PDA

View Full Version : nikon D70 or the CANON rebel XT (350)



davewk
04-25-2005, 09:40 PM
i am on the verge on purchasing either the d70 or rebel xt (350 as it known here)..
am currently heading towards the d70 but after reading the posts on here i am now thinking the canon is alot better...
was wondering if it was just that there are more canon supporters on here or if in fact the canon xt is a much better camera than the d70??
i understand the canon is new, but here in new zealand many people have said the nikon is still very good... the price differnce between the 2 is about $300 NZ the canon being more....
can someone please help me decide... i want to be able to use mainly for sports so taking photos of fast moving objects is very important...
can someone help me with some comparisons between the 2..
thanks

davewk
04-25-2005, 09:53 PM
hey
i just noticed also that nikon has upgraded the d70 to a d70s...
does this help the nikon in comparison to the canon??
please help i have no idea which way to go...??

gabester
04-26-2005, 12:20 PM
i am on the verge on purchasing either the d70 or rebel xt (350 as it known here)..
am currently heading towards the d70 but after reading the posts on here i am now thinking the canon is alot better...
was wondering if it was just that there are more canon supporters on here or if in fact the canon xt is a much better camera than the d70??
i understand the canon is new, but here in new zealand many people have said the nikon is still very good... the price differnce between the 2 is about $300 NZ the canon being more....
can someone please help me decide... i want to be able to use mainly for sports so taking photos of fast moving objects is very important...
can someone help me with some comparisons between the 2..
thanks

The D70 feels beefier and sturdier and it's got a better kit lens. It's also has more fine-tuning "notches" in most parameters The XT is very compact (for a dSLR) and in my opinion matches the 20D in image quality (I believe the 20D is the standard bearer for consumer dSLRs in terms of smoothness and noise). They're both very fast, responsive cameras. My main concern is image quality, hence I chose the XT; my other two concerns were speed and size. With that criteria in mind, plus the fact that I'm a big Canon fan, it was a no-brainer for me. Of course, if you already have some Nikon lenses, or you're a big fan, the D70/D50/D70s mibht be better choice for you.

davewk
04-26-2005, 07:14 PM
thanks for the comments...
does the D70 have a moving object focus trackin mode like the canon has??
i definately prefer the look of the nikon, but am worried that canon rebel xt is newer so more up to date... it is hard for me to try before purchase so all your guys comments are very valid to my decision...

erichlund
04-26-2005, 10:55 PM
The D70 feels beefier and sturdier and it's got a better kit lens.

It still has a wider range, but I've heard good things about the II version of the Canon kit lens. My understanding is that it's now considered a quality lens, even if it doesn't have as much pull on the high end.

Cheers,
Eric

Rex914
04-26-2005, 11:52 PM
It's not totally fair to compare the two lenses as one's a $150 lens and the other is a $300 lens. Since you can get both very cheaply body-only, you can compare them that way and buy a starter lens that you'd actually be happy with instead. (we can all recommend many to you)

TheObiJuan
04-27-2005, 12:01 AM
thanks for the comments...
does the D70 have a moving object focus trackin mode like the canon has??
i definately prefer the look of the nikon, but am worried that canon rebel xt is newer so more up to date... it is hard for me to try before purchase so all your guys comments are very valid to my decision...

If you like the Nikon, then get it. They have AF-C, continuous servo. It should work well enough. The Nikon D70s has only minor updates. The same image sensor, same speed, it is the same 1.5 year old camera with a 2" screen and remote shutter option plus some software updates. The firmware update will allow you to have the new sofware features on your D70, if you purchase it.
The 350D is a 20D lite, all the functionality that the amatuer photog needs for 40 percent of the price. Just because the camera is brand new, doesn't mean it is better. I got it because I was familiar with the canon lens lineup and had an affinity for canon. The 8mp was what I needed since I do a lot of cropping for my sports and wildlife photos. Paying for the 8mp over 6mp was easier then getting a longer lens. Plus the extra .1x field of view sure helps too.

Noise performance is better, but marginally, for the Canon. At 8x10 I doubt the average photog could tell the difference bw a ISO 800 canon 350D image and a Nikon D70. I needed that marginal amount since I do a lot of low light photography.

So in the end, it is all the little things that made me choose the 350D over the D70. I have not regretted my decision. I will probably get the 20D sometime in the near future as ISO 3200 in camera sure would help, plus the slightly better AF, bigger size would not necessitate a grip (150), and the 5 f/s would help me for my sports and wildlife photography.

I will probably keep the 350D for my fiance and as a backup camera with the 18-200 sigma attached permanently.

edit: Also, the 20D will make me feel more pro and less P&S. I get looks because of the 350D's size. I don't mind much, but it would be nice to actually have a "real" dslr. I also get asked why I have so much gear, and such a diminutive camera. Nevermind that it can take images as great as the 20D can. :rolleyes:
After shooting with the 20D and feeling the nice rubber texture for a change, I really liked it. I know the 350D is sturdy, and can support the 600 f/4L, but without the grip, it feels very unbalanced. Adding the grip makes it almost the size of the 20D btw, so there goes the weight advantage.

scalia
04-27-2005, 02:14 AM
It still has a wider range, but I've heard good things about the II version of the Canon kit lens. My understanding is that it's now considered a quality lens, even if it doesn't have as much pull on the high end.

Cheers,
Eric

well not really, according to Phil Askey here (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=13000408) ,
"Well I did review the 300D almost exclusively with the kit lens, and reported that we were relatively happy with it. Things change and I personally don't think the 'Mark II' kit lens is as good as the old lens (which is odd but having had two of them I can't put it down to a lemon). It would have been pointless to fill the gallery full of images which had suffered because of the kit lens."

Rex914
04-27-2005, 01:29 PM
If we have to bicker over it, it's actually better in a certain way. It's a more unbalanced lens, but more unbalanced in a good way. It does better at the wide end (which is the point of the lens in the first place) and worse at telephoto.

davewk
04-27-2005, 06:11 PM
If you like the Nikon, then get it. They have AF-C, continuous servo. It should work well enough. The Nikon D70s has only minor updates. The same image sensor, same speed, it is the same 1.5 year old camera with a 2" screen and remote shutter option plus some software updates. The firmware update will allow you to have the new sofware features on your D70, if you purchase it.
The 350D is a 20D lite, all the functionality that the amatuer photog needs for 40 percent of the price. Just because the camera is brand new, doesn't mean it is better. I got it because I was familiar with the canon lens lineup and had an affinity for canon. The 8mp was what I needed since I do a lot of cropping for my sports and wildlife photos. Paying for the 8mp over 6mp was easier then getting a longer lens. Plus the extra .1x field of view sure helps too.

Noise performance is better, but marginally, for the Canon. At 8x10 I doubt the average photog could tell the difference bw a ISO 800 canon 350D image and a Nikon D70. I needed that marginal amount since I do a lot of low light photography.

So in the end, it is all the little things that made me choose the 350D over the D70. I have not regretted my decision. I will probably get the 20D sometime in the near future as ISO 3200 in camera sure would help, plus the slightly better AF, bigger size would not necessitate a grip (150), and the 5 f/s would help me for my sports and wildlife photography.

I will probably keep the 350D for my fiance and as a backup camera with the 18-200 sigma attached permanently.

edit: Also, the 20D will make me feel more pro and less P&S. I get looks because of the 350D's size. I don't mind much, but it would be nice to actually have a "real" dslr. I also get asked why I have so much gear, and such a diminutive camera. Nevermind that it can take images as great as the 20D can. :rolleyes:
After shooting with the 20D and feeling the nice rubber texture for a change, I really liked it. I know the 350D is sturdy, and can support the 600 f/4L, but without the grip, it feels very unbalanced. Adding the grip makes it almost the size of the 20D btw, so there goes the weight advantage.

hey thanks for those comments, yeah i guess the 8 mp would help me as well as i do alot of cropping with the current camera i have, although it is only because i cant zoom in enough.... hmmmmmm??? so maybe it the canon?? i still like the nikon lenses that come with the kit , as they have the 18-70 and a 70-300mm where as the canon only comes with 20-55 and 55-200mm, so maybe having the 300mm will account for the 2mega pix less...
so would you say that both the nikon and the canon are on par with each other in terms of shooting moving objects?? and they would be on par with each other in terms of each other for use by a amatuer??

TheObiJuan
04-27-2005, 06:48 PM
both cameras have many first pary lenses available and third party lenses available. You could get the 350D and sima 18-200 and call it a day. You would have spent around $1300 dollars.

davewk
04-27-2005, 06:50 PM
not sure the sigma lens s available in new zealand is there a website to check it out??

sarcazmo
04-27-2005, 10:37 PM
http://www.sigmaphoto.com

jeisner
04-27-2005, 10:45 PM
not sure the sigma lens s available in new zealand is there a website to check it out??

CR Kennedy is the distributor of Sigma lenses in Australia and I believe in NZ also, just call them to find out where to buy...

http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 09:49 AM
delta international has the sigma 70-300 apo for $180 and they are in stock. ;)

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 12:56 PM
I have not, but know people that have. They don't keep much in stock, but when they do, it is always cheap. They don't charge until they ship. They have a good rating at resellerratings.com

AllanMarcus
04-28-2005, 02:39 PM
All the different dSLRs are great. One that doesn't get enough respect, IMHO is the Pentax *ist DS, but all them are good.

Like many things, the initial purchase is less important than subsequent purchases. For a HiFi the receiver is important, but the speakers are more important. For a camera the body is important, but the lens system is really what you are buying into. You still have to take good pictures, but side by side comparisons between lens can give one noticeably different results.

So before you buy a camera, think about how you will use it and what lens you thing you will need. You should also think about a flash, but that's a much less expensive purchase.

Lens can run from $60 to $9000. All the brands have a wide variety of lens as well as third party lens to fill in almost any niche.

One distinguishing characteristic of the Canon and Nikon lens systems is image stabilization (IS) or vibration reduction (VR). Canon has a set of "low cost" (~$400) set if IS lens and a set of expensive (>$1000) IS lens. Nikon's VR lens are pretty expensive and very high quality. If you want a relatively low cost high zoom IS lens, then your choice is Canon. If you are willing to spend more then look at Nikon. If you have 1000's and 1000's to spend, then both systems have lens to meet your needs.

