as fast, its as durable its AF system is as good if not better and it has just as many features, so how bad is it really lacking?

Sure, it wont compete with the camera for everyone, but it will more than compete for many and in the end its the printing that matters.

But we are not way off topic so I'll stop arguing and go shoot. I like my MkII and for what I do would not give up the resolution. But I get so sick of the blanket statements about who or what is better that are said like facts, especially when they only skim the truth.

[R_Alexander]

I looked at the D70 when I purchased my 300D. At the time the D70 was close to $300 here in Australia. I couldn't see the point in paying the extra for little difference between the 2.

Plus my mate has a 10D and L Glass so the oppurtunity to be able to use his lenses is there as well

Rob

[photopaque]

Wow.there is some good stuff going on in this thread.even though a little wider on subject matter than original title..lol
Anyway........I mostly will be shooting full figure....2/3...50/50....and portrait using tungsten in the studio or just shooting inside using normal light.Im just checking that the kit lense will be fine for this?Its the 18-55mm............some say its good some say its not...........shurely it will be adequate for me?

[fatrat]

Canon has better "top level" digital bodies, better AF more megapixels, cleaner images, all pros shoot canon...

They also seem to release the cameras on time. N**** only promises cameras ;)

Well thats only true if you get the best Canon's, i think the D70 can match and beat anything from Canon till you get to the 20d and higher

Dont be fooled into to thinking the 20d has better quality build because it has not, the D70 is a robust unit

I have both the d70 and 20d and im still not sure which one i like the best and which one i will keep in the end (make no sense to me having 2 differant brand bodys cant interchange lenses and flashes so on) main advantage the 20d has i think is the speed of 5 FPS, dont think the 8 MP is to much of a issue or quality between the 2 cameras images, the iso 100 vs iso 200 is a null point it is really a credit to Nikon they can make the d70s iso 200 images look as good as iso 100 comparable Canons

also the D70 has some advantages as well like spot metering less highlight blow outs and it seems to me that the D70 is a far easier camera to get good pictures out of, even in auto modes( including use with Ext Flashes)
I can still get the good Pics out of my 20D but it seems i have to work harder to get them auto shooting is not as good as the D70, but who buys a camera worth this much to shoot auto??
Its a hard decision between the 20D and the d70 but if your thinking Xt or lower i would go with the Nikon, for what its worth

[DocFrankenstein]

Well thats only true if you get the best Canon's, i think the D70 can match and beat anything from Canon till you get to the 20d and higher

Dont be fooled into to thinking the 20d has better quality build because it has not, the D70 is a robust unit
Ok, even if it's true...

If you're buying into a system and the low end cameras are the same, don't you want the best options for the future?

Don't forget that it only takes 12-18 months for the features from the best bodies to trickle down to prosumer bodies.

yawn...

[Tom W]

No argument



Really? You must be right because I never saw a double truck image in SI till the MkII came out, did you? Yeah, that must be. Sure, since SI went nearly fully digital years ago they never did a double truck from anything till the MkII came out. There was never one from an original 1D, nor from a D1H or D2H for that matter. I guess I must have been dreaming them since you must know what you are talking about and you MUST have more than 4mp to get a double truck image.

Perhaps they used (gasp) film! Unless the print quality is less than stellar, 4 megapixels won't get you an excellent image at that size. Even 8 is pushing it. I'm not going to say that SI doesn't do it, but SI isn't the holy grail of photography excellence. Its a sports magazine with an exceptional swimsuit issue.

I've got a 16.7 megapixel image of Bo Derek staring at me right now that tells me that flawed printing can cover up megapixel advantages very well.

But only internet measurebators are caring about taking two photos and putting them side by side and finding whatever extremely slight difference there may be.

IOW, there is a difference, but because you can't see it in SI, it is insignificant and only matters to people who aren't real photographers. Like you, I guess?

Again, if YOU cant sit down and look through a magazine and go "that image is bad and that one is good and that one must be from a Canon and that one must be from a Nikon" then how can you say that Nikon does not compete?

I can certainly see which images are good and which are not to my liking. And the odds are, the image with more pixels, lower noise, and better color accuracy to start with has a higher probability of becoming a good image in a magazine, or anywhere else.

Sure you can look at specs and say it doesnt have as many MP or whatever, but if 4mp produces enough that you cant tell the difference then I dont see the big deal.

But I can tell the difference. And I can crop!

Now if you are doing posters or billboards on a regular basis and you were someone that used medium format on a regular basis than sure, more MP the better, I'm not arguing that more MP is not necessarily a good thing. But too many folks base way to much on it and say that the MKII must be a better camera because it has 8mp and the D2H only has 4. But if the people using those cameras are either PJs that dont require that much resolution or they are sports shooters that at most get a double truck image and we know that 4 can be done for that since it has been done more than a couple times in SI and other mags, then I say the D2H is competing with the MKII very nicely.

