E-500, Canon 350D or Minolta Dynax 7D

[daddy]

Hello

I'm looking for a new (my first) dSLR. Now I have 3 favorites Olympus E-500, Canon 350D (Digital Rebel xt) or Minolta Dynax 7D. All the cameras cost less than 800€ (the max. I'm able to spend). My Slr should make great pictures and and the body should be solid. All of them have pros and cons. E-500 + dust protection - bit noisier. 350D +Great pictures - build quality. Minolta 7D + magnesium body - only 6 MP. Can you help me to make a decision? Thx

[wxcloud9xw]

whether it has a built in dust sensor remover you still need to clean the sensor periodically either professionally at a store or yourself. This shouldn't be a reason for deciding on which DSLR camera to get. The Canon 350D is hands down the better camera of the three. Unless you plan on being outdoors a ton and needing a rugged body then its not a big deal. The Nikon D50 would probably be a better camera for the purpose of ruggedness and image quality. I personally look for image quality first, then performance, then build quality. The 350D is built well despite it not being made out of magnesium alloy. Your going to get much better image quality at higher ISOs with the 350D than the rest and an extra 2mp if you need larger prints or extra croping.

[speaklightly]

I conduct dSLR workshops so I have own and have hands on experience with most consumer dSLR cameras. The K-M 7D would be my first choice, followed by the Olympus E-500.

I feel that the grip on the Canon 350XT is quite pinched and that the camera has less viewfinder performance than the other two choices.

Speaklightly

[GeorgeP]

I conduct dSLR workshops so I have own and have hands on experience with most consumer dSLR cameras. The K-M 7D would be my first choice, followed by the Olympus E-500.

I feel that the grip on the Canon 350XT is quite pinched and that the camera has less viewfinder performance than the other two choices.

Speaklightly

I would be interested to read your opinion on the D50 as well if I may. Thank you :)

[astro]

I think you'd be happy with all three.
But I'd personally choose the minolta for the excellent viewfinder and the very nice build quality.

[wxcloud9xw]

wow...you'd choose another camera over a viewfinder! let's see...what happened to image quality being the most important? I mean isn't that the end result and goal? Image quality should be first on the list. You shouldn't bash a camera based on it's grip or viewfinder if it takes better quality pictures and has top notch ISO performance and shooting speed, then that should take priority over the little nit picks of grips and viewfinders. All you have to do is look at reviews and the Rebel XT's image quality is the best of the 3.

[jeisner]

Certainly would, a decent viewfinder and good build quality are very important qualities.. All of the current crop of DSLRs take fantastic images, some maybe better than others in some ways and worse in others (pure resolution isn't the only factor, we don't all shoot test charts)... but considering most of these cameras are capable of taking better pictures than most of the people using them are, I think many people worry way too much about 'image quality'...


wow...you'd choose another camera over a viewfinder! let's see...what happened to image quality being the most important? I mean isn't that the end result and goal? Image quality should be first on the list. You shouldn't bash a camera based on it's grip or viewfinder if it takes better quality pictures and has top notch ISO performance and shooting speed, then that should take priority over the little nit picks of grips and viewfinders. All you have to do is look at reviews and the Rebel XT's image quality is the best of the 3.

[D70FAN]

wow...you'd choose another camera over a viewfinder! let's see...what happened to image quality being the most important? I mean isn't that the end result and goal? Image quality should be first on the list. You shouldn't bash a camera based on it's grip or viewfinder if it takes better quality pictures and has top notch ISO performance and shooting speed, then that should take priority over the little nit picks of grips and viewfinders. All you have to do is look at reviews and the Rebel XT's image quality is the best of the 3.

Where, exactly, is that superiority stated in "the reviews"? Please post the exact quotes stating that the XT's image quality "is" better than the E-500 and the 7D.

It's just that I have never read a review making these exact comparisons.

Thanks.

[speaklightly]

George-

You raise an excellent point. The key advantage to the Nikon D-50 as well as the Olympus E-500 is price. Both dSLRS are agressively priced. For example last week in the Caribbean, the D-50 body was selling for LESS THAN $(US)500 on the island of St. Maarten.

