Canon 350D or Nikon D70?

[longq]

Local Jessops had a 350D to play with today but there a number of people looking at the time and I didn't have time to wait.

Did see the the pricing war is on though.

350D with 18-55 Lens 694.50

D70 deals

28-80 G lens 679.99 (after Nikon 50 quid cash back)

18-70 DX lens 699.99 (after Nikon 100 cash back)

And there was another deal with a 150 cash back but not sure what the package was.

[nubbin]

Thanks for all the replies chaps!

In the end, I've gone for a 350D. Why? Because I already have a 300D, and I have sold that to my practice as a camera for taking macro photos of medical stuff, and obviously the camera handling will be similar.

It arrived yesterday, so I've not had much chance to have a go. First impressions compared to 300D:-

It's black

The rough finish to the body makes it much more obvious that it's plastic, rather than the faux metal silver of the 300D, but the metal function dial is more solid. In particular the flash cover feels plasticky, though still nice and solid.

The body is TINY in comparison - at least a third smaller. It makes the 300D look enormous and clunky, whereas the 350D feels more like a high end "virtual SLR" type - like the top end Finepix or Dimage EVF models.

Startup is virtually instant - click the on switch and it's ready long before you get eye to viewfinder - very impressive.

Focussing is much quicker, more accurate and better in low light. Focus assist from the flash is much quicker to operate as well. I know it's the same standard lens, but it does seem a lot quicker - tweaked perhaps?

The shutter is slightly noisier, but seems more rapid in response to pressing the shutter release - it snaps into use (excuse the pun!) much more readily, rather than the slightly lazy feel to the 300D.

Some of the function buttons have migrated to the backplate - exposure compensation etc. I've not had enough time with the camera to get a feel for whether this has improved function/ergonomics.

In summary, everything feels better except the surface finish. All functions feel quicker, sharper and more accurate, and the camera feels smaller, lighter and much more nimble in handling.

All I need to do now is match my photograhic skills to the camera (that should keep me busy for at least 20 years!!)

[Methanol]

You have made the right choose, IMO It was a no brainer, the D70 doesn’t even stack up to the 300D let alone the 350.

Try to get your hands on the March issue of Practical Photography; it has a full review in there. When it comes to digital, I think it’s common knowledge Canon leads the way.

A minimum of 200 ISO???

Plus if you are going to get the Canon lenses, you will find a big difference there also.

I was in Jacobs not too long ago, a friend behind the counter was telling me how a lot of the professionals with £10,000 - £20,000 worth of Nikon gear were taking big trade in losses, trading in for Canon. NO JOKE!

However when it comes to film, Nikons F6 is pretty hard to beat.

As for resolution… Just try finding a 1Ds MK II (16.7 mega pixels) in stock, and check the back orders on it also.

[-DeaDLocK-]

Methanol said:

You have made the right choose, IMO It was a no brainer, the D70 doesn’t even stack up to the 300D let alone the 350.

Yeah, and that's EXACTLY why most peeps on here opted for a D70 over the 300D even though it was more expensive.

And of COURSE the lack of spot metering, along with the awful frame rate (the D70 manages DOUBLE the number of frames a 300D can in a 20-second burst) and the ridiculous boot time are all WONDERFUL attributes of the 300D.

Unless you were on a tight budget or had a vested bias towards Canon for whatever reason, you'd have to be irrational and blind to opt for the D70 over the 300D.

The new 350D is a different kettle of fish, and I've got lots of respect for Canon equipment, but the 300D being a no-brainer winner in a contest with the D70?



Puh-leaseeeeee.

[-DeaDLocK-]

Methanol said:

Plus if you are going to get the Canon lenses, you will find a big difference there also.

Only in terms of range. What Nikon do offer however for us non-pro peeps are a good enough range of non-pro lenses, and more importantly, at usually cheaper price points than the Canon counterparts. Also I hear no reports of, when compared like for like, Canon lenses being any better than the Nikons.