Oh it isn't just the megapixels that make the 1D Mk II superior - its the speed, image quality, color accuracy, robust construction, available long lenses, and low image noise. There's a reason that you see 80-90% Canon at sporting events.

The D2H is competing with a 2 year old camera. Likewise, the D2x is competing with the 1Ds, which is also no longer in production.

I use the MkII. I went to them because I do a lot of poster printing and of course the higher resolution helps when you are doing 24x36 prints. But, if most of my work was going into magazines, newspapers, on the web or only printing up to double truck size, I never would have upgraded from my regular 1D. 4mp was plenty for all of that work. And on top of that, if you dont need 8, why deal with it. I have had to buy a new laptop to deal with the larger images and still process them fast enough, had to get a DVD burner since the files are almost three times the size of the 4mp camera and am spending more money on DVD media since I am burning more. So there are a lot of benefits to the lower resolution if you dont NEED the higher one.

Those are points to consider, but I've not found a significant problem dealing with 8 megapixels. And I'm still burning on CD's.

Now in my case, if I had a choice between an 8 and a 4 I would go 8. But it doesnt mean that 4 is bad, it doesnt mean that for much of what someone would use it for they cant and it doesnt mean that if you put two of them next to each other you would be able to sit there and say that without doubt you can tell which is which. Unfortunately we cant do it, but I have with folks and put two 8x12 prints in front of them, one off a mkI and one off a MkII and they could not tell which was which. I've even gone bigger, and until you start to get real big, it doesnt make a big difference with the right post processing on the 1D. They might be able to tell the difference in terms of color or something, but not because of resolution.

And if you have a choice between a low-noise 8 megapixel 350D with excellent color accuracy, as opposed to a moderately low-noise 6 megapixel D70 with good color accuracy for a couple of hundred more dollars, you'd probably choose the 350D right off the bat. That is, essentially, what the original poster wanted to know.

As for two 8X12 prints, only one of the two cameras is going to give you close to 300 ppi right out of the box, and it isn't the 4 megapixel. Spending valuable time upresing the 4 to look like 8 (or downresing the 8 to look like 4) for each image isn't making good use of one's chronological resources. And even after all that massaging, I doubt that there are nearly the number of 8X12 images from the 4 megapixel camera that really "pop" as compared to what comes out of the 8.

Again, not saying that the differences dont matter or that they dont exist, but the original statement was that the Nikons cant compete, and if I can take a D2H image and make it so that you cant tell one from the other in the end, then the camera CAN compete. Sure, it might have a little more noise and less resolution, but upsizing the 2mp difference will make absolutely ZERO visible difference in print and when you run the image through a noise reduction program once and in print you will likely not tell a difference.

Then a D30 is the camera for you! Every time you upres, reduce noise, or otherwise alter the image, you're reducing the fidelity of the image. It may or may not make a significant difference depending on application, but I'd certainly want to start off with the best image available, rather than take the time and effort to turn a noisy ISO 1600 indoor image into something useful (and probably with limited success, given that noise reduction and upresing both eat detail for lunch).

My argument is that in the end, if you cant tell the difference than the camera did exactly what it was supposed to do and the images that come from it compete nicely.

And mine is simply that you should start with the best you can get. That saves time and increases the keeper ratio significantly.

But do you know that its because they cant build a MKII or because they chose not to? Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of folks that do not need the higher resolution and would gladly take the benefits of the smaller file size and less expensive camera. I Believe that Nikon thought that most PJs and sports shooters that would be buying that camera did not need the higher resolution and in many ways they were right (see my argument about not being able to tell the difference in normal magazine or newspaper print).

Well, I suspect that it takes Nikon about 2 years to reverse-engineer a Canon and duplicate the process, so I suspect that they simply can't. They've had to turn to Sony to make a high-resolution (and very noisy) CMOS sensor for their flagship.

Now with the D2X, which is still slightly behind the 1DsMKII in resolution, Nikon users that need the high resolution will have it. Again, I have seen nothing that 16mp will do that 12 wont, so I dont consider the D2X to be a lesser camera than the MkII. I think its just as good and from several side by side comparisons I have seen, takes just as good a photo as the MkII if not better in some ways.

The D2x looks like a great camera for people that shoot at ISO 200 and below, but I've not seen any images above that setting that aren't noisy. There's at least a 1 stop noise advantage to the Canons (all the Canons) over that camera. Plus I've seen evidence that Nikon is "massaging" their ISO settings to further hide the noise issue.