Speaklightly

[coldrain]

How many reviews do you need placing the 350D over the other DSLR's especially the D70s, pentax *istD/DS/DL, KM 5d and 7D? The E-300/E-500 perform very well ate ISO 100 and 200, 400 and above it gets a bit more noisy. All 6mp sont CCD DSLR's score a bit below the 8mp Canon DSLR's, the D50 being the highest scoring, striking the best balance between high resolution and not too many artifacts, good contrast and colour balance.

I will gladly share a somewhat peculiar and two less peculiar serious (not website based) reviews with you when I find time the next few days, with the 350D compared to a lot of other DSLR's.

I know that you will never except that the 6mp Sony CCD used by pentax and nikon does not deliver the best overal image quality :P

[speaklightly]

IMHO, everyone must asign a priority to all camera features when deciding on a dSLR camera. It is as simple as that. Personal choice is personal choice. In the final analysis, all dSLR cameras will do a very creditable job for anyone. And I own a Canon 20D and a 350/XT as well as all of the other dSLR cameras.

Speaklightly

[jeisner]

I know that you will never except that the 6mp Sony CCD used by pentax and nikon does not deliver the best overal image quality :P

no no, for shooting test charts I can't deny Canon is in the lead, I just don't shoot test charts that often :P and so for me other factors come into play when decidng on the best camera for me, there is certainly no flat out best camera in my opinion...

[coldrain]

Speaklightly and jeisner, I very much agree that just what the sensor + processor produces does not make everything a DSLR is, and I have not said otherwise... I often point out stong points of other cameras to threads about DSLR choice, depending on what someone finds important. Here it was particulary about image quality of the 350D compared to E-500 and 7D, though.

[coldrain]

Test comparing 350D with D70s and *istDS, computer foto july 2005.
All 3 tested with their kit lenses.

EOS 350D
resolution: 1560 lines/image height.
noise/chromatic noise: 18.0dB/0.6%
colour error of image: 1.8%
used/shown colour range(?): 84%/85%
white balance errors daylight/lamp light: 0.8%/3.8%
overal score image quality: 94.2%

D70s
resolution: 1350 lines/image height.
noise/chromatic noise:16.2dB/0.5%
colour error of image: 2.2%
used/shown colour range(?): 86%/85%
white balance errors daylight/lamp light: 2.2%/10.2%
overal score image quality: 90.7%

*ist DS
resolution: 1360 lines/image height.
noise/chromatic noise: 18.0dB/0.5%
colour error of image: 1.5%
used/shown colour range(?): 79%/85%
white balance errors daylight/lamp light: 3.9%/14.8%
overal score image quality: 91.4%

Other scored areas (EOS 350D / D70S / *ist DS):
features/specs: 94.8% / 95.1% / 93.3%
performance(speed): 93.1% / 93.4% / 91.5%
handling: 85.0% / 87.0% / 86.0%

Conclusion of test:
In the leaderboard of the 3 affordable D-SLR's nothing has changed with the introduction of the D70s. Canon leads still for Nikon and Pentax, where all models (including the E-300 tested in xx) get a very good overal score. In comparing details, sometimes one, sometimes another camera takes the lead: someone who wants the ideal camera for their own needs and preferences, should also take such details of their specifications and performance into account.

[jeisner]

here it was particulary about image quality of the 350D compared to E-500 and 7D, though. where did the original poster say he was only interested in resolution figures?

[coldrain]

My reaction was to George Riehm's question in his post. And 2ndly I was not talking about resolution figures but image quality.

[jeisner]

My reaction was to George Riehm's question in his post. And 2ndly I was not talking about resolution figures but image quality.

Sorry I should have said test chart results not resolution figures....

[coldrain]

You really think that when a camera shows higher resolution, better noise performance or better colour accuracy, you will not see that same difference in any kind of photo? Of course you will see that, just test charts as you call them allow you to measure differences.

[D70FAN]

My reaction was to George Riehm's question in his post. And 2ndly I was not talking about resolution figures but image quality.

Actually, the question was regarding comparisons of the 350D versus the 7D and the E-500. So keep on trying.

Thanks.

[coldrain]

Again in response to George's inquiry about tests comparing image quality.