Canon IS lens (BHPhoto prices)
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 - $400 (very good first lens, BTW)
75-300 f/3.5-5.6 - $415
Various lens in the $1000+
Big lens right up to $5500

Nikkor VR lens
24-120 f/3.5-5.6 - $485
80-400 f/4.5-5.6 - $1230
Various other lens in the $1000+
Big lens right up to $5100

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 04:22 PM
17-85mm F4-F5.6 IS USM $599

davewk
04-28-2005, 07:00 PM
hi
thanks everyone for your comments, i took mosts advice and went adn tried out these cameras at a proper shop, the guy there actually was quite on to it and helped out heaps... the nikon seemed to focus slightly quicker than the canon and i definately preferred the feel of the nikon....
i guess with the firm ware to come later wit the nikon, that could be me...
will let you all know how i go

60mm
04-28-2005, 09:06 PM
Check this out:
Heres a little pic showing you the size differences between the XT and the D70:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/comparison.jpg

60mm
04-28-2005, 09:07 PM
Heres an ISO Comparison:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/iso.jpg
Note the D70's detail and contrast retention, and the XT's aggresive softening.

Heres the D70 at ISO 1600 with a quick noise filter (Neat Image)
:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/d70_iso1600_cleaned.jpg

60mm
04-28-2005, 09:15 PM
Heres a 100% crop of a D70 image I took, in grayscale to focus on the detail, one is resized to XT size using Genuine Fractals. Which is which? Not sure about the reason for the contrast difference, lol. Same pic.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/resized.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/normal.jpg


I believe the D70 still provides superior image quality for a serious amateur and up. If a group of pro photographers (nikon or Canon users) was told to do an assignment with either the D70 and a choice of any lenses, or the XT and a choice of any lenses, I thinking it'd be unanimous The Rebel is more in line with consumer wants with smoother pictures, and a body too small to be comfortable unless you have the hands of a 10 year old girl. You can find a 10D in great condition for nearly the same price! Check that camera out if you're thinking about a Rebel! 6mp to 8mp is nothing.

Rex914
04-28-2005, 09:19 PM
Heres an ISO Comparison:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/iso.jpg
Note the D70's detail and contrast retention, and the XT's aggresive softening.

Heres the D70 at ISO 1600 with a quick noise filter (Neat Image)
:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/x60mm/d70_iso1600_cleaned.jpg

Those both seem to come from DP Review, yet I can't seem to find them or recall Phil ever doing a direct comparison of the two cameras. Could you link us to the page with this. Thanks!

By the way, your claim is based upon a flawed argument. The Canon kit lens sucks big time compared to the Nikon lens. Do not extrapolate image quality based on this flawed presumption. The Canon kit lens is notorious for being soft.

Bluedog
04-28-2005, 09:42 PM
The Rebel is more in line with consumer wants with smoother pictures, and a body too small to be comfortable unless you have the hands of a 10 year old girl. You can find a 10D in great condition for nearly the same price! Check that camera out if you're thinking about a Rebel! 6mp to 8mp is nothing.

These kinda assessments are getting so boring to read over and over. Look face it the XT is a very excellent and marketable camera which is doing quite briskly in sales ... a 10 year old girl > :rolleyes:

gabester
04-28-2005, 10:56 PM
6mp to 8mp is nothing.

6 MP to 8 MP is not nothing. Sure, it's not a dramatic increase in resolution, but it gives you more room to crop. How'd you like it if you I took your sensor and trimmed 25% of the pixels off so that you'd be left with a 4.5 MP CCD? As for things like contrast and sharpness, those can be adjusted with parameter settings. Higher noise levels and lower resolution, however, cannot.

60mm
04-29-2005, 12:38 AM
Those both seem to come from DP Review, yet I can't seem to find them or recall Phil ever doing a direct comparison of the two cameras. Could you link us to the page with this. Thanks!

By the way, your claim is based upon a flawed argument. The Canon kit lens sucks big time compared to the Nikon lens. Do not extrapolate image quality based on this flawed presumption. The Canon kit lens is notorious for being soft.

I forgot to list DPreview as the source for the ISO samples, sorry.

The D70 ISO samples are from the Maxxum 7D comparison. They should have had a page on the D70 and the XT as they are direct competitors. I just lined them up in photoshop. And they are shot with 50mm 1.4 lenses of the respective company. So, those shots are not with either of the kit lenses, but a very sharp prime. As fair as it could get

60mm
04-30-2005, 08:17 PM
6 MP to 8 MP is not nothing. Sure, it's not a dramatic increase in resolution, but it gives you more room to crop. How'd you like it if you I took your sensor and trimmed 25% of the pixels off so that you'd be left with a 4.5 MP CCD? As for things like contrast and sharpness, those can be adjusted with parameter settings. Higher noise levels and lower resolution, however, cannot.

How does it give more room to crop? If you dont know how to upsize, then yes it does.
As for the sharpness settings, both those tests were at default levels of sharpness, which means you can definitely crank it up on the XT to get close to the D70. Then why not crank it up on the D70 to, which'll beat it again. Saying it's ok that a camera isnt as sharp as another is ok because it can be sharpened later isn't very logical. Whichever is sharper in the first place, will be sharper in the end. Period.
As for contrast, you sure can just boost the contrast. Unless you have a shot of a real high contrast scene. Then when you boost the contrast to make the detail look better, you've just blown some highlights and smashed stuff into the shadows. Fixable? Sure. Time consuming? Very.

As for the noise and resolution? 8mp simply isnt going to pull more usable detail than 6. You can take a good quality 6mp image, upsize it to 8mp and they will be identical. Noise can be removed. The D70 is built to keep the noise and detail. How much of the noise (along with detail) you wish to remove is up to you. On the XT some of that decision has been made for you, and isn't reversible.

On the other hand, no adjustment settings. will make a grown man's hand shrink down to be comfortable on the XT. No settings boost is going to upgrade the XT's construction. No press of a button is going to give an XT spot meter (thats just plain stupid). Or move vital info (like ISO) off the LCD monitor.



-"Look face it the XT is a very excellent and marketable camera which is doing quite briskly in sales"
Oops! I forgot about the fact it is selling briskly. I hear Hillary Duff has been selling pretty briskly too, must be a seal of quality huh?

Since when has selling numbers been a point of consideration in quality? The majority of people are vastly ignorant.

gabester
04-30-2005, 09:06 PM
How does it give more room to crop? If you dont know how to upsize, then yes it does.

Any upsizing (even including Genuine Fractals, which is great at lines) involves interpolation. You cannot get more resolution than what you started with. So why not just use a 2, 3 or 4MP camera and always upsize? Also, sharper is not necessarily better. If you don't understand how an 8MP photo has more information than a 6MP photo, or how sharpness is adjusted by acutance (not resolution), then I'm afraid it's pointless for me to argue this point with you.


The majority of people are vastly ignorant.

Hmm, this comment sounds familiar and is reminiscent of a post regarding the XT that I took exception to a while back. I'm sorry we're not as erudite as you are, but I'm always willing to learn more. :)

Bluedog
04-30-2005, 10:58 PM
60mm ... I've come to a point that you are on a mission to degrade whatever you find doesn't fit your liking. If you don't like the XT so be it but when you can't post a comment without being arrogant in your response maybe you should keep it to yourself.

Where's all your fabulous images for show?

60mm
05-01-2005, 01:32 AM
Any upsizing (even including Genuine Fractals, which is great at lines) involves interpolation. You cannot get more resolution than what you started with. So why not just use a 2, 3 or 4MP camera and always upsize? Also, sharper is not necessarily better. If you don't understand how an 8MP photo has more information than a 6MP photo, or how sharpness is adjusted by acutance (not resolution), then I'm afraid it's pointless for me to argue this point with you.



Hmm, this comment sounds familiar and is reminiscent of a post regarding the XT that I took exception to a while back. I'm sorry we're not as erudite as you are, but I'm always willing to learn more. :)

Im full aware that I cant create more resolution w/upsizing, but there really isnt much at all to keep a 6mp from perfectly emulating an 8mp. I'm not sure where you gathered the idea that I don't understand "acutance (not resolution)"
Acutance is to Response Time as Assumption is to Laziness

Arrogant? Yes, I tower in character over the XT.
I don't remember condescending any people in this thread. And as far as I am aware, you can't treat an inanimate object as inferior. If you take sarcastic rebuttals as offensive, then I'm sorry, though I hope otherwise.

Im just trying to draw more indepth shots at either model but am only receiving opposition to what has been said. Most posts between cameras are a couple lines that could easily be represented by a yay/nay poll. I'm interested in seeing more.

"Where's all your fabulous images for show?"
???
I missed the part were I made terrible fun of someone's photographical skills. Maybe I should without thinking from now on as some may assume I did anyways. Acussations are a terrible thing to waste, don't throw empty ones around.

ReF
05-01-2005, 02:49 AM
i only picked up this thread from the last page and man, it's already a pain to read. it's starting to sound like the dpreview forums in here!

JTL
05-01-2005, 04:00 AM
it's starting to sound like the dpreview forums in here!Ouch! That's harsh! :D

TheObiJuan
05-01-2005, 04:08 AM
I agree. Afterall, he does frequent dpreview.

20>XT>D70(s)>All other sub-$1100 cameras.

This is my viewpoint, trying to change that will only make you blue in the face. I am more than happy to show any number of images from my XT. ;)

aparmley
05-01-2005, 10:15 AM
Technically the XT looks like it is as good or better than the D70. In the real world, this can only be determined by the user.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Give a D70 to a novice - great snapshots, give an XT to a novice - great snapshots. Give either to a skillful photographer, great photographs. No real point in arguing about it. Now, wait until I spend my money, If I go XT, you better watch out D70 folks cause I'll be gunning for ya! But, if I buy a D70, well all you XT people better watch out cause I'll be gunning for ya! HAHAHAHA :D .

JTL
05-01-2005, 11:09 AM
I agree. Afterall, he does frequent dpreview.

20>XT>D70(s)>All other sub-$1100 cameras.