Simple physics dictates that as pixel density increases, noise becomes a greater factor. Nikon is bumping up against that barrier now.

Dont agree with that. I dont think the new XT is better than the D70 at all. Again, in my eyes the MP difference is negligable at best and I think that the D70 is more feature rich and also built better. Except for the abiltiy to take a battery grip, there is nothing in the new Canon that I think is better than the D70. As a matter of fact, I have seen a couple side by sides of the two and folks are still saying that the Nikon is taking a better photo than the Canon.

Color accuracy, lower noise, to start with. And of course, more pixels. Feature-wise, I don't think that the D-70 has any advantage of significance. Both are pretty feature-rich.

The Canon is definately a nice camera and takes a great photo, but I dont see how you can say so blatantly its a better camera than the Nikon.

Are there things better about the Canon line than the Nikon's? Yes.

But is Nikon so far behind that it cant compete? Not by a longshot.

That was my argument. Someone said that Nikons cant even compete, my argument is that it can. And if you cannot look at photos on an everyday basis and figure out which ones are Nikon because they are no good, then I believe that my opinion is pretty valid.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that they don't compete, but I will say that they are 2 years behind in DSLR development - still.

[fatrat]

I dont know what half you guys are going on about, the question is Why not the D70, i dont think he gives a toss if Canon are 100 years ahead in Camera Development at the HIGH END!!( if you buy into to that MINOLTA would be ahead of all offering IS in the DSLR itself, neither Canon or Nikon have that, So Minolta are most advanced!!LOL c how stupid this is?)

Also some are saying Canon has more of a Lens range, well u can use Nikor len from 1959 onwards, makes looking at all the Camera stores second hand gear interesting (which there is bucket loads of)

we are talking about the D70 and Comparable Canons like 350D, 20D, XT. 10D
Clearly the 350D and XT are trying to get back market share Canon Enjoyed with the First Digital Rebel before the D70 came out.

Now the D70s are flying out the doors(for good reason too) and going gangbusters, the response is Strong from Canon (350D XT) but i still think the D70 is as good as if not better then those cameras and better value! until you get up to the 20D where a choice is hard to make.

So we are talking about the prosumer models and i dont think he gives a toss about what features will come down from the Pro Models into future Prosumer models, we are talking right here right now

But in the End you cant go wrong which ever way you go.
You guys are making me laugh going off the topic having this nikon Vs Canon debate , i dont know what that has to do with choosing out of a D70 or comparable Canon?

[Tom W]

I dont know what half you guys are going on about, the question is Why not the D70, i dont think he gives a toss if Canon are 100 years ahead in Camera Development at the HIGH END!!

Its in the post - they're ahead by 2 years at every level. The D70 is a nice camera, and was a bit better than the 300D in terms of features (and equal in image characteristics).

we are talking about the D70 and Comparable Canons like 350D, 20D, XT. 10D
Clearly the 350D and XT are trying to get back market share Canon Enjoyed with the First Digital Rebel before the D70 came out.

Given that the 350D is built with similar electronics to the 20D, it should offer the same advantages over the D70 in terms of image quality, and from what I've seen, it has a very similar feature set. Throw in lower noise and higher resolution and it is easy to see that the XT/350D is a better deal.

As for market share, I don't think Canon has been sweating too heavily.

Now the D70s are flying out the doors(for good reason too) and going gangbusters, the response is Strong from Canon (350D XT) but i still think the D70 is as good as if not better then those cameras and better value! until you get up to the 20D where a choice is hard to make.

Flying out what doors? I know that they are being pushed real hard at Ritz & Wolf camera shops, but those shops have always had their favorites.

As for the 350D, its basically a plastic version of the 20D with the supposedly easier interface of the P&S line. It gives up very little to its bigger brother, and image quality isn't among them.

I've handled the D70 - its nice, and I liked it better than the original D-Rebel. But it wasn't as nice as my old 10D.

So we are talking about the prosumer models and i dont think he gives a toss about what features will come down from the Pro Models into future Prosumer models, we are talking right here right now.

On that, I agree. But we should accomodate the features that have already been brought down through the ranks. And many of those features are on the 350D. Unfortunately, they were missing on the 300D.

But in the End you cant go wrong which ever way you go.
You guys are making me laugh going off the topic having this nikon Vs Canon debate , i dont know what that has to do with choosing out of a D70 or comparable Canon?

Its simple - the characteristics that make Canon superior at the high end are also among those that give Canon an edge at the more affordable end of the DSLR chain. Not every feature finds its way throughout the chain, but low noise, color accuracy, resolution, and general image quality are those that do.