Cameras under 1400 euro tested on resolution, noise, colour accuracy, white balance in daylight, object contrast. Tested with good prime lenses from the respective manufacturers themselves (mostly macro lenses) the Canons performed better than the Pentaxes and Minoltas.

In short:


Camera__________ISO 100(or 200)___ISO400
Canon EOS 300D___50________________43.5
Canon EOS 350D___54.5______________48
Canon EOS 20D____54________________49
KM 5D____________48.5______________42.5
KM 7D____________48.5______________42
Pentax *istD_____48________________40
Pentax *istDL____47.5______________44.5
Pentax *istDS____49________________47
Olympus E-300____50________________38.5


Of course the weighing of points can be debateable, as can the areas that they were tested in (for instance there was not looked at artifact free-ness). Also I only posted the final points, not the points per tested subject, because that is too much work and too difficult in this response box! But in the areas tested a trend is clearly visible. The Nikons scored about the same as the Canons in the same test. And besides resolution, the Sigma SD10 scored VERY high in image quality.

*edit* Oops, I forgot the Olympus E-300 figures. (adding them now)
The Olympus scores well but mainly loses points in object contrast and noise.

(taken from ColorFoto November 2005)

[D70FAN]

Again in response to George's inquiry about tests comparing image quality.

Cameras under 1400 euro tested on resolution, noise, colour accuracy, white balance in daylight, object contrast. Tested with good prime lenses from the respective manufacturers themselves (mostly macro lenses) the Canons performed better than the Pentaxes and Minoltas.

In short:


Camera__________ISO 100(or 200)___ISO400
Canon EOS 300D___50________________43.5
Canon EOS 350D___54.5______________48
Canon EOS 20D____54________________49
KM 5D____________48.5______________42.5
KM 7D____________48.5______________42
Pentax *istD_____48________________40
Pentax *istDL____47.5______________44.5
Pentax *istDS____49________________47
Olympus E-300____50________________38.5


Of course the weighing of points can be debateable, as can the areas that they were tested in (for instance there was not looked at artifact free-ness). Also I only posted the final points, not the points per tested subject, because that is too much work and too difficult in this response box! But in the areas tested a trend is clearly visible. The Nikons scored about the same as the Canons in the same test. And besides resolution, the Sigma SD10 scored VERY high in image quality.

*edit* Oops, I forgot the Olympus E-300 figures. (adding them now)
The Olympus scores well but mainly loses points in object contrast and noise.

(taken from ColorFoto November 2005)

Thanks for the effort. It would be interesting to se how they tested, and maybe I will put forth the effort to read the German version in the future. Anything written in English?

[jeisner]

First doesn't that first test you posted show 'chromatic noise' and 'colour error of image' lower for the DS than the 350d? but that's not really the point...


You really think that when a camera shows higher resolution, better noise performance or better colour accuracy, you will not see that same difference in any kind of photo? Of course you will see that, just test charts as you call them allow you to measure differences.

No not really, most of those tests are testing such tiny differences that the VAST majority of users that claim 'my camera is better than yours' wouldn't stand a chance of picking the true difference in real photos anyway... Plus they would get much greater improvements by just using decent lenses, rather than cheap and/or third party lenses... which brings me to the point that those tests are testing the lenses used by the testers as much as the cameras themselves, especially when it comes to resolution and colour accuracy...


OOPS, FORGOT TO SAY:

Forgetting the measurebation effect, and playing the devil's advocate for the moment: I am pretty happy with these second test results you posted, the 350d is not that far ahead of the DS at all (1 point at ISO 400) and I bought my DS well before the 350d was out.. It was up against the 300d here in Australia and at about $350 less than the 300d (with kit) and with a much bigger viewfinder, replaceable focus screens, better build quality and even your test results (at iso 400) it looks like it was a much better buy.. ;-)

[daddy]

Thx you for your help.

I watched sample pictures of the 3 dSLR and you are right. The E-500 makes more noise than the other. So I gues I will take the Eos 350 for her 8 MP. Thanks :D

[Rambler358]

The Canon 350D is hands down the better camera of the three.
Well, that's certainly debateable. :p MP alone does not make a better camera.