This is my viewpoint, trying to change that will only make you blue in the face. I am more than happy to show any number of images from my XT. ;)Juan has it right, and that's just the way it REALLY is. If you put take all of the other perphireal stuff asisde and if you had to choose on technically the best by spec, it's 20D>XT>D70. Nothing can change that.

There's nothing wrong with saying that you like to use a technically inferior camera because it feels better in you hand or because you have an investment in lenses. It just don't think it's healthy to delude oneself into thinking that it's not technically inferior.

TheObiJuan
05-01-2005, 11:29 AM
Juan, Pretty fierce loyalty, but images are only the proof that a camera works. We all know that the XT is capable of taking nice photos, as is every dSLR, and most all-in-ones. But a dSLR is more than the pictures that come out of it.

I know that you bought the 20D, because the trade-up opportunity arrose, but, would you now trade it back for the XT? And if so, why?

You present a unique case study, in a way, as most people here have only used their current dSLR on a day-to-day basis. So it would be interesting to get your perspective as a longer term user of both cameras. What does the 20D offer that the XT didn't and vice versa?

Thanks.

Hehe, no fierce loyalty, just stating the truth as I see it. :D
I have no doubt that the D70 is an equal or better camera in some aspects. But when you take the image it produces in some extreme situations, resolution and noise performance do matter. I really like the D70 and wait for its future "real" replacement. The replacement for the D100 has my eyes affixed on Nikon. I love the company for it's dedication to it's customers, despite it way smaller budget. Camera of choice used in the movie "The Interpreter" was Nikon. ;)

I would swap back if I did not seriously need the extra 2fps and the metal body to prevent breaking from high speed paintballs. I can't take the chance. The average user would not put their camera through what I do, atleast willingly. :p

I should get the camera on wednesday-thursday, so next weekend I will do extensive shooting and comparing. mmmmm drool... :D

DiJ
05-01-2005, 12:03 PM
As for the noise and resolution? 8mp simply isnt going to pull more usable detail than 6. You can take a good quality 6mp image, upsize it to 8mp and they will be identical. Noise can be removed. The D70 is built to keep the noise and detail. How much of the noise (along with detail) you wish to remove is up to you. On the XT some of that decision has been made for you, and isn't reversible.
.

I think we can have a gentlemanly discussion here without starting a war.

I have to agree with Gabester. When we talk about sharpness we are refering to resolution of fine details. You can do very well with a good upsizing software. But its not going to give you 8mp resolution from a 6mp picture. It does not create the details out of nowhere. If you can just make out a certain detail (see "Martini Vermouth" in crop) in the 8mp and not in the 6mp I dont see how upsampling is going to make any difference.

I agree that D70 is damn fine camera and it does a lot of things better than the rebelXT for a lot of people. But saying they are both the same resolution to me is a little misleading.

DiJ
05-01-2005, 12:40 PM
About noise and low light performance. Take into account also the actual iso sensitivity. Canon and Nikon seems to have rated their iso differently. Looking at the link below 20d is at iso100, 1sec, f9 while D70 is iso200, 1/1.6sec, f9. from exif D70 have 1/3 stop more exposure. But instead of brighter it looks darker. Meaning canon is anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 stop more sensitive than Nikonat the same iso value. Iso 100 on a Canon may actually be equivalent to iso160 on a Nikon.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page25.asp

gabester
05-01-2005, 12:43 PM
Juan has it right, and that's just the way it REALLY is. If you put take all of the other perphireal stuff asisde and if you had to choose on technically the best by spec, it's 20D>XT>D70. Nothing can change that.


Agreed. 20D>XT>D70. That's an opinion that I share with others. Sure, we could do a poll, and it might reflect the same result, but what's the point? We just have to realize that people have opinions and they'll stick with them, no matter what others vociferously decry. We're debating opinions here, not physical laws - there is no absolute truth (except for things like megapixels and frames per second) since different people seek different things from their cameras.

By the way, I don't feel I've "settled" for the XT instead of the 20D since the image quality is the same, and the XT beats the former in price, size, weight and mirror slap loudness. Those are quite important to ME, so I'm content with having the second best consumer dSLR (in MY opinion).

Bottom line...respect other people and their choices despite your disagreement with their opinions. No need to insult our intelligence or predilections.

aparmley
05-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Man, I tell you what; when the people over here at dcresource get hot they start using big words. I had to bust out the dictionary a few times... take it easy fellas! :D

JTL
05-01-2005, 02:20 PM
Man, I tell you what; when the people over here at dcresource get hot they start using big words. I had to bust out the dictionary a few times... take it easy fellas! :DPeople’s vociferous and dyspeptic deportment can prove jocular…:D

ReF
05-01-2005, 03:15 PM
[QUOTE=aparmley] If I go XT, you better watch out D70 folks cause I'll be gunning for ya! But, if I buy a D70, well all you XT people better watch out cause I'll be gunning for ya! [QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JTL] People’s vociferous and dyspeptic deportment can prove jocular…[QUOTE]

lol
'

gabester
05-01-2005, 06:44 PM
People’s vociferous and dyspeptic deportment can prove jocular…:D

My bruddah made fun of my vocablarry once....ONCE. ;)

JTL
05-01-2005, 11:23 PM
Please list the technical differences.Oh George, don't be silly. The photos in post #44 of this thread sum it up nicely...image quality is the only technical difference that means anything to me...it might not mean that much to you, but hey, I'm fine with that. You should be too. You take amazing shots with the D70. I could only hope to be as good one day regardless of the camera.

Rex914
05-01-2005, 11:34 PM
Wow, it looks like this argument erupted yet again. I THOUGHT we were done with this one once and for all already. :D

JTL
05-02-2005, 12:03 AM
Wow, it looks like this argument erupted yet again. I THOUGHT we were done with this one once and for all already. :DOn this thread, it's not an "argument"...it's a polemic...:D

gabester
05-02-2005, 08:14 AM
On this thread, it's not an "argument"...it's a polemic...:D

polemic...or invective? It's amazing how we flip-flop between being conciliatory ("oh...all dSLRS are great blah blah blah") and belligerent ("you're an idiot for being a fan of that camera!") when our beloved cameras are concerned. Why just last night in the bathroom I sang the lyrics to Paul Simon's "Kodachrome" as "I've got a Canon camera, I love to take a photograph...". :p

Ray Schnoor
05-02-2005, 09:37 AM
Oh George, don't be silly. The photos in post #44 of this thread sum it up nicely...image quality is the only technical difference that means anything to me...it might not mean that much to you, but hey, I'm fine with that. You should be too. You take amazing shots with the D70. I could only hope to be as good one day regardless of the camera.

First of all, I'm sure that all of these cameras (20D, XT, D70) are good cameras, but it is hard to compare the cameras without using the same settings/lenses/lighting at the same time.

That said, anyone can say anything in their posts, including false/mistaken/misleading facts. It looks to me that the photos from post #44 in this thread are a comparison of the Canon 20D (100 ISO,1sec,F9) vs the Nikon D70 (200 ISO, 1/1.6sec, F9), not the XT vs D70 as stated in the post. The 20D was using a Canon lens and the Nikon was using a Nikon lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page25.asp

I may be mistaken and you may be comparing the XT photos from a different comparison,

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page23.asp

against the D70 photos from the 20D comparison. If that is the case, the XT starts off at a great advantage of having much better lighting as can be determined by the looking at the parameter of 1/40 second exposure time.

In any case, you are correct that the Canon photos look better than the Nikon photos. I am also pretty sure that photos taken with the XT at 100 ISO would look better than photos taken with the XT at 200 ISO.

Aside from all of this, it might have been a more accurate comparison if they used the same lens (say a Sigma 18-125, or whatever you prefer) and same ISO value. I'm not saying that the result wouldn't have been the same, but this comparison could just as easily mean that the Canon lens is better than the Nikon lens.

Lastly, you could all say that I am just blowing smoke because I have a D70, but I have reccommended the 20D to people in the past and will probably do the same in the future. I may even get one for myself. According to the same website using the same comparison between the XT and 20D,

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page23.asp

It looks to me like the XT is a better(sharper) camera than the 20D, but I doubt that any 20D owner would agree, and I myself would prefer a 20D to the XT despite these photos.

Just my thoughts.

Ray.

DiJ
05-02-2005, 11:10 AM
It looks to me that the photos from post #44 in this thread are a comparison of the Canon 20D (100 ISO,1sec,F9) vs the Nikon D70 (200 ISO, 1/1.6sec, F9), not the XT vs D70 as stated in the post. The 20D was using a Canon lens and the Nikon was using a Nikon lens.
I may be mistaken and you may be comparing the XT photos from a different comparison, In any case, you are correct that the Canon photos look better than the Nikon photos.
I am also pretty sure that photos taken with the XT at 100 ISO would look better than photos taken with the XT at 200 ISO.
It looks to me like the XT is a better(sharper) camera than the 20D, but I doubt that any 20D owner would agree, and I myself would prefer a 20D to the XT despite these photos.

Ray.

Thanks for pointing these out. I took the XT crop from the XT review comparison. And the D70 crops from 20D review comparison. Good observation about difference in lighting. They used a stronger lighting for the XT comparison. But comparing 20d crops from the two reviews, I would say it did not really affect resolution. Both are exposed sufficently for that.

I found no major difference in sharpness between XT and 20D. There is a slight variation in AF. You can see that 20D focused a little more on the objects at the front. Which might explain the difference.

Also very good point about the difference in lens. This must of course be taken into the equation. Phil used the sharpest 50mm prime lens stop down to f9 for each system. The limiting factor here is likely the sensor. You can already see some moire artifact on the D70 (see the words 'martini vermouth' on bottle. some false colors there). A sharper lens is unlikely to make any difference.

Lastly about comparison with XT at iso100 and D70 at iso200. In terms of noise or resolution there is really negligible difference between iso100 and iso200 on the XT. See the review here at dcresource. Thanks again for your time.

Ray Schnoor
05-02-2005, 11:31 AM
Thanks for pointing these out. I took the XT crop from the XT review comparison. And the D70 crops from 20D review comparison. Good observation about difference in lighting. They used a stronger lighting for the XT comparison. But comparing 20d crops from the two reviews, I would say it did not really affect resolution. Both are exposed sufficently for that.