[HJMinard]

You guys are making me laugh going off the topic having this nikon Vs Canon debate , i dont know what that has to do with choosing out of a D70 or comparable Canon?

If you followed the entire thread you would see that the argument evolved because it was pointed out that if an upgrade from the original purchase (D70 or DRebel XT) was possible in the (relatively) near future, Canon has a clear advantage (by any reasonable evaluation) in the mid and high range DSLR's. If the purchaser does not expect to upgrade then they are free to disregard the information, otherwise the argument is pertinent.

[fatrat]

If you followed the entire thread you would see that the argument evolved because it was pointed out that if an upgrade from the original purchase (D70 or DRebel XT) was possible in the (relatively) near future, Canon has a clear advantage (by any reasonable evaluation) in the mid and high range DSLR's. If the purchaser does not expect to upgrade then they are free to disregard the information, otherwise the argument is pertinent.

Er i would say there will be a replacement for the D70 before a replacement of the 350D or XT, and that still has no bearing on what Camera you would choose right here right now!

You all (not all) just sound like a bunch of Canon fanboys, sorry its true

[fatrat]

Its in the post - they're ahead by 2 years at every level. The D70 is a nice camera, and was a bit better than the 300D in terms of features (and equal in image characteristics).



Given that the 350D is built with similar electronics to the 20D, it should offer the same advantages over the D70 in terms of image quality, and from what I've seen, it has a very similar feature set. Throw in lower noise and higher resolution and it is easy to see that the XT/350D is a better deal.

As for market share, I don't think Canon has been sweating too heavily.



Flying out what doors? I know that they are being pushed real hard at Ritz & Wolf camera shops, but those shops have always had their favorites.

As for the 350D, its basically a plastic version of the 20D with the supposedly easier interface of the P&S line. It gives up very little to its bigger brother, and image quality isn't among them.

I've handled the D70 - its nice, and I liked it better than the original D-Rebel. But it wasn't as nice as my old 10D.



On that, I agree. But we should accomodate the features that have already been brought down through the ranks. And many of those features are on the 350D. Unfortunately, they were missing on the 300D.



Its simple - the characteristics that make Canon superior at the high end are also among those that give Canon an edge at the more affordable end of the DSLR chain. Not every feature finds its way throughout the chain, but low noise, color accuracy, resolution, and general image quality are those that do.

Er dont know what your on about but my 20D has no advantage in image quality over my D70 infact i would say most the time the D70 pics look better

[HJMinard]

Er i would say there will be a replacement for the D70 before a replacement of the 350D or XT, and that still has no bearing on what Camera you would choose right here right now!

You all (not all) just sound like a bunch of Canon fanboys, sorry its true

We're not talking about a replacement ... we're talking about an upgrade. And it does have a bearing because many people upgrade after they reach the limitations of their entry level camera. After they've invested in a system (lenses, flash, etc.) they're not likely to change brands ... so the upgrade options within the brand are important.

This is the Canon Digital Photography Forums ... what did you expect, a bunch of Minolta aficionados? :)

[Tom W]

You all (not all) just sound like a bunch of Canon fanboys, sorry its true

Do yourself a favor - scroll to the top of the page. Does it say NIKON anywhere up there?

[fatrat]

I dont think your going to keep anything from a prosumer Camera if you want to upgrade, you could buy a D70 the upgrade later on to Eos 1D MII or what ever, surely if you upgrade to a better Camera you will want better have a better lens and or flash (unless you buy Pro lenses and flashes for a prosumer camera which makes no sense) It really dont take that long to switch platforms unless u are mentally challenged, and if you are looked into a brand (WHICH YOUR NOT) the Nikon D2x is a fine camera to upgrade to if so inclined

Even though this is a canon forum it dont mean you have to be bias, who would listen to someones bias opinion?

[Tom W]

Er dont know what your on about but my 20D has no advantage in image quality over my D70 infact i would say most the time the D70 pics look better

I'm not ON anything, son. Perhaps you should read a few test reports. I've shot the D70. The images weren't as nice as those of my 10D. Given that the 20D is an improvement, reason dictates that the D70 won't be better there either. Hard data bears this out as well.

[Tom W]

I dont think your going to keep anything from a prosumer Camera if you want to upgrade, you could buy a D70 the upgrade later on to Eos 1D MII or what ever, surely if you upgrade to a better Camera you will want better have a better lens and or flash (unless you buy Pro lenses and flashes for a prosumer camera which makes no sense) It really dont take that long to switch platforms unless u are mentally challenged, and if you are looked into a brand (WHICH YOUR NOT) the Nikon D2x is a fine camera to upgrade to if so inclined

Why would you NOT want top-notch glass on a camera? It sounds like you don't care much for image quality after all. You sound more like a salesman than a photographer, with this continued talk about "prosumers" and such.