[coldrain]

Well, that's certainly debateable. :p MP alone does not make a better camera.
More MP's is not its only virtue :p

[Rambler358]

More MP's is not its only virtue :p
And what's the other virtues compared to the Nikon and KM? :confused:

[coldrain]

More energy efficient, more accurate white balance (compared to 5D, 7D, 70D(s)) better contrast at higher ISO's compared to 5D and 7D, less artifacts than 5D, 7D, D50 and D70(s), colours are a bit more accurate too. Features are debatable, so I will not make alist of camera features that are "better" or "worse".

Keep in mind though that differences between DSLR's in the entry level are not huge.

[Rambler358]

More energy efficient, more accurate white balance (compared to 5D, 7D, 70D(s)) better contrast at higher ISO's compared to 5D and 7D, less artifacts than 5D, 7D, D50 and D70(s), colours are a bit more accurate too. Features are debatable, so I will not make alist of camera features that are "better" or "worse".

Keep in mind though that differences between DSLR's in the entry level are not huge.
Okay, I'll give you it's more energy efficient. Everything else you list is a preference, as I checked out these very same things before ordering and found the opposite. And of these 3 cameras - I found the 350D to be the least ergonomic IMHO. But everyone has their own needs and wants in a camera.

The 7D however, is more in league with the 20D and D70s - as this is what I mainly compared against in my research. All the entry-level DSLRs from the manufacturers are very close in performance. Some have features the other don't, and it's up to the buyer to determine which is best for them. But your blanket statement of "The Canon 350D is hands down the better camera of the three." simply isn't true.

[D70FAN]

Okay, I'll give you it's more energy efficient. Everything else you list is a preference, as I checked out these very same things before ordering and found the opposite. And of these 3 cameras - I found the 350D to be the least ergonomic IMHO. But everyone has their own needs and wants in a camera.

The 7D however, is more in league with the 20D and D70s - as this is what I mainly compared against in my research. All the entry-level DSLRs from the manufacturers are very close in performance. Some have features the other don't, and it's up to the buyer to determine which is best for them. But your blanket statement of "The Canon 350D is hands down the better camera of the three." simply isn't true.

It is if you own one.;)

In all fairness to coldrain the 350D is better in several ways than the lower priced competition. Maybe not "hands down", but certainly in many picture quality issues. Canon did a great job on everything but ergonomics... and the entry level lens... but they had to distance it from the 20D.

I like my D70, but the 20D was a very serious contender.

[Rambler358]

It is if you own one.;)

In all fairness to coldrain the 350D is better in several ways than the lower priced competition. Maybe not "hands down", but certainly in many picture quality issues.
Such as? I looked at many pro review images as well as user images. And other than the resolution difference (which does come into play for cropping and printing), I discerned no superior performance in image quality. And of course, the lens being used will be the major factor of image quality. Unless you use the same lens (in different mounts) for each camera being tested, true quality differences cannot be accurately measured.


I like my D70, but the 20D was a very serious contender.
I was also looking at the 20D and came close to getting it, until I compared and handled the 20D and KM-7D side-by-side. The 7D's ergos just won it over for me, although the 20D's speed and resolution were definate virtues.

[coldrain]

But your blanket statement of "The Canon 350D is hands down the better camera of the three." simply isn't true.
That is not my statement.

[Rambler358]

That is not my statement.
I meant "the" and not "your". :)

[daddy]

Thx guys, ordered my new Eos 350D:D

[Norm in Fujino]

Thx guys, ordered my new Eos 350D:D

Enjoy! And post some shots when you get it.