Sorry DiJ, I was not responding to your post about resolution and upsampling. I agree completely that if you resample a 6MP image to an 8MP image, you will not have the same resolution as an 8MP image, only an interpolation. I was only replying to the statement that says the image quality of the XT photo proves that it is a better camera than the D70, even though I did say that the displayed XT photo was sharper than the displayed D70 photo. I just mean that you can't tell from this comparison.

We'll just have to disagree about the different 20D crops. I do think that the 1/40sec crop is better than the 1sec crop.

Ray.

DiJ
05-02-2005, 11:45 AM
We'll just have to disagree about the different 20D crops. I do think that the 1/40sec crop is better than the 1sec crop.

Ray.

Since you are refering to post #44(my post) I assume you are responding to me.

These are of course obviously different. Look at the camera settings. The 1/40sec one is at parameter 1(sat, cont, shrp+1) while othe other at parameter 0(sat, cont, shrp +0). Which is why it obviously looked more contrasty around the details lines. What I meant was it did not significantly affect the resolution of details. The finest detail you can see are still the same.

Ray Schnoor
05-02-2005, 12:25 PM
Since you are refering to post #44(my post) I assume you are responding to me.

These are of course obviously different. Look at the camera settings. The 1/40sec one is at parameter 1(sat, cont, shrp+1) while othe other at parameter 0(sat, cont, shrp +0). Which is why it obviously looked more contrasty around the details lines. What I meant was it did not significantly affect the resolution of details. The finest detail you can see are still the same.

Once again, sorry, I was quoting and refering to post #52, not yours. He was twisting your post to say "image quality", not resolution, is technically better on the XT. I don't think that resolution is the only measure of image quality, but the XT does beat the D70 in that category. Does this mean that it is technically better in anything other than resolution? Not necessarily.

And as you state above, the settings on the 20D are different in the 2 photos, which reinforces my original statement


it is hard to compare the cameras without using the same settings/lenses/lighting at the same time.

Ray.

gabester
05-02-2005, 02:16 PM
Your debating skills and vocabulary are pretty good. Sadly, debating has never been my strong suit, as has become painfully obvious.

The only void so far in this "discussion" has been the actual pictures taken, so how about a peek at your FZ10 and XT portfolio?

I'm sure there are some great photos that you could share. So if you don't mind, rather than continue the never ending and pointless debate over Canon vs Nikon, how about more participation in the picture department, or discussion of techniques rather than endless sniping and pointless debate.


I honestly don't know where that accusation ("endless sniping and pointless debate") came from. Aside from one mention ("reminiscent of a post regarding the XT that I took exception to a while back...") which I didn't further elaborate on, my arguments were directed toward 60mm, not you. A while back I promised to back off on my purported "attacks" on you, and I think I've held true to my promise. If you interpret each general jocular remark from me as an attack on you or your camera, then I think you're right that you've become quite thin-skinned and gun-shy. Incidentally, I am not the source of the sniping here so I wonder why you are targeting me?

Now, about this "share your pictures with us" entreaty...what's the true motivation behind this? One thing I agree with 60mm about is this puzzling "where's your portfolio" interrogation - how is this pertinent? Is it:

1. A genuine desire, out of curiosity, to see other people's photos?
2. A method to gauge someone's photographic skill?
3. A means to evaluate the quality of someone's equipment?

If it's (1) or (2), I certainly don't mind doing so and will do so eventually after wading through tens of thousands of photos and overcoming the laziness of uploading photos to pbase or smugmug. It's not like I'm pretending to own a Rebel; I did post a few moon shots and theater pictures and I even cleaned up the latter with NN at your request, with your parameters. Below is one of my faves, taken with my old Kodak DC280. By the way, I don't claim to be an oustanding photographer but there are at least a few in my collection that I certainly wouldn't mind posting (you know, monkeys typing out the entire works of Shakespeare given the lifetime of the universe). If it's (3), unless you do systematic comparisons like the ones Speaklightly or ObiJuan do so well, it's pointless as a means of reinforcing an argument. So if I post a kit lens picture with blurry corners or low contrast, does that mean we have a bad sensor? What about an L lens photo that doesn't quite look as sharp as expected? There are tons of tack-sharp photos here taken with the XT (many with L lenses); just look at some of the photos Jeff took for his review. Lastly, do you really think I (or anyone else) could whip out a photo that would make you get down on your knees and say "heavens...you guys were right...the XT is better!"?

So tell me....is this "share your photos" request the forum's equivalent of "talk the talk, walk the walk"?

gabester
05-02-2005, 03:17 PM
Okay George...you've really done it this time...gotten me off my butt so I've finally created a very tiny (just 3 pics, taken with Canons G5 & S400) PBase gallery (http://www.pbase.com/gabester). I don't have my Powerbook at work with me, so these were actually downloaded as large "thumbnail" pics from Ofoto. Yeah, I feel kind of good now. Thanks for egging me on.

As for my vocabulary...yah, some people make fun of me for it. It's the way I talk; I consider it efficient but it's never intended to demean or obfuscate. To this day I still have cousins who call me "amalgam" - a word that I used as a clue in a game of Password a long time ago. I'll try to be more "mainstream" from now on.

Anyway..there's a 10 Mb limit on a free PBase account...so that's what - 3 XT pictures at max quality/resolution? Any other free services out there with a larger quota?

Bluedog
05-02-2005, 03:44 PM
Actually you can reduce the XT's image size down, of course keeping the aspect ratio and upload several to the Free PBase account.

Rhys
05-02-2005, 04:00 PM
Why's everybody so fussed about teeny-weeny things like the D70 and 350D when you can get a 22 megapixel camera like this (http://www.photokina-show.com/news/mamiya/ZD_en.html) instead?

DiJ
05-02-2005, 06:36 PM
Okay George...you've really done it this time...gotten me off my butt so I've finally created a very tiny (just 3 pics, taken with Canons G5 & S400) PBase gallery (http://www.pbase.com/gabester). I don't have my Powerbook at work with me, so these were actually downloaded as large "thumbnail" pics from Ofoto. Yeah, I feel kind of good now. Thanks for egging me on.

Anyway..there's a 10 Mb limit on a free PBase account...so that's what - 3 XT pictures at max quality/resolution? Any other free services out there with a larger quota?

Nice waterfall! :D You can resize the pictures to 800x600 that way gives you about 30 pictures. I like the interface of pbase much better than smugmug where you need to click on the thumbnail, click on the bigger picture on the right then after the window pops out, click again on the size you want. Clicking on another thumbnail reloads the whole page.....

gabester
05-02-2005, 08:32 PM
Why's everybody so fussed about teeny-weeny things like the D70 and 350D when you can get a 22 megapixel camera like this (http://www.photokina-show.com/news/mamiya/ZD_en.html) instead?

I was bragging to a colleague at work about my new 8MP dSLR last month when he whipped out a massive framed photo taken with a Hasselblad medium-format at Bryce Canyon in Utah. He calculated the equivalent resolution to be 40MP. That was quite humbling.

jeisner
05-02-2005, 08:47 PM
I have resisted posting in this thread, as these discussions just get silly but I hope you ALL know that MP don't necessarily make good photos...

Not to mention the skill of the photographer, there is simply a lot more to a camera than merely resolution. Sadly however MANY people consider that a major buying point. I'm sure certain marketing departments just love you and the reviewers that reinforce that misguided view ;)

TheObiJuan
05-02-2005, 08:51 PM
MP really don't matter to me. I would be more than happy with a 1D if I could afford it. ;)
The features it would provide would overcome any urges to have a 8MP camera. Besides, most of my printing is below 8x10.

gabester
05-02-2005, 09:07 PM
Great! You might want to post the waterfall shot (nice job) on the waterfall thread. Surprisingly, there is no bridge thread yet, in the Photos forum, so maybe you could get that thread going (another nice shot).

Thanks for the Smugmug nod and everyone else for the downsizing suggestions (that's fine but just about every photo looks decent downsized!).

You still haven't answered my question though - what exactly does "share your photos" mean? More specifically, why is it usually invoked when you feel that someone has made a baseless claim (as in "the XT is better than the D70")? Is the intent to denigrate the post based on any "bad" photos that he/she has posted up? I'm not being combative here; just trying to understand this puzzling tactic.

jeisner
05-02-2005, 09:13 PM
MP really don't matter to me. I would be more than happy with a 1D if I could afford it. ;)

LOL, ohh what we could buy if money was no object ;)


The features it would provide would overcome any urges to have a 8MP camera. Besides, most of my printing is below 8x10.

Even at 11x14 the difference between 6mp and 8mp is not noticable, you would have to go fairly large, well over 11x14 (maybe A3 or more) to notice a 14% difference in linear resolution...

ReF
05-02-2005, 09:33 PM
while some of the back and forth here is productive, i think it is completely pointless to argue about which camera is better in general, or which has better features, or what feature is important, etc., etc.. resolution might be a big deal to some and not to others. same could be said for just about every other feature. for example i believe GeorgeR said he never uses MLU (correct me if i'm wrong) but i installed the wasia hack on my camera just to enable it. so is this an important feature or not? is having MLU on my camera gonna make it work any better or help me take better pictures if i have the need to use it?

oh yeah and your shoes might have steel toes but mine is better because the soles are thicker ;)

ReF
05-02-2005, 09:39 PM
The intent/tactic is to get back to photography as the subject, nothing more, nothing less. And an honest interest in what you like to shoot (beside the moon).

call me gullable or whatever, but i think he means what he says.

his quote:
"rather than continue the never ending and pointless debate over Canon vs Nikon, how about more participation in the picture department, or discussion of techniques rather than endless sniping and pointless debate."

TheObiJuan
05-02-2005, 10:02 PM
LOL, ohh what we could buy if money was no object ;)



Even at 11x14 the difference between 6mp and 8mp is not noticable, you would have to go fairly large, well over 11x14 (maybe A3 or more) to notice a 14% difference in linear resolution...