Even though this is a canon forum it dont mean you have to be bias, who would listen to someones bias opinion?

That's a good question, and it makes me wonder why I keep responding to your biased remarks.

[fatrat]

I'm not ON anything, son. Perhaps you should read a few test reports. I've shot the D70. The images weren't as nice as those of my 10D. Given that the 20D is an improvement, reason dictates that the D70 won't be better there either. Hard data bears this out as well.

well so says your bias opinion, i can go to a Nikon Forum and they will say the reverse, I have both i stick by what i see and it is a close call but most the time the D70 is better and most review i read say the D70 is better then the 10D for image quality and most people also say the 20D is not all that much of a improvment over the 10D
So you can rant on with your bias opinions all you want, i know what i see!! and i ask other without telling them what camera i have used to see if its just me

[fatrat]

Why would you NOT want top-notch glass on a camera? It sounds like you don't care much for image quality after all. You sound more like a salesman than a photographer, with this continued talk about "prosumers" and such.



That's a good question, and it makes me wonder why I keep responding to your biased remarks.

Why would you buy a prosumer Camera and the put canons best and most expensive lens on it!??? surely if you are going to do that you might as well get the pro camera to?

[HJMinard]

(unless you buy Pro lenses and flashes for a prosumer camera which makes no sense)

It makes perfect sense. The glass is much more important than the body. Many people, including me, purchase Canon "L" glass for their Digital Rebel. Save money on the body, until you outgrow it ... but lens purchases are an investment.

Even though this is a canon forum it dont mean you have to be bias, who would listen to someones bias opinion?

Call it bias if you wish. I didn't buy Canon gear because I thought the logo was cool, I bought it because I researched and investigated and determined that it was the better system for digital photography. Most of the members of the forum obviously came to the same conclusion. Are we supposed to then recommend an inferior system to someone else?

[Tom W]

well so says your bias opinion, i can go to a Nikon Forum and they will say the reverse, I have both i stick by what i see and it is a close call but most the time the D70 is better and most review i read say the D70 is better then the 10D for image quality and most people also say the 20D is not all that much of a improvment over the 10D
So you can rant on with your bias opinions all you want, i know what i see!! and i ask other without telling them what camera i have used to see if its just me

Dang, son, you're so upset that you can't find the period on you keyboard!

If you're going to talk smack and fling out the accusations of bias with reckless abandon, you might consider citing a reliable, objective test or two to back up your opinions.

I'll start: Popular photography and Imaging; April, 2005, page 76.

[Tom W]

Why would you buy a prosumer Camera and the put canons best and most expensive lens on it!??? surely if you are going to do that you might as well get the pro camera to?

What is the definition of a "prosumer" camera?

[neil_r]

I guess psybear just lit the blue tuch paper and ducked. I get the feeling that no ones already formed opinions are going to change here.

I am glad I went down the Canon route and that is good enough for me :-)

N

[Tom W]

I guess psybear just lit the blue tuch paper and ducked. I get the feeling that no ones already formed opinions are going to change here.

I am glad I went down the Canon route and that is good enough for me :-)

N

Awww, c'mon. Why be sensible in a south-bound thread? :)
I am also glad of the route I chose, but I find it enjoyable to spar every now and then. Perhaps too enjoyable. ;)

[fatrat]

the D70 is in no way inferior to any prosumer Canon (IE.. 20D down or 100D down in nikons case) I think your barking up the wrong tree if you think im saying Canon is no good or somthing, i love my 20D and i am going to most likely sell the D70 because of the 20D 5 FPS speed factor, and truely i can say that would be the only thing that points me towards the canon.

And point taken on getting the best glass and moving on to a better camera later!! but i think most consumers would not do that or can afford to do that, so most the time they get the KIT, so your not going to use the kit lens from a Xt on your EOS 1D MKII?? well i wouldn't

Now in this review the reviewer says there is no differance in image quality between the 300D and the 10D( thats what he says), so when comparing the D70 to the 300d it applies to the 10D

In this review he will say on more then one occasion that the D70 has superior colour repodution and image detail!
so is that good enough for you? ( i dont need a review i can see for myself)
also search the same website and he compares the 20D to the 10D and says there is not all that much differance appart from noise at high iso.
Now i dont need a review to blab on about anything, for all i know he could be funded by canon or nikon all i know is the D70 won a clean sweep of the camera of the year awards 2004 and i cant blame them

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page2.asp

[Tom W]

Take a look at the comparison shots - I see no advantage in any shot for the D70, and a few shots where the 300D clearly shows more detail and resolution.