[Zuiko]

I tryed all of thees and my choice is KM D7d
Why?! Because you don`t need to go to the menus to change anything. When I was buying a camera I was studie all articles and tests of KMD7d, Nikon D70, Canon EOS 20d and Oly E1. My first two choices of all of them where KMD7d and Canon 20d. Than I go to the store and try them all. In my hand the Nikon D70 was just like a glove. E1 was right after D70 and KMD7d followed. that was the time when I decided to abandon Canon EOS 20d. Next step was taking pictures. On that step Nikon D70 left the combat :) I dont want to searching in menus for anything. KMD7d or E1 was the Q. You know what I choose. . .and I newer regret. If KM didn`t have BF/FF and tilt sensor problems, and if they have good allround lens maybe. . . :)
Every sistem have cons and pros. I choose Olympus because of very good and affordable 14-54/2,8-3,5 + 50-200/2,8-3,5.; and water proof. You can`t find that kind of lenses for that kind of money in others sistems. Maybe you don`t need that. Never mind. But, I think that people should buy cameras which they will love to use. I shot all kind of photos and bad ISO 800 isn`t that bad at all, 5mp isn`t that bad too. . .but, any time when I take my friends 350d or 20d my lips tuches my ears :) . . .I love my E1. The biggest wrong choice was FL36. Preaty nice flash but...I will buy FL50 :)

[Zuiko]

I tryed all of thees and my choice is KM D7d
Why?! Because you don`t need to go to the menus to change anything. When I was buying a camera I was studie all articles and tests of KMD7d, Nikon D70, Canon EOS 20d and Oly E1. My first two choices of all of them where KMD7d and Canon 20d. Than I go to the store and try them all. In my hand the Nikon D70 was just like a glove. E1 was right after D70 and KMD7d followed. that was the time when I decided to abandon Canon EOS 20d. Next step was taking pictures. On that step Nikon D70 left the combat :) I dont want to searching in menus for anything. KMD7d or E1 was the Q. You know what I choose. . .and I newer regret. If KM didn`t have BF/FF and tilt sensor problems, and if they have good allround lens maybe. . .
Every sistem have cons and pros. I choose Olympus because of very good and affordable 14-54/2,8-3,5 + 50-200/2,8-3,5.; and water proof. You can`t find that kind of lenses for that kind of money in others sistems. Maybe you don`t need that. Never mind. But, I think that people should buy cameras which they will love to use. I shot all kind of photos and bad ISO 800 isn`t that bad at all, 5mp isn`t that bad too. . .but, any time when I take my friends 350d or 20d my lips tuches my ears :D . . .I love my E1. The biggest wrong choice was FL36. Preaty nice flash but...I will buy FL50 ;)

[wxcloud9xw]

I think it's retarded to pick a camera over ergonomics and weight(feeling heavy and expensive) over image quality and shooting speed.

[Rhys]

I think it's retarded to pick a camera over ergonomics and weight(feeling heavy and expensive) over image quality and shooting speed.

I don't. You have to use the camera for the next few years. Would you prefer something comfortable to use or something that you'll curse every time you try to take a photo? I know comfort for me is a high priority. Lightness is also a high priority as I've had enough of lugging excess weight around the world. Believe me, after lugging 70lbs of kit around on your back for weeks on end, you will appreciate everything being as light as possible.

Regarding shooting speed - if you do landscapes then why do you need something that'll shoot at 500fps? Are you expecting the Sphynx to leap up into the air, catch and eat an Israeli F16 and then dance a tango with Lord Lucan?

Shooting speed and image quality are not necessarily the highest priorities. I have an XT but find that the ergonomics are a little lacking.

[wxcloud9xw]

I use a tripod most of the time..so ergonomics don't matter to me as much..just the picture quality and no delays in shooting speed. I tend to like to fire off a few shots of the same subject to ensure a good photo was taken, so shooting speed of atleast 3fps is a must.

The only bad things about the XT is the grip is too small and the weight and plastic makes it feel cheap...But after you fire off a few shots with it you quickly realize the image quality/end result makes up for its ergonomics.

[Zuiko]

I have a friend which changed his ferrari for porsche because of handling and comfort. Ewerybody laught at him when he said that. "You dont buy sports car because of comfort" we said. But after few arguments. . . :rolleyes: Pure specs are better for ferrari but he can use it just on the racing track. On the other hand he can drive his carrera 4S when snowing, and don`t need to call his dentist after ewery town circle :)

. . .I was buying my first digital for 12 months and I know that I choose right. I can shoot in swamp when raining, shooter is tested for 150 000 shots and I dont need to think when I want to change anything. Ewerything have its button at the right place. I change parameters while shooting. You can`t do it on EOS350d like camera. My colege gett 350d and she is thrilled with that camera. She shoots stars, from the tripod, with telescope on the camera. She dont care for handlling too.
But she newer called me retarded for giving 3 times more for such a bad camera like Olympus E1 is :)

[Zuiko]

I use a tripod most of the time..so ergonomics don't matter to me as much..just the picture quality and no delays in shooting speed. I tend to like to fire off a few shots of the same subject to ensure a good photo was taken, so shooting speed of atleast 3fps is a must.