Methanol said:

I was in Jacobs not too long ago, a friend behind the counter was telling me how a lot of the professionals with £10,000 - £20,000 worth of Nikon gear were taking big trade in losses, trading in for Canon. NO JOKE!.

This does not surprise me at all - Canon lead the way with all their L-series and IS lenses, and pros who can afford the best simply cannot wait for Nikon to catch up. Nikon's actualy VR implementation is as good as Canon's IS, but the trouble is they don't manufacture many lenses that feature it. For us humble peeps however who really can't afford the majority of these fancy gyroscopic lenses, the market is even in my opinion.

As I said, I have immense respect for Canon as a company and I see the competition as healthy for both. But please, I think there is a need on both parts to recognise when either company has the upper hand and acknowledge it.

I'd have bought into Canon at the time of my purchase had the 300D not been such an underperformer compared to the D70, but fact is, it was.

[Methanol]

Maybe you have misunderstood, he has made the right choice in getting the 350 not the 300.

Yes you are right,

-DeaDLocK- said:

And of COURSE the lack of spot metering, along with the awful frame rate (the D70 manages DOUBLE the number of frames a 300D can in a 20-second burst) and the ridiculous boot time are all WONDERFUL attributes of the 300D

All that don't add up to crap when the images are not clear. I don't want to keep repeating myself, try to get your hands on the March issue of Practical Photography; it has a full review in there.

-DeaDLocK- said:

The new 350D is a different kettle of fish, and I've got lots of respect for Canon equipment, but the 300D being a no-brainer winner in a contest with the D70?

Sorry, maybe I should have said, "pertaining to image quality"

-DeaDLocK- said:

Only in terms of range. What Nikon do offer however for us non-pro peeps are a good enough range of non-pro lenses, and more importantly, at usually cheaper price points than the Canon counterparts. Also I hear no reports of, when compared like for like, Canon lenses being any better than the Nikons.

I was talking about the L lenses, which is why most people go for Canon in the first place.

Do you seriously think the only advantage of a Canon L lens with IS over it's Nikon counterpart is the IS part of it? Puh-leaseeeeee.

Sorry, but you clearly do not know either product beyond a basic knowledge

[-DeaDLocK-]

I think we agree to disagree. At the end of the day I have Nikon kit that I really enjoy using, and even when attempting to use my mate's 20D and lenses I couldn't get my head round the basics. Also we've been out on a couple of expeditions (and he uses only L lenses) and when we've come back and compared shots down to the finest detail the differences have been resolutely marginal and certainly not worth splitting hairs over - and I'm talking about noise, colour, tone - i.e. the whole lot.

I agree that in controlled environments the Canons have the edge over the Nikons in terms of pure image quality (the comparison photos alone prove this), but I can honestly say this does not bother me in the slightest, because to me the differences are so marginal and out in the field it means nothing.

What would bother me is the lack of spot-metering (which I use a lot), the slow frame rate (even though the D70 isn't really fast enough for action applications anyway) and probably most importantly the boot-up time (can you imagine whipping the camera out, turning it on and then having to wait three seconds to take your photo?). That final point was a major 300D gripe and one that Canon fixed with the 350D.

These are the series of conclusions that led me to my purchase of the Nikon, and quite frankly I use decent Nikon lenses whenever I can afford them (my flagship is the pro 70-200 VR) and I am perfectly happy with them.

Also there are many ardent photographers on this forum who bought the D70 over the 300D so clearly they all must be as deluded and unknowledgeable as I am. And when DPReview, who have to be the most comprehensive and knowledgeable camera reviewers on the planet, say "There's no risk involved in the D70's slightly higher price compared to the EOS 300D (Digital Rebel), it's absolutely worth it", my guess you think they're deluded too.

With the 350D the game is on - my point was that all things considered, the D70 trumps the 300D as a general entry-level dSLR purchase.

You of course can disagree if you wish.

>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Wednesday 23 March 15:59

[simpo two]

Methanol said:

You have made the right choose, IMO It was a no brainer, the D70 doesn’t even stack up to the 300D let alone the 350.

Umm - read the reviews.