Start here on page 21:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page21.asp

[Belmondo]

To the Nikon supporters:
Bear in mind that you're in a Canon forum. Please don't pretend to be indignant over 'bias.' You are not preaching to the Nikon faithful.....you're not even in the right church. Hopefully you appreciate having a venue where the free and open discussion of a dissenting point of view is allowed.

To the Canon supporters:
You have already voted with your wallets. Your preferences are a matter of record. There are very few possible reasons for someone to come into a Canon forum and espouse the virtues of a Nikon camera:
1. They firmly believe they have found the secret to true bliss and want to share the message (unlikely)
2. They regret buying Nikon and can’t stand to tear themselves away from this awesome forum (more likely)
3. They really don’t have strong feelings one way or the other but love to yank our collective chain (most likely)

As non-Canon users, they are participating guests, and are entitled to our full respect and consideration, but not necessarily our agreement. This is an interesting discussion, and so far, generally good-natured. Let’s all aspire to keeping it that way.

[fatrat]

Take a look at the comparison shots - I see no advantage in any shot for the D70, and a few shots where the 300D clearly shows more detail and resolution.

Start here on page 21:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page21.asp

Thats not what the reviewer said

i will post conclusion read the first line!!!
THATS ALL!!

Excellent resolution and sharpness, seems better than EOS 300D / EOS 10D
Neutral color balance, 'Nikon like' (tuned towards skin tones)
Good clean sharpening algorithm leaves almost no 'halo' artifacts
Low noise even at high sensitivities, more monochromatic (film like)
Excellent image parameter control; sharpening, tone, color mode, saturation and hue
Custom curves allows user definable tone response
Superb Nikon Matrix metering
Very fast camera operation, virtually no startup, minimal usage delays
Excellent continuous shooting, great throughput and 'Smart buffering'
Very fast CF write performance
Body design, finish and build quality
More logical control layout, faster settings access than D100
Lighter weight than D100, considerably lighter than EOS 10D
Help pages on custom function menus
Viewfinder gridlines (surprisingly useful)
More manual control and more customizable than Canon EOS 300D
RAW mode provides the 'digital negative'
Image comment attachment
Multiple color space support (sRGB, Adobe RGB)
Orientation sensor for automatic image rotation
Fully Nikkor lens compatible (plus new DX lenses)
High resolution 134,000 pixel LCD monitor
High capacity Lithium-Ion batteries, included CR2 battery carrier
Superb value for money, better still than the EOS 300D (Digital Rebel)
http://www.dpreview.com/images/gray.gif

[Tom W]

Don't you moderators ever sleep? :)

[Belmondo]

Don't you moderators ever sleep? :)

Yup. It's just that as soon as I wake up, I log on to see where Tom W is posting. That usually gives a good idea where to start watching. :lol:

This really is a great discussion---I'm honestly enjoying (most of) it. I hope it stays friendly so I can enjoy my Easter eggs.

BTW, Happy Easter, everyone.

[Tom W]

Looking at the test images and Phil's text tell me that he's seeing an advantage where none exists. The images were quite close, but you'll notice that the D70 had blown out reds, with lacking detail in the reds (and a couple of other shots). They also lacked warmth despite a slightly higher color saturation. Granted, these characteristics are probably adjustable.

But here's one that isn't adjustable - Noise:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif

And of course, the 350D will share the 20D's advantage here as well.

[fatrat]

I not a Nikon or Canon Supporter, and i did vote with my wallet and buy a canon and am very happy with it :)

but that does not make me stupid or blind
anyway love your forums and great debate we will agree to disagree

I LOVE YOU ALL!!!

[Tom W]

I not a Nikon or Canon Supporter, and i did vote with my wallet and buy a canon and am very happy with it :)

but that does not make me stupid or blind
anyway love your forums and great debate we will agree to disagree

I LOVE YOU ALL!!!

No love allowed - we're photographers, and must remain neutral! :)

Usually, I keep these kinds of discussions to Phil's site (DPReview) where it seems more "in-tune" with the atmosphere.

Now go have a nice Holiday dinner - I'm going to open up a can...

...of soup and enjoy a quick lunch.