I know this. I am not a pixel peeper. I got the 350D because I could not afford the 20D at that time. I got the 20D now because 5fps is necessary and so is all of the options.
If the D100 replacement was available, I would have considered it. Shoot, a D2H wouldn't be bad, if it had better ISO peroformance.

The 1dMKII is still my dream. ;)
Well, that is until the 20D replacement comes out. Damn technology!

gabester
05-02-2005, 10:04 PM
The intent/tactic is to get back to photography as the subject, nothing more, nothing less. And an honest interest in what you like to shoot (beside the moon).

Fair enough, if that's the motivation. But let me tell you, decent moon shots are not trivial - not only do you need a lens that's decent at full telephoto and maximum aperture, you also need steady hands (mine are all handheld, since I have a crappy tripod and the moon moves across your viewfinder pretty quickly at that focal length anyway), a willingness to override your camera's automatic exposure settings, and enough stoicism to endure things such as cold, mosquitoes, moon glare and eye fatigue!

gabester
05-02-2005, 10:18 PM
I have resisted posting in this thread, as these discussions just get silly but I hope you ALL know that MP don't necessarily make good photos...

Not to mention the skill of the photographer, there is simply a lot more to a camera than merely resolution. Sadly however MANY people consider that a major buying point. I'm sure certain marketing departments just love you and the reviewers that reinforce that misguided view ;)

I had a dReb, but got the XT not because of the slightly higher resolution, but because the latter was smaller, lighter, faster, had more features, and wasn't crippled. Plus it was BLACK. Forget resolution - I think camera body color is the most critical thing when choosing a dSLR. Word.

jeisner
05-02-2005, 10:19 PM
I know this. I am not a pixel peeper

Sorry TheObiJuan I didn't intend to suggest that you are....

Others earlier in the thread were pointing out the 350D is superior due to higher MP, so my statements where meant to be more broadly directed at any reader that may think that Pixel count is the be all and end all....

Bluedog
05-02-2005, 10:22 PM
I'm startin' to feel bad about my Silver and partially black XT ... :(

Honestly I don't a problem with the Silver one as long as it turns out good results.

gabester
05-02-2005, 10:27 PM
Sorry TheObiJuan I didn't intend to suggest that you are....

Others earlier in the thread were pointing out the 350D is superior due to higher MP, so my statements where meant to be more broadly directed at any reader that may think that Pixel count is the be all and end all....

Nope. Read more of the thread. The bulk of the thread (well, before it deteriorates, that is), is spent on a mostly thoughtful discussion about resolution, upsizing and interpolation, as well as resolution and acutance and their relation to sharpness. This ensued from a silly claim that there was no difference between 6MP and 8MP. So, at least for most of us, we were NOT arguing for the XT based on its higher resolution.

Have more faith in us, even if we're Canon/Nikon guys. ;)

jeisner
05-02-2005, 10:44 PM
Actually Gabester you’re the one who turned the discussion into a 8MP is MUCH better than 6MP debate.... These quotes below are all from YOU in the post that started this debate in this thread.....


6 MP to 8 MP is not nothing. Sure, it's not a dramatic increase in resolution, but it gives you more room to crop. How'd you like it if you I took your sensor and trimmed 25% of the pixels off so that you'd be left with a 4.5 MP CCD?

For one it is a 14% difference in linear resolution not 25%...

As for cutting 25% of the pixels off my CCD, if it was the 4MP sensor from the Canon 1D I would be pretty happy with that, although it has less MP so according to your logic it must be crap...


As for things like contrast and sharpness, those can be adjusted with parameter settings. Higher noise levels and lower resolution, however, cannot.

The D70 actually has a larger sensor than the XT, Canon has just jammed more pixels into a smaller space and used more aggressive noise reduction to help people like you claim there is less noise.

This HOWEVER is a pointless debate as the difference are very MINOR but YOU seem to be the one who brought up the 8mp versus 6mp part of the measurebating in this thread.

ReF
05-02-2005, 11:01 PM
i guess if we're not arguing about this camera vs that camera, then we'll find something else to bicker about :rolleyes:

Rhys
05-03-2005, 05:51 AM
I had a dReb, but got the XT not because of the slightly higher resolution, but because the latter was smaller, lighter, faster, had more features, and wasn't crippled. Plus it was BLACK. Forget resolution - I think camera body color is the most critical thing when choosing a dSLR. Word.

Camera racism! :p

gabester
05-03-2005, 07:29 AM
Actually Gabester you’re the one who turned the discussion into a 8MP is MUCH better than 6MP debate.... These quotes below are all from YOU in the post that started this debate in this thread.....

Jeisner, you're putting words in my mouth. :) I claimed that 8MP is higher resolution than 6MP. I never said 8MP was much better, or even better than 6MP. My only goal was to refute the statement "6MP to 8MP is nothing", which is untrue. Note that I mentioned the ability to crop more as the advantage of the 8MP.


For one it is a 14% difference in linear resolution not 25%...

14% linear (1D) resolution...unfortunately sensors are two-dimensional. One-dimensional sensors are of no use to us. Let's say you have a plot of land measuring 300 ft by 200 ft (60,000 square ft). Your township decrees "you must give up a chunk of your land, and still maintain the relative dimensions (aspect ratio)". So they take away that chunk, and now you're left with a 260 ft by 173 ft plot (45,000 square ft). You complain to the township "you've taken 25% of my land away!" to which they respond "no...we've only taken 14% of your width away!". You say "oh...that's not that much", until your neighbor reminds you "dude...open your eyes...he's also taken 14% of your LENGTH away".


As for cutting 25% of the pixels off my CCD, if it was the 4MP sensor from the Canon 1D I would be pretty happy with that, although it has less MP so according to your logic it must be crap...

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that fewer megapixels equates to crap? I had an Audiovox 9900 0.3 MP camera phone that produced much better photos than the Motorola V710 1.3MP camera phone. Also, I used my Kodak 2MP camera from May 1999 to April 2004, when 6MP consumer cameras were already circulating, simply because I was happy with the results. That's over 4100 photos taken over 5 years


The D70 actually has a larger sensor than the XT, Canon has just jammed more pixels into a smaller space and used more aggressive noise reduction to help people like you claim there is less noise.

Yes, the D70 CCD is larger than the XT CMOS (hence the 1.5 vs. 1.6 crop factor). I'm not the only one claiming there's less noise - it's well documented graphically in tests from DP Review and Imaging Resource and can be seen in the high-ISO photos. Also, Canon hasn't just "jammed more pixels into a smaller space", it's also replaced the traditional CCD with the revolutionary (back in 2000) CMOS. The sensor has onboard noise reduction, electronic charge transfer and onboard gain amplification which is programmable. Prior to this CMOS sensors were relegated to very cheap, tiny digital cameras.


This HOWEVER is a pointless debate as the difference are very MINOR but YOU seem to be the one who brought up the 8mp versus 6mp part of the measurebating in this thread.

Sure, the resolution difference is minor. My only argument is that the resolution difference is not nothing. Only a naive person would say a camera with higher resolution is automatically a better camera. If we all thought like that, we'd be buying that Bell & Howell 12MP point and shoot. By the way, what's "measurebating"? Sounds illicit to me. :D

jeisner
05-03-2005, 09:10 AM
I can't be bothered continuing to argue technicalities that contribute so little to photography in general, its a waste of breath, well fingertips in this case LOL just a quick summary...


Sure, the resolution difference is minor. My only argument is that the resolution difference is not nothing.

OK, I'll buy that but I never said that, just that its importance is too often overrated.. I am just a little sick and tired of Canon people saying 'but the XT is 8mp' as if this ONE factor is supposed to mean something special. Unfortunately I think many of the people sold on this point really misunderstand its true level of importance, or lack thereof, in their ability to take quality photos.

More annoying is people saying X camera is better than Y even though they have never used Y, unfortunately I see this a lot from Canon users... I have used the 20D with some very nice L series lenses and it is a great camera. I actually prefer my *ist DS to the Canon (obviously as I bought it) and this from an informed position, having used both with quality lenses ;)


By the way, what's "measurebating"? Sounds illicit to me. :D

Well it refers to the constant lab test comparisons, like resolution charts to prove one camera is 'better' than another. [Completely ignoring real world use and a myriad of other factors that affect a cameras usability...]

/vent

gabester
05-03-2005, 09:33 AM
I am just a little sick and tired of Canon people saying 'but the XT is 8mp' as if this ONE factor is supposed to mean something special.

It only means that you have more room to crop. As someone who likes to crop, it means something to me. However, as I said before, I bought the XT because of the speed, size and feature advantage over the original dReb (my previous dSLR).


Unfortunately I think many of the people sold on this point really misunderstand its true level of importance, or lack thereof, in their ability to take quality photos.

Hey, we're in the dSLR forum here. :) Many of these people know photography and are very knowledgeable. I came in here to learn from them. I bet if you polled everyone here, no one would say that more resolution makes a camera better or a picture better. By the way, I've seen your photos and they are truly amazing. Do you ever make money from your work?


More annoying is people saying X camera is better than Y even though they have never used Y, unfortunately I see this a lot from Canon users... I have used the 20D with some very nice L series lenses and it is a great camera. I actually prefer my *ist DS to the Canon (obviously as I bought it) and this from an informed position, having used both with quality lenses ;)

I agree about the 20D. The istDS was my second choice after the XT. My first SLR was a Pentax. As for people saying X is better than Y without trying Y, that's where this whole forum thing comes in. Oh, and don't forget Jeff..he's used more cameras than ANYONE here.


Well it refers to the constant lab test comparisons, like resolution charts to prove one camera is 'better' than another. [Completely ignoring real world use and a myriad of other factors that affect a cameras usability...]

Okay. Whew! :p

Rhys
05-03-2005, 10:16 AM
It'll be interesting to see where this debate leads.

I'm waiting at the moment to see which new dSLRs come out because I'm sure there'll be a pretty good one soon from Olympus or Canon. There'll either be a D30 from Canon or an E-2 from Olympus. Sigma might amaze us all by producing a decent dSLR too.

The Pentax *ist has a good spec and interestingly enough was what our wedding photographer was using. I shall be interested to see the photos.

gabester
05-03-2005, 11:12 AM
I never noticed this in the XT review until today.