Methanol said:

A minimum of 200 ISO???

You're right, it's really apalling. Every time I look at a picture taken with the D70, I'm crushed because all I can see is noise. Yeah, right.

Methanol said:

Plus if you are going to get the Canon lenses, you will find a big difference there also.

Yes, I hear the Canon 18-55mm is worth more melted down.

Methanol said:

I was in Jacobs not too long ago, a friend behind the counter was telling me how a lot of the professionals with £10,000 - £20,000 worth of Nikon gear were taking big trade in losses, trading in for Canon. NO JOKE!

At that level, Canon by all accounts are ahead. But we're talking about entry level here, not £10-20K.

Let's face it, if the D70 was as awful as you maintain, they woudln't have sold any. But somehow, against all odds, they did.

[-DeaDLocK-]

Methanol said:

Do you seriously think the only advantage of a Canon L lens with IS over it's Nikon counterpart is the IS part of it?

When compared with a lens from Nikon's pro range that doesn't have VR, yes I do.

I went through all this when I bought my camera, and certainly if any of the comparison shots of Canon's L 70-200 IS and Nikon's 70-200 VR were anything to go by, there was absolutely NOTHING in it. But you see, the Nikon is cheaper...

[-DeaDLocK-]

simpo two said:

Yes, I hear the Canon 18-55mm is worth more melted down.

Do you know they still bundle that sort of junk with the new 350D and 20D?

They make such good lenses at the upper range that it really is a mini-insult to give those away as "kit" lenses, especially on a body like the 20D.

[Methanol]

simpo two said:

Umm - read the reviews.

I did, or did I not make that clear enough?

Believe it or not, noise is a major factor whether you want to admit it or not. Even basic compacts have a lower ISO rating then 200. You would be a good contender for Neat Image Pro, here's the address: www.neatimage.com

How many more times, I'm talking about L lenses, is this how you think you are going to prove your point, by miss quoting me? I completely agree, the bundled lenses that come with are ridiculous. If you are going to go that route, just go get a good compact.

The whole idea behind a good SLR/DSLR is the lens; so again, if you are on a budget get a good compact.

-DeaDLocK- said:

When compared with a lens from Nikon's pro range that doesn't have VR, yes I do. I went through all this when I bought my camera, and certainly if any of the comparison shots of Canon's L 70-200 IS and Nikon's 70-200 VR were anything to go by, there was absolutely NOTHING in it. But you see, the Nikon is cheaper...

SPEED!!!


Two friends of mine who are photojournalists not long in the business went a bought the D70 as backup cameras due to the fact the rest of there kit is Nikon, at first they said it was a nice camera, now they have done a complete 180 and can't wait to get rid of them. I can't be bothered to go into detail the reasons, they are in the review, besides you have your blinkers on.

[-DeaDLocK-]

Methanol said:

How many more times, I'm talking about L lenses, is this how you think you are going to prove your point, by miss quoting me? I completely agree, the bundled lenses that come with are ridiculous. If you are going to go that route, just go get a good compact.

And yes, with the L lenses, Canon are simply superb. But a first-time buyer of a 300D, and we're being realistic here, is not going to align his camera bag with an arsenal of L lenses is he? Nor does your average new Nikon buyer who gets a D70 going to splash out thousands on Nikon gold-ringed lenses, right?

You may be talking about the L lenses here, but as we're talking about the D70 and the 300D, we're talking about entry to mid-range glass, a sector which in my opinion is level-pegging between the two makes. So it appears we have a case of crossed wires, and we may be actually saying the same thing.

Methanol said:

SPEED!!!

Yes, once again we are in agreement. Sort of. You see Nikon took a long time to combine both AF-S and VR in a single lens. A long long long time actually, when it should really have been a strategy from the outset. Canon on the other hand had a huge line-up of glass featuring both IS and USM, so many Nikon pros converted. And with good reason - once you've used both on a lens there is no turning back.