[pencapchew]

since you show the pros why not the cons of the d70


Conclusion - Cons

Moiré / maze artifact pattern visible in certain images at the limit of resolution
Bug which incorrectly tags images as Adobe RGB (we expect a firmware fix)
Vignetting / lens shading on the AF-S DX 18-70mm lens at 18 mm, F3.5
Still a very average automatic white balance performance, we expected more
No Kelvin white balance selection in-camera
Can't match the EOS 300D's silky smooth ISO 100 (low noise)
ISO sensitivity not displayed on viewfinder status bar while being changed
PictureProject feels like a step backwards, I recommend sticking with Nikon View
USB connection labeled as USB 2 but only supports USB 1.1 transfer speeds
Some reported quality control problems with early cameras (we did not experience this)
No vertical grip (portrait grip / battery pack) available
It's a pity RAW+JPEG only captures a Basic quality JPEG

[fatrat]

Looking at the test images and Phil's text tell me that he's seeing an advantage where none exists. The images were quite close, but you'll notice that the D70 had blown out reds, with lacking detail in the reds (and a couple of other shots). They also lacked warmth despite a slightly higher color saturation. Granted, these characteristics are probably adjustable.

But here's one that isn't adjustable - Noise:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif

And of course, the 350D will share the 20D's advantage here as well.

Yer well you cant deny he say the D70 has better detail and colour repodution.
that graph means nothing to me!!? thx for posting a pointing out the red have blown out :confused: err
I just look at a picture side by side and say i i like the deatil sharpness and colour of that one compered to this one
we can argue to the cows
lets just they both have there pro and cons

I LOVE YOU

[pencapchew]

But the review is comparing the 300d, i would like to see the same comparison with the 350 and look at the review with the 300d at iso100 maybe im blind but i think the rebel pics look better.

[fatrat]

since you show the pros why not the cons of the d70


Conclusion - Cons

Moiré / maze artifact pattern visible in certain images at the limit of resolution
Bug which incorrectly tags images as Adobe RGB (we expect a firmware fix)
Vignetting / lens shading on the AF-S DX 18-70mm lens at 18 mm, F3.5
Still a very average automatic white balance performance, we expected more
No Kelvin white balance selection in-camera
Can't match the EOS 300D's silky smooth ISO 100 (low noise)
ISO sensitivity not displayed on viewfinder status bar while being changed
PictureProject feels like a step backwards, I recommend sticking with Nikon View
USB connection labeled as USB 2 but only supports USB 1.1 transfer speeds
Some reported quality control problems with early cameras (we did not experience this)
No vertical grip (portrait grip / battery pack) available
It's a pity RAW+JPEG only captures a Basic quality JPEG

all i want to point out is there are many people that believe the D70 has better colour repodution, image detail ,sharpness and resolution like the reviewer says and im one of them> people hear have said im wrong and that the 10D is better and asked me to produce a review to support what i say, i have done so
I dont need to do this i can see for myself!!
I would no be so fickle as to ask you guys to produce some review that supports you??

[fatrat]

But the review is comparing the 300d, i would like to see the same comparison with the 350 and look at the review with the 300d at iso100 maybe im blind but i think the rebel pics look better.

the digital rebel pics look lighter and flatter to me!!??
anyway i said go throught that website and look for the 20D review (which would be the same as XT) and he says its not a great improment over the 10D . so nearly all the same things apply as that review, he also says the 20D (or xt if u like) is not as sharp as the 10D( and other places have also said that) and given this review says the D70 is sharper the 300D (10D) that give the D70 even more advantage over the 20d then it has over the 10d in that area

[Tom W]

Yer well you cant deny he say the D70 has better detail and colour repodution.
that graph means nothing to me!!? thx for posting a pointing out the red have blown out :confused: err
I just look at a picture side by side and say i i like the deatil sharpness and colour of that one compered to this one
we can argue to the cows
lets just they both have there pro and cons

I LOVE YOU

There's no love in photography!

He does say it, but its perhaps a matter of opinion. There are different conclusions that can be drawn from the various test images, but what I do notice is that as the ISO rises, the sharpness and detail on the D70 drops - probably some in-camera noise reduction is smoothing things out a bit.

Look at Phil's famous watch image - on every one, you can read the day more clearly on the Canon. Odd thing, some of the outdoor images, on second glance, do give an advantage to the Nikon (GASP), while a couple lean towards Canon. Indoors on his test setup, more images seem to lean towards the Canon.

Both the 300D and the Nikon are very good. I prefer the high ISO capabilities of the Canons, and that is where I shoot fairly often. And at that point, the 10D and 300D are well ahead of the D70 (as shown on the chart). The 20D improves a bit on the noise issue and provides increased resolution as well (read Phil's review of the 20D). The 350D will share that advantage, along with having the features that the 300D lacked in the first place (and that was its greatest weakness - features).

If you're going to buy a $900 body, the 350D is probably the best out there right now.

[Tom W]

I would no be so fickle as to ask you guys to produce some review that supports you??

Already have - you produced it. You're just looking at a few words instead of all the images.