The only bad things about the XT is the grip is too small and the weight and plastic makes it feel cheap...But after you fire off a few shots with it you quickly realize the image quality/end result makes up for its ergonomics.
Sorry for bothering, but I`m courious. What do you shoot from tripod and need 3fps to take a few shots of the same subject?

[wxcloud9xw]

kids don't always stay still..I take a 2-3 shots in a row to ensure a blur free subject in lower lighting situations with slower shutter speeds.

[Zuiko]

kids don't always stay still..I take a 2-3 shots in a row to ensure a blur free subject in lower lighting situations with slower shutter speeds.
Aha, not from tripod. Thx for the R.

[daclick]

This is a very interesting post for me.

I'm looking at moving up to a dSLR and have almost made up my mind to get a KM 7D.

Others in contention are the E-500, D70s and 350D.

The only thing bugging me about the 7D is the noise level I hear about at higher ISO's.

I like to take night/low light pictures so the IS would help out, another factor has to be price - I'm finding the E-500 to be 120 EUR less than a 7D but I would rather spend more and take good shots.

Best camera for my needs? :confused:

[coldrain]

Since you do not state your needs it is very hard to comment on that. The lenses you will aquire will be a bigger factor in photo quality than noise in higher ISO. If it is high ISO noise you are worried about you better look at the EOS 20D instead of those you listed.

Lens wise the Canon and Olympus I would prefer, KM's lens range is a bit limitted in great lenses and the Olympus range is surprisingly good. The nikon range has some nice lenses too. The Nikon is the only one with slow USB 1.1 from the ones you list, the KM the only one with switches for almost everything instead of buttons to select things (oddly enough not for ISO selection). The KM is the only one too with in-body image stabilization.
The Canon and Nikon have the best RAW conversion software available to them. The Nikon software costs an extra 100$ or more, depends on what country you are from.

[astro]

I think it's retarded to pick a camera over ergonomics and weight(feeling heavy and expensive) over image quality and shooting speed.

Unless you're pixel peeping, image quality is pretty much neglible in most situations, especially for regular 4x6/8x10 prints, or on screen viewing.

Having better ergonomics, and a bigger and brighter viewfinder will both greatly aid in taking better pictures.

You seem to be more interested in taking pictures with great quality, rather than taking quality pictures.

[daclick]

Since you do not state your needs it is very hard to comment on that. The lenses you will aquire will be a bigger factor in photo quality than noise in higher ISO. If it is high ISO noise you are worried about you better look at the EOS 20D instead of those you listed.

As mentioned before I like to take night/low light pictures especially in cities (I live in London), but also need the camera to do other general shots such as safari pictures.

I don't want to go much over $1000 for a body so the 20D is out. At the moment I'm thinking the D70s and KM 7D are neck and neck.

The 7D has nice features - IS and manual control but lenses for the D70s seem to be more plentiful and cheaper in the second hand market.

[coldrain]

KM 7D ISO 1600 night shot by Jeff Keller:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/minolta/maxxum_7d-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

EOS 20D ISO 1600 night shot by Jeff Keller (a shame it is not the same subject):
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_20d-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

Nikon D70s ISO 1600 night shot by Jeff Keller:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d70s-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

Nikon D50 ISO 1600 night shot by Jeff Keller:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d50-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

Olympus E-500 ISO 1600 night shot by Jeff Keller:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e500-review/nightshot1600-crop.jpg

Canon EOS 350D/Digital Rebel XT ISO 1600 night shot by Jeff Keller:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/nightshot-tele-1600-crop.jpg

[coldrain]

It is a bit of a shame you can not really compare the 20D with the rest, but believe me that the 20D does better than the 350D. The Nikon D50 is a lot better suited for you than the D70s, as you can see. The 7D does ok too.