Maybe you guys are right. If Jeff thinks it's that much better maybe I should consider selling the D70 and buying an XT.

George, I started a thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7119) a while back with Jeff's quote. I'm surprised you didn't pounce on it then. :) Now as for the credibility of you selling your D70 and buying an XT....share some of your photos with us! ;)

DiJ
05-03-2005, 11:28 AM
I never noticed this in the XT review until today.

Maybe you guys are right. If Jeff thinks it's that much better maybe I should consider selling the D70 and buying an XT.

I really dont see any point in doing that. The D70 is still an excellent camera in its own right. Unless you really need MLU or do a lot of low light photography, I dont think it will be that much of a upgrade.

j26
05-03-2005, 06:01 PM
Hi, (first post btw so play nice :o )


Going back to the original question, I just bought a D70 (waiting for it to arrive) for the simple reason that the 350D just feels too small in my hands. I was all set to buy the 350D, but I went into a camera shop today and tried it out for size. I don't have huge hands but I wonder how someone who does could be comfortable holding it.

Im sure that the 350D is in some ways superior, but that doesn't matter when you want a camera to use every day. I don't know about anyone else, but I knew from holding the 350D for about 30 seconds that I would grow to hate it, because it was too fiddly in my hand, and I'd always have to be contorting myself to hold it properly. The difference in picture quality for me will be marginal enough to justify going for the "lesser" camera on comfort grounds alone. That extra money will get me a lens or two too.

Hth

Bluedog
05-03-2005, 09:04 PM
Hi, (first post btw so play nice :o )
That extra money will get me a lens or two too.

Hth

What extra money are you referring too? The D70 is more expensive than the 350D/XT or did I miss something in this thread ... :rolleyes:

Rex914
05-03-2005, 09:31 PM
What extra money are you referring too? The D70 is more expensive than the 350D/XT or did I miss something in this thread ... :rolleyes:

List price ($1199) yes and in most brick and mortar stores yes, but once you go online, funny things happen and once you combine those funny deals ($999) with rebates (-$100), it somehow ends up the same or lower ($899).

jeisner
05-03-2005, 09:38 PM
What extra money are you referring too? The D70 is more expensive than the 350D/XT or did I miss something in this thread ... :rolleyes:

Prices do vary a lot from country to country too, for example in many countries the *ist DS is more than the D70 or 300d/350d or at least even. Yet in Australia (where it sells well, go look at how many Dpreview Pentax SLR forum members are Australian) the Pentax distributer (CRK) is really trying to push the DS hard, so the price is considerably below that of the D70/350d and even 300d...

aparmley
05-03-2005, 09:41 PM
I agree blue I have only seen the body only D70 at 899. Anything with a lens, because its my understanding the kit lens is 300.00, your looking 1199. I have never seen it less than that I have seen it more than that also...but that was with dual lens combos... I just frequent the big camera online stores.. may the bestchoicedigitals out there have these bottom prices... but they aren't reputable so that just kinda rules that offer out... IDK.. point of the post is this, I have never seen a d70 sub 1199 unless it was just the body.
but rex is right there is a 100 rebate out there.. but I don't consider rebates, I only consider what is required of me out of pocket to purchase items... I hate how the best buys and circuit citys who advertised prices less the rebates.. that should be illegal in my honest opinion.. I want to know what is coming out of my pocket to get the item... with out playing the foot note game to read the extra tiny print to see the original price... I don't care what the end price of an item will be if I can remember to send off the rebate form, which automatically voids any attemtp to return the item because you just cut the upc code from the box, and then wait 6-10 weeks to see that check, just the out of pocket expense please, thats it, thanks, please drive thru.

gabester
05-03-2005, 10:43 PM
I would be willing to bet that the $8000 16MP Canon 1Ds Mark II would be a pretty good match to Hassy 120/220 rig. ;)

Funny...the guy who owns the Hasselblad at work calls it Hassy too (though he spells it Hassie). I'm guessing he's about your age (young grandfather). He also refers to the cycling equipment company Campagnolo as "Campy". Must be a 60's thing, this practice of giving elite brands funky nicknames.

j26
05-04-2005, 02:02 AM
What extra money are you referring too? The D70 is more expensive than the 350D/XT or did I miss something in this thread ... :rolleyes:

In the shops in my area (Ireland) a D70 with 18-70 lens is €1,349 ($1745) and the 350D (body only) is €1299 ($1,680). I got it on the interweb though for €815 ($1054). That's enough for l lenses I believe. The cheapest I could find the 350D on the web was @ €900 ($1,164) body only. I wasn't willing to import from the US or somewhere else as I don't want to get caught for import duty.

Maybe where you're from the situation is reversed.

jeisner
05-04-2005, 05:02 AM
In the shops in my area (Ireland).... Maybe where you're from the situation is reversed.

Gladly there are people on this forum from all over the world ;-)

jeisner
05-04-2005, 05:35 AM
I bet if you polled everyone here, no one would say that more resolution makes a camera better or a picture better.

You have more confidence than me, as having worked for a large retail chain (that sells a lot of cameras) I see many consumers and salesmen, who misunderstand the true meaning/importance of the MP count...

EXAMPLE: That Bell and Howell camera wouldn't bother spouting that their camera is 12mp if they didn't think the interpolation would mislead people!!!

Let just say I (vainly?) hope that if people who have this misconception, that read this thread, stop and consider more than just MP count when they buy a camera :)


By the way, I've seen your photos and they are truly amazing. Do you ever make money from your work?

I am still reletively new to this hobby myself so I appreciate the complement.. And no I have never tried to sell a photo, I only take photos for my own enjoyment... I'm glad you checked out the pbase account, I only started it recently, I should put more pictures up, but it is time consuming ;)


Oh, and don't forget Jeff..he's used more cameras than ANYONE here.

He unfortunately did not for whatever reason choose to test the ist DS, which is a shame, as he doesn't measurebate like another reviewer I can think of, and his review would have been interesting...


Okay. Whew! :p

LOL.... It is a fun term.... ;)

Bluedog
05-04-2005, 05:42 AM
Maybe where you're from the situation is reversed.

I'd say so as its totally opposite from that. The 350D must be a hot commodity in Ireland.

Ray Schnoor
05-04-2005, 06:25 AM
He unfortunately did not for whatever reason choose to test the ist DS, which is a shame, as he doesn't measurebate like another reviewer who is well known, and his review would have been interesting...

Actually, I don't think that Jeff chose to not review the Pentax *ist. Pentax chose not to provide a camera for him to review. I'm sure that Jeff would be happy to review the camera if they would send him one.

Ray.

jeisner
05-04-2005, 06:50 AM
Poor choice of words....

rewrite - "He unfortunately, for whatever reason, did not test the ist DS" ;-)

fire365
05-09-2005, 09:14 PM
I was in the same boat I have been reading everything I could on both cameras and from a specs perspective they both looked really appealing. Now I am going to be a photography student in the fall so I ended up choosing the d70 for many reasons. I didn't really have a stock in either company since the main cameras I had been using were a Sony 5mp point and shoot and an old school Minolta completely manual film slr. Now I have used my friends canon 10d and do think canon's set up is a little friendlier toward ammeters. I also know someone else with a D70 who I was able to get him to let me play with it a little. Now for me the rebel xt is just to shoty feeling, it has some nice features for the money but the built quality just feels cheep and way to light (I’m used to the beast of the Minolta). I also needed to be able to have more fine tuning aviliable at my fingertips. Now for you I would say the xt is probably the way to got if you’re not a real serious armatures I know many people who have the original rebels who are happy with them. I would just have to say that I would choose the D70 and that mega pixels don't always matter, the CCD and image processor really determine the quality of prints. (such as some of the higher end professional DSL’s only have 4mp but still kicking the hell out of and 8mp zlr or slr).

To make a long explanation shorter I choose the D70 but for you if you can stand the sketchy build quality you’re really getting a lot of bang for your buck on the rebel xt, the D70 will give you more room to grow creatively but the xt should be fine for any amateur or semi serous amateur.

ReF
05-09-2005, 09:34 PM
Now for you I would say the xt is probably the way to got if you’re not a real serious armatures I know many people who have the original rebels who are happy with them. I would just have to say that I would choose the D70 and that mega pixels don't always matter, the CCD and image processor really determine the quality of prints.
To make a long explanation shorter I choose the D70 but for you if you can stand the sketchy build quality you’re really getting a lot of bang for your buck on the rebel xt, the D70 will give you more room to grow creatively but the xt should be fine for any amateur or semi serous amateur.

LOL! please elaborate

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 09:52 PM
LOL! please elaborate

This because it is made of plastic and is a lil' smaller than the D70.
I find it funny that when people say that the xt wins over the D70 it is because it is lighter, the d70 guys then say, it is not that much lighter. A mere fraction of a pound. But when the D70 guys want to criticize the xt "toy", they attack the weight first??

So which one is it? How about some consistency?
The xt offers many features that pro's demand. As a matter of fact, having the 20D now and owning the 350D before I feel I am qualified to accurately judge. The 350D is seriously the best bang for the buck out there. It is almost 90% the camera that the 20D is for much cheaper.

The 350D has 2 less AF points, no ISO 3200 in camera, a few less hardly ever used custom functions, no jog wheel, and a slightly stronger body. This makes it a toy? Because the D70 lacks the same features... ;)

What is this about sketchy build quality? What real life experience do you have with either camera? Say, other than holding the camera in a store?
Do you have prolonged use with the 350D? Or is this just more internet banter?

ReF
05-09-2005, 10:02 PM
Obi, you quoting me or the other guy? :confused:

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 10:05 PM
Obi, you quoting me or the other guy? :confused:

hehe, him. I was just agreeing with what you said too.

Bluedog
05-09-2005, 10:08 PM
the D70 will give you more room to grow creatively but the xt should be fine for any amateur or semi serous amateur.

LMAO @ that statement ... :rolleyes:

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 10:25 PM
LMAO @ that statement ... :rolleyes:

haha, my sentiments exactly...
it is sig worthy! :D

jeisner
05-09-2005, 10:36 PM
The 350D has 2 less AF points, no ISO 3200 in camera, a few less hardly ever used custom functions, no jog wheel, and a slightly stronger body. This makes it a toy? Because the D70 lacks the same features... ;)

I'm bored so a Quick feature comparison, no opinions just hard specs...