[eosster]

Guys, maybe we should let it go. This debate will never end and where is the guy who started this?, maybe he is laughing at us right now about us arguing about a subjective matter like this. BTW, I think he is Minolta user, LMAO.

[fatrat]

There's no love in photography!

He does say it, but its perhaps a matter of opinion. There are different conclusions that can be drawn from the various test images, but what I do notice is that as the ISO rises, the sharpness and detail on the D70 drops - probably some in-camera noise reduction is smoothing things out a bit.

Look at Phil's famous watch image - on every one, you can read the day more clearly on the Canon. Odd thing, some of the outdoor images, on second glance, do give an advantage to the Nikon (GASP), while a couple lean towards Canon. Indoors on his test setup, more images seem to lean towards the Canon.

Both the 300D and the Nikon are very good. I prefer the high ISO capabilities of the Canons, and that is where I shoot fairly often. And at that point, the 10D and 300D are well ahead of the D70 (as shown on the chart). The 20D improves a bit on the noise issue and provides increased resolution as well (read Phil's review of the 20D). The 350D will share that advantage, along with having the features that the 300D lacked in the first place (and that was its greatest weakness - features).

If you're going to buy a $900 body, the 350D is probably the best out there right now.

There is LOVE for YOU!!
your making me sound like a Nikon fan boy but im not!!
are we reading the same thing???
this is what he said for the high ISO test??

At this high sensitivity it's fairly clear to see that both cameras automatically decrease their sharpening to an attempt to keep visible noise down. Again its very close, both cameras performing fairly similarly, if anything I would say that the D70's images are more preferable because its noise is more even throughout the color channels and appears as monochromatic 'grain' rather than the color blotches seen in the EOS 300D image (which is also more difficult to remove later). Kudos to Nikon then.

I dunno
Can we love each other?

[Tom W]

Guys, maybe we should let it go. This debate will never end and where is the guy who started this?, maybe he is laughing at us right now about us arguing about a subjective matter like this. BTW, I think he is Minolta user, LMAO.

Can't you feel the LOVE?

[fatrat]

Can't you feel the LOVE?

i can feel it
we argue like we are married

and buy the bloody Canon the boss says so

[eosster]

Now, lets get together and have a GROUP hug, LOL. After all, we are Canonians.....

[fatrat]

Yes i love and sorry for all the bad things i have done and said

I know i dont show it but i love u, this forum and you guys and im sorry if i take you for granted

I will try to be a better person in future

I have to say this to my Girlfriend every 6 monthes or so LOL

[Belmondo]

Yes i love and sorry for all the bad things i have done and said

I know i dont show it but i love u, this forum and you guys and im sorry if i take you for granted

I will try to be a better person in future

I have to say this to my Girlfriend every 6 monthes or so LOL


Hoo Hah!

Wait till you've been married for 43 years. Those words just roll off your lips.....or else!

[eosster]

Hoo Hah!

Wait till you've been married for 43 years. Those words just roll off your lips.....or else!

Butter mouth, LOL.:lol::lol::lol:

[Tom W]

Yes i love and sorry for all the bad things i have done and said

I know i dont show it but i love u, this forum and you guys and im sorry if i take you for granted

I will try to be a better person in future

I have to say this to my Girlfriend every 6 monthes or so LOL

You'll be happy to know that I've contacted her - and you're in really deep doo-doo.

And, she said that the Rebel is better, too.

[eosster]

You'll be happy to know that I've contacted her - and you're in really deep doo-doo.

And, she said that the Rebel is better, too.

Your COLD, never get between a relationship. :p

[eosster]

BTW, Happy Easter to all.

[Tom W]

Your COLD, never get between a relationship. :p

All's fair in love and camera war.

[psybear]

Guys, maybe we should let it go. This debate will never end and where is the guy who started this?, maybe he is laughing at us right now about us arguing about a subjective matter like this. BTW, I think he is Minolta user, LMAO.


I'm still here.

I never meant to start a whole debate like this - as I said in my first post I was keen to hear from people who had been in the same position as me, what they had decided upon, and why. In that regard, some of the replies have been really useful. Others have been entirely above my head, to be honest.

I have actually just ordered the 350D today - if it works out, I am getting a really excellent deal on it - a combination of a discount and a misprice! Funnily enough, after I had ordered I went for a walk by the river with my daughter and spotted a guy with a D70 taking pics of the winners in a competition. I spoke to him about the camera - and he raved about it!

The doubt monster has started to stir now....



PB

[defordphoto]

Nikon owners will rave about Nikon. Canon owners will rave about Canon. Toyota owners will rave about Toyotas. You have bought a very fine camera and will be happy with it. And you'll rave about Canon.

We have taken this full circle and it's time to move on.