Best choice for high ISO night shots are the 20D and D50, followed by the 350D and 7D.

[daclick]

Coldrain thanks for your effort in posting those shots.

Actually 20D's go for less than I thought, I think I'll seriously consider one.

I hadn't thought of a D50 - guess thats what forums are for.

[astro]

It is a bit of a shame you can not really compare the 20D with the rest, but believe me that the 20D does better than the 350D. The Nikon D50 is a lot better suited for you than the D70s, as you can see. The 7D does ok too.

Best choice for high ISO night shots are the 20D and D50, followed by the 350D and 7D.

Those comparison images should be taken for anything more than a grain of salt.
The D50 looks a lot better than the rest because the shade of sky is much brighter than the rest, thus less gray noise. If you look at the sky on the 20D shot, it's similar to the D70S in terms of noise, because of gray noise.
It's just not an apples to apples comparison.

[coldrain]

Well, if you look for more photos online fo ISO 1600 samples you will see what I claimed. And if you think the 20D looks like the D70s you may need to do something about your screen.

It is not a secret that the 20D and D50 perform well, you know. In fact it is widely available and widely held knowledge.

[astro]

Well, if you look for more photos online fo ISO 1600 samples you will see what I claimed. And if you think the 20D looks like the D70s you may need to do something about your screen.

It is not a secret that the 20D and D50 perform well, you know. In fact it is widely available and widely held knowledge.

What I'm saying is that if you gave all the cameras a good apples to apples test, the results would be pretty similar. Sure you'd get some that are better than others, but they wouldn't be all that noticeable, especially not in real world applications where you're not pixel peeping. Then you wouldn't have to make a mountain out of the molehill.

And yes the D70s looks similar to the 20D. It may look a bit grainer, but it looks sharper too. And everyone knows that sharpening causes grain. I'm willing to bet if the in camera sharpening of the 20D was at the level of the D70s, they would look the same.

BTW, here's an apples to apples test of different cameras.
http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/06_02/auth/toku1/index_iso.htm
You'll notice what I'm saying about all cameras looking similar in terms of noise levels is true.
None of these cameras that are on the same class annihilates another.
Noise issues are definitely overplayed IMO.

[ReF]

Coldrain thanks for your effort in posting those shots.

Actually 20D's go for less than I thought, I think I'll seriously consider one.

I hadn't thought of a D50 - guess thats what forums are for.

safaris eh? well, not sure just how far you will be from your subjects, but for "super" telephoto shooting you'll really want stabilization. nikon and canon have "affordable" stabilized zooms 80-400 f4.5-5.6 or 100-400 f4.5-5.6 but are reported to be soft near the tele end. stabilized single focal length lenses are sharper but are very expensive. my info might be a bit dated but last time i checked, minolta is the only brand that offers a 400 f4.5 at a decent price ...wait, i tried to do a price check and couldn't find it any more. maybe they can be found on new or used from individuals. anyways, f4.5 + 1.4x TC should still autofocus. me, i'm using a canon 400 f5.6 (aperture a bit slow for required shutter speeds) and when used with the 1.4x TC (f8), autofocus is very slow.

night shots in cities... brightness is different from location to location, but i found it's usually bright enough to hand hold shots using a wide angle lens and ISO 800. for example, 28mm, f4, ISO 800, 1/40sec is good enough to avoid blur on stationary subjects (people may need very light flash). of course, stabilization isn't going to help freeze action, though if you want deep DOF without stabilization you're most likely going to need a tripod, and if you're using a tripod, there's no need to worry about ISO 800/1600. canon is coming out with a 17-55 IS lens and minolta has a 17-35 lens though the minolta lens is a rebadged tamron (whether the AF is of the minolta badged lens is better than the tamron labeled version, i don't know. but from my experience 3rd party lenses don't AF nearly as well as those from the OEM).

[daclick]

Last time I went a lion brushed past the LandCruiser so I was a couple of feet away - most animals were around 30-60 feet I suppose.

I think whichever camera I go for I'll go for OEM lenses but in these days of ebay they'll be mostly 2nd hand - loads of Canon's and Nikon's, quite a few Minolta's.