Frame
- 20d - magnesium alloy body built around full metal frame
- Ist DS - Plastic body built around full metal frame
- 350d - Plastic body built around metal plate
- D70 - Plastic body built around metal plate

Maximum ISO in camera
- 20D = 3200
- ist DS = 3200
- 350d = 1600
- D70 = 1600

AF points:
- Ist DS has 11 AF areas (same system as the D2X)
- 20D has 9 AF points
- 350D has 7 AF points
- D70 has 5 AF points

Preview Screen
- Ist DS = 2" 210,000 pixels
- D70 = 1.8" 130,000 pixels
- 350D = 1.8" 118,000 pixels
- 20D = 1.8" 118,000 pixels

Viewfinder
- ist DS = Pentaprism .95x magnification
- 20D = Pentaprism 0.9x magnification
- 350D = Pentamirror 0.8x magnification
- D70 = Pentaprism 0.75x magnifictaion

Megapixels
- 20D = 8.2
- 350D = 8.2
- D70 = 6.2
- Ist DS = 6.2

Crop Factor
- 20D = 1.6
- 350D = 1.6
- D70 = 1.5
- Ist DS = 1.5

Internal Flash Sync (not external flash)
- D70 = 1/500
- 350D = 1/200
- 20D = 1/250
- Ist DS = 1/180

Maximum Shutter Speed
- D70 = 1/8000
- 20D = 1/8000
- Ist DS = 1/4000
- 350D = 1/4000

Alignment grid
- D70 = in built heads up style
- Ist DS = Available as replacement Focus Screen ($45)
- 350D = n/a
- 300D = n/a

There you go if anyone wants to argue based on specs ;-)

Can suggest more if you like, I will edit/add to the post...

D70FAN
05-09-2005, 10:40 PM
This because it is made of plastic and is a lil' smaller than the D70.
I find it funny that when people say that the xt wins over the D70 it is because it is lighter, the d70 guys then say, it is not that much lighter. A mere fraction of a pound. But when the D70 guys want to criticize the xt "toy", they attack the weight first??

So which one is it? How about some consistency?
The xt offers many features that pro's demand. As a matter of fact, having the 20D now and owning the 350D before I feel I am qualified to accurately judge. The 350D is seriously the best bang for the buck out there. It is almost 90% the camera that the 20D is for much cheaper.

The 350D has 2 less AF points, no ISO 3200 in camera, a few less hardly ever used custom functions, no jog wheel, and a slightly stronger body. This makes it a toy? Because the D70 lacks the same features... ;)

What is this about sketchy build quality? What real life experience do you have with either camera? Say, other than holding the camera in a store?
Do you have prolonged use with the 350D? Or is this just more internet banter?

What real life experience do you have with the D70? *ist DS? E-300? 7D? 1Ds? D2H? 1D...Or any other dSLR?

Sorry, really, couldn't resist. Just popped in. ;)

Bluedog
05-09-2005, 10:40 PM
haha, my sentiments exactly...
it is sig worthy! :D

Looks kinda cool uh? ... ;)

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 10:41 PM
I am sure someone will bring up the 1/500 sync on the D70, but I don't care as I use a speedlight.

jeisner
05-09-2005, 10:42 PM
What real life experience do you have with the D70? *ist DS? E-300? 7D? 1Ds? D2H? 1D...Or any other dSLR?

;-) was thinking the same thing to be honest, just didn't want to be the one to say it....

jeisner
05-09-2005, 10:43 PM
I am sure someone will bring up the 1/500 sync on the D70, but I don't care as I use a speedlight.

DONE!!! :cool:

D70FAN
05-09-2005, 10:54 PM
I'm bored so a Quick feature comparison, no opinions just hard specs...

Preview Screen
- Ist DS = 2" 210,000 pixels
- D70 = 1.8" 130,000 pixels
- 350D = 1.8" 118,000 pixels
- 20D = 1.8" 118,000 pixels

There you go if anyone wants to argue based on specs ;-)

Can suggest more if you like, I will edit/add to the post...

Correction: 350-D = 1.8" 115,000 pixels.

You forgot...

1/8000 sec shutter speed.

1/500sec internal flash sync.

Viewfinder allignment grid overlay.

Standard 3 cell CR2 battery pack.

Dual quick-set thumbwheel/fingerwheel setting.

Sorry, another pop-in.

jeisner
05-09-2005, 10:58 PM
Correction: 350-D = 1.8" 115,000 pixels.

You forgot...

1/8000 sec shutter speed.

1/500sec internal flash sync.

Viewfinder allignment grid overlay.

Standard 3 cell CR2 battery pack.

Dual quick-set thumbwheel/fingerwheel setting.

Sorry, another pop-in.


OK adding these!!! and moved to seperate thread...

Bluedog
05-09-2005, 11:11 PM
D70: USB 2.0 (Full Speed, similar transfer rate to USB 1.1)

350D/XT: USB 2.0 High Speed

jeisner
05-09-2005, 11:22 PM
D70: USB 2.0 (Full Speed, similar transfer rate to USB 1.1)

350D/XT: USB 2.0 High Speed

Done! (in new/seperate thread)

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Correction: 350-D = 1.8" 115,000 pixels.

You forgot...

1/8000 sec shutter speed.

1/500sec internal flash sync.

Viewfinder allignment grid overlay.

Standard 3 cell CR2 battery pack.

Dual quick-set thumbwheel/fingerwheel setting.

Sorry, another pop-in.

hey George, your input is really appreciated.

DiJ
05-09-2005, 11:40 PM
The rebelXT is light yes but definitely not built cheap or flimsy. Infact IMO its one of the more solidly built cameras around. And FYI everything else being the same, a larger heavier camera is less likely to survive a fall than a smaller lighter one.

Both D70 and XT has some unique features. Choose whats important to you.

D70+
1/500 flash sync
wireless flash
dual selection dials
1/8000sec shutter (vs 1/4000 on the XT)
spot metering
Kelvin WB adjustment
Excellent Nikon Capture RAW software(with moire reduction)

D70-
No MLU
jpg output plagued by moire
Included RAW software has no digital exp, WB adjustment or moire reduction
Nikon Capture comes at a price
playback magnification only up to 4.7X, not enough to evaluate focus
No iso100

RebelXT+
Relatively low noise up to iso1600
MLU useful for negating blur in lowlight or telephoto shots
Out of camera jpeg quality(close to processed RAW)
WB shift function.
2 RAW converters included (Raw image task and DPP)
Smaller and lighter
Playback magnification up to 10X
3fps up to 14 frames (vs 12 frames on D70)

RebelXT-
Shutter limited to 1/4000s
1/200s max flas sync
LCD a little dim at default setting
iso, wb and focus mode needs set depressed to affect change

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 11:53 PM
LCD a little dim at default setting

I have noticed no difference in the brightness bw the 20D and the 350D..

DiJ
05-09-2005, 11:57 PM
Both of them are dim. :D Even after turning up the brightness LCDs on my canon P&Ss are much brighter.

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 07:25 AM
The rebelXT is light yes but definitely not built cheap or flimsy. Infact IMO its one of the more solidly built cameras around. And FYI everything else being the same, a larger heavier camera is less likely to survive a fall than a smaller lighter one.

Both D70 and XT has some unique features. Choose whats important to you.

D70+
1/500 flash sync
wireless flash
dual selection dials
1/8000sec shutter (vs 1/4000 on the XT)
spot metering
Kelvin WB adjustment
Excellent Nikon Capture RAW software(with moire reduction)

D70-

No MLU - But doesn't need it.

jpg output plagued by moire - Out of 8000 shots I have 3 with minor moire.

Included RAW software has no digital exp, WB adjustment or moire reduction
Nikon Capture comes at a price - Nobody uses Nikon Capture.

playback magnification only up to 4.7X, not enough to evaluate focus - Works for me. D70s has a 2" LCD to compensate a little.

No iso100 - Good point, but you would really have to scan carefully to see the difference.

RebelXT+
Relatively low noise up to iso1600 - Very useful, but again how often do you shoot at ISO1600? When you do Noise Ninja can take care of most of it.

MLU useful for negating blur in lowlight or telephoto shots - Definately a requirement on Canon cameras, but not really a competitive feature.

Out of camera jpeg quality(close to processed RAW) - Same with most dSLR's

WB shift function. Guess I need to read up on this one ???

2 RAW converters included (Raw image task and DPP) - Not a camera feature.

Smaller and lighter - wait until you put a good f2.8 zoom on there.

Playback magnification up to 10X - Good feature.

3fps up to 14 frames (vs 12 frames on D70) - Kinda nit-pick, but the D70 will keep shooting in medium JPEG for 144 frames.


RebelXT-
Shutter limited to 1/4000s
1/200s max flas sync
LCD a little dim at default setting
iso, wb and focus mode needs set depressed to affect change

DiJ
05-10-2005, 08:34 AM
D70-

No MLU - But doesn't need it.

jpg output plagued by moire - Out of 8000 shots I have 3 with minor moire.

Included RAW software has no digital exp, WB adjustment or moire reduction
Nikon Capture comes at a price - Nobody uses Nikon Capture.

.

OK you wont need MLU if you always shoot at a higher than 1/60s shutter. I am not trying to upt down the D70 but the fact is all DSLR are affected by mirror slap in the 1sec-1/60sec shutter range. Unless the D70 have tiny mirror mechanism with little or no mass and actuates it a much slower rate, I dont see it why it wont be affect by mirror slap. If you can feel the mirror vibration in your hand, then it needs MLU. The only cameras that doesnt need MLU are compact digicams.

No ones use Nikon capture? Its one of the greatest advantage of going Nikon with its array of advanced tools like shadow ehancement and perspective control. The difference between this and out of camera Jpeg are night and day. What do you use for RAW conversion BTW?

erichlund
05-10-2005, 09:29 AM
D70-

No MLU - But doesn't need it.

Included RAW software has no digital exp, WB adjustment or moire reduction
Nikon Capture comes at a price - Nobody uses Nikon Capture.

2 RAW converters included (Raw image task and DPP) - Not a camera feature.

Smaller and lighter - wait until you put a good f2.8 zoom on there.

Playback magnification up to 10X - Good feature.

3fps up to 14 frames (vs 12 frames on D70) - Kinda nit-pick, but the D70 will keep shooting in medium JPEG for 144 frames.

I've snipped out the items that I totally agree with and have nothing to add...

So far, I haven't seen a negative to no MLU, but that's not to say I won't eventually. It would be nice to have. It's not like it's a difficult thing.

So, just call me Mr. Nobody. I have to admit, I've been playing with RAW Essentials, but I use and trust Nikon Capture (and yes, it's really slow, which kinda bothers this software engineer). These days I shoot RAW + JPEG so when I download the card to my iPod Photo, I can see the JPEGs. I don't know much about Canon's converters, but the fact that they include them is a big plus to me.

The whole weight thing is a personal preference item. Some people like a light camera, some prefer a hefty camera. I agree though. Once you start adding big glass, there are no light cameras, but some would say that a hefty, well constructed camera, can better handle the big glass. Of course, it's not an issue if the lens has a tripod mount (and a tripod is used).

I guess it's just the SW engineer in me, but I don't understand why it would not be just as easy to provide unlimited magnification as it is to provide 4x or 10x. It's just mapping fewer and fewer pixels in the screen area. The software would be different, but not necessarily more difficult.

12...14... I mean, really. Whoop-de-doo. If you are a pro sports shooter, these are not the cameras for you. If you are a soccer mom/dad, OK, but the difference is negligible. For the rest of us, I rarely snap more than one at a time. YMMV.

Cheers,
Eric

TheObiJuan
05-10-2005, 10:19 AM
ISO 100 is a big difference, especially when coupled with the 20D's 1/250 sync speed, it is the same ammount of light at ISO 200 1/500 sec.

Moire was more than visibile in atleast 3 of the 12 or so pics on this site. I dunno...

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 10:45 AM
OK you wont need MLU if you always shoot at a higher than 1/60s shutter. I am not trying to upt down the D70 but the fact is all DSLR are affected by mirror slap in the 1sec-1/60sec shutter range. Unless the D70 have tiny mirror mechanism with little or no mass and actuates it a much slower rate, I dont see it why it wont be affect by mirror slap. If you can feel the mirror vibration in your hand, then it needs MLU. The only cameras that doesnt need MLU are compact digicams.

No ones use Nikon capture? Its one of the greatest advantage of going Nikon with its array of advanced tools like shadow ehancement and perspective control. The difference between this and out of camera Jpeg are night and day. What do you use for RAW conversion BTW?

You may have a valid point. But, maybe good mirror damping helps keep this to a minimum. I have never noticed a vibration problem, in the lower shutter speed shots, even on a tripod, but then maybe I'm not looking for it.

Thanks for catching that miscue... I meant... nobody uses Nikons free (Nikon View) software package. I have not yet needed/used Nikon Capture but I know a lot of people use it.

I'm using Adobe CameraRAW 2.2. And for a quick fix RSE.

Thanks also for the reminder. Maybe I'll give Nikon Capture a try this weekend as well, as I am starting to shoot in NEF quite a bit, and there are a couple of handy things in Nikon Capture that I want to try.

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 11:17 AM
D70: USB 2.0 (Full Speed, similar transfer rate to USB 1.1)

350D/XT: USB 2.0 High Speed

OK. A show of hands... How many of you connect your dSLR to your computer? Generally I shoot 2 to 5 CF cards over a weekend, so I never download from the camera.

On the other hand, maybe there are a lot of people who do, so I guess it would be handy. Odd that Nikon added USB2.0HS to the D50, but not the D70s. Maybe it's an entry level thing, as many people using all-in-ones are used to downloading from their cameras.

DiJ
05-10-2005, 11:22 AM
I dont. Much faster with a card reader.

2-5 CF cards per week. Wow! I am impressed. :D See you at the photo galleries.

Cold Snail
05-10-2005, 11:33 AM
Card reader here, from my prosumer days when the battery would die before the upload was complete.

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 11:34 AM
I dont. Much faster with a card reader.

2-5 CF cards per week. Wow! I am impressed. :D See you at the photo galleries.

Don't be (impressed, that is). I've started shooting primarily NEF (RAW) and use a couple of 512's and a few 256's so they fill up pretty fast. Unfortuantely, my throughput has gone way down using RAW, but I'm working on getting used to a different work-flow (It's called being lazy).

Bluedog
05-10-2005, 05:01 PM
OK. A show of hands... How many of you connect your dSLR to your computer? Generally I shoot 2 to 5 CF cards over a weekend, so I never download from the camera.

On the other hand, maybe there are a lot of people who do, so I guess it would be handy. Odd that Nikon added USB2.0HS to the D50, but not the D70s. Maybe it's an entry level thing, as many people using all-in-ones are used to downloading from their cameras.

I have a card reader and use it too but also use the fast USB2 of the XT. Let me see now, constant removal of CF card from camera can lead to degradation of contacts on the card over time ... :rolleyes:

Oh but of course too I have a highend PC to compliment it.

jeisner
05-10-2005, 05:08 PM
Don't be (impressed, that is). I've started shooting primarily NEF (RAW) and use a couple of 512's and a few 256's so they fill up pretty fast. Unfortuantely, my throughput has gone way down using RAW, but I'm working on getting used to a different work-flow (It's called being lazy).

Shooting RAW is well worth it IMO, I haven't shot JPEG in months...

A USB OTG Portable Storage device is a good investment for shooting RAW, very cheap way to store 30G+ while on the road...

jeisner
05-10-2005, 05:13 PM
OK. A show of hands... How many of you connect your dSLR to your computer? Generally I shoot 2 to 5 CF cards over a weekend, so I never download from the camera.

On the other hand, maybe there are a lot of people who do, so I guess it would be handy. Odd that Nikon added USB2.0HS to the D50, but not the D70s. Maybe it's an entry level thing, as many people using all-in-ones are used to downloading from their cameras.

I connect my camera direct to my portable storage device it is USB 'On The Go' enabled and USB2(HS). So I have it and usb cable in my bag, plug camera in, hit 'copy' on the portable storage device and it dumps everything off the card in the camera onto the device... This way I only have 1x512mb card and a 30GB storage device which cost me about the same as a 1GB card...

Bluedog
05-10-2005, 05:23 PM
What brand OTG device do ya'll recommend?

jeisner
05-10-2005, 05:29 PM
Mine is a no-name one (cheap chineses) works fine for the time being, it has to connect to the camera to download... Hence the advantage of USB2 HS in my camera...

Eventually I will get one that has a card reader built it so I don't need to connect the PC to camera...

A few friends use the PD7X and it seems to be a very good unit... Will most likely be the one I purchase in the future...

http://fhoude34.free.fr/PD7x%20Review.htm

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 07:49 PM
I have a card reader and use it too but also use the fast USB2 of the XT. Let me see now, constant removal of CF card from camera can lead to degradation of contacts on the card over time ... :rolleyes:

Oh but of course too I have a highend PC to compliment it.

So you only have 1 card... or do you swap between several cards? If so... the wear and tear is there, so beware. :eek:

Bluedog
05-10-2005, 07:57 PM
So you only have 1 card... or do you swap between several cards? If so... the wear and tear is there, so beware. :eek:

I only have one 32MB card ... :D

speaklightly
05-10-2005, 08:42 PM
BlueDog-

In all fairness we have to give George a whole lot of credit. He has produced some great digital photos using just a 32mb chip. That takes some doing!

Sarah Joyce

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 10:20 PM
BlueDog-

In all fairness we have to give George a whole lot of credit. He has produced some great digital photos using just a 32mb chip. That takes some doing!

Sarah Joyce

Did I miss something somewhere? Rewind...

Oh, and welcome back. How was the cruise?

Bluedog
05-10-2005, 10:42 PM
Dang jeisner ... something else to consider buying ... :( ... anyway I've got 3-1GB, 1-512MB and 1-256MB SanDisk Ultra II CF cards for my daily RAW shooting. I'm bringing along the wifes Laptop on our coming up trip so I'll be able to unload everything as needed.

D70FAN
05-11-2005, 07:13 AM
Shooting RAW is well worth it IMO, I haven't shot JPEG in months...

A USB OTG Portable Storage device is a good investment for shooting RAW, very cheap way to store 30G+ while on the road...

Yes, RAW is definately the way to go... and I've gone. In fact I just downloaded the most recent version of Nikon Capture and have to admit I like it better than the Adobe plug-in.

I was thinking about a PSD, but since I have my (4 pound) laptop with me 100% of the time when traveling it's not a problem. With two 40GB USB2.0HS external drives and the main 60GB drive there is plenty of room.

D70FAN
05-11-2005, 07:15 AM
Dang jeisner ... something else to consider buying ... :( ... anyway I've got 3-1GB, 1-512MB and 1-256MB SanDisk Ultra II CF cards for my daily RAW shooting. I'm bringing along the wifes Laptop on our coming up trip so I'll be able to unload everything as needed.

Bluedog, I tried this one, from PQI at Embeded Systems Conference and it is very nice:

http://www.pqimemory.com/

Ray Schnoor
05-11-2005, 09:08 AM
OK, you guys have convinced me to try some shots with RAW format. If you get me hooked, I guess I will have to get a few 1-2 GB cards.

Ray.

Bluedog
05-11-2005, 10:20 AM
Bluedog, I tried this one, from PQI at Embeded Systems Conference and it is very nice:

http://www.pqimemory.com/

Thanks George ... looks like I better win some money in Vegas and I'm not even what I'd call a gambler ... :o

D70FAN
05-12-2005, 06:03 PM
Thanks George ... looks like I better win some money in Vegas and I'm not even what I'd call a gambler ... :o

Ah... you will notice that I only TRIED one. Nice though.

I have a $750, four-pound, laptop, with a USB2.0 card reader, that works just as well, along with an 802.11G wireless card and a T-mobile account, when a Starbucks appears. :rolleyes: Which is almost anywhere.

P.S. Look up "ubiquitous" in the dictionary and there is a Starbucks picture there. ;)