But not anymore. Not now. Canon still have the strong edge with an excellent array of full-featured L lenses, but Nikon in the past couple of years have been spurting out Pro lenses that feature both AF-S and VR like rabbits. And Nikon's AF-S, in my experience, works just as well as Canon's USM and it's VR Canon's IS.

So today, I don't think it's THAT clear cut anymore (though if I had a limitless budget right now I would definitely go Canon).

You mention your photojournalist friends - they're PROs!!! Most of the guys here are not! Again, we're not talking about people with lots of money to spend here - we're talking about people who buy 300D and D70s! For most of these people L series lenses and pro Nikkors are way out of their league, so are completely moot anyway. I accept that many buy budget dSLRs as backup bodies or those with pro kit who are wary about going digital may go in entry-level to begin with, so there ARE 300D and D70 users out there with pro lenses, but in the grand scheme of things I'm positive this is a tiny minority of the user base.

As a first-time-buyer's proposition I would give Canon FAR more credit if they bundled a decent lens with the 300D/350D, seeing that many who buy these cameras will purchase no other lens. Just for the record, the AF-S lens bundled with the D70 is a peach of a lens, especially considering that it's merely a "kit" lens.

I think we may be arguing on different wavelengths here. Anyway it started with you claiming that the 300D is totally superior to the D70 (still laughing), and though you may still think that it is the better camera, come onnnn - to say the Nikon doesn't stack up is a bit of an overstatement doncha think?

And for the record, I can see NO NOISE on my ISO 200 pics when compared with ISO 100 on my mate's 20D. Same subject, same exposure (less the one stop of course).



Keeping it friendly,
D

>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Wednesday 23 March 18:05

[simpo two]

Methanol said:

I did, or did I not make that clear enough?

I've not read a sinlge review that puts the 300D ahead of the D70. But of course, if you're reading a review from the 300D Owners Magazine, it may be different. Perosnally I prefer to take photos rather than go to bed with a load of reviews and a box of tissues.

Methanol said:

Believe it or not, noise is a major factor whether you want to admit it or not.

Well it's not important to me. I'm quite happy with the results I get - again, I don't use a magnifying glass and a box of tissues - and 43 of my photographs, framed and mounted, are currently on public exhibition. And they look fine, whether you want to admit it or not.

Methanol said:

How many more times, I'm talking about L lenses, is this how you think you are going to prove your point, by miss quoting me?

The post of yours that I quoted made no mention of L lenses.

Methanol said:

If you are going to go that route, just go get a good compact.

Frankly, I'm starting to find you insulting and patronising. If you can't find a more pleasant way of expressing your opinions, please find another forum to bludgeon your views upon.

[sjn2004]

toppstuff said:

Bacardi said: Frankly, this is meaningless. As far as I can see, when we start comparing blow ups of bottle lables we have forgotten the whole point of taking pictures in the first place. The differences above could be explained by a lot more than just the number of pixels. How much sharpening is involved, and do the two cameras have the same level of sharpening at default "0" level or are they different? Maybe the Canon has a higher level of sharpening at default? And why at 800ASA? Why not 400, or 200 ASA? What does it prove? Nothing, as far as I can see. One of the best photographers on PH is GetCarter. He has some lovely work on his site: www.stevecarter.com Only 5mp on a lot of that stuff..... Comparing pictures of bottles means nothing when we should be looking at real pictures of quality, IMO, like those on Steve's site. ( and apologies to Steve for singling him out, but his stuff is very good and he's a reminder to me that the newest, latest, most megapixel laden stuff does not actually improve the photograph.....only I can do that by going out and taking more pictures, whatever camera I 've got. Buying the latest 8mp jobbie is irrelevent when clearly 4 or 5 mp will do )

Maybe you could pass the D70 sample through USM and get it looking the same as the 20D?

Of course noise/ISO matters, you pay big bucks for one extra stop with a fast lens.

[sjn2004]

Wasn't the D70 the response to the 10D rather than the 300D? Its a good camera but on paper the 20D/350 beat it. I would suggest any prospective buyer to handle each camera then decide.

You guys seem to have forgotten about Sigma lenses, they aren't too expensive and some are very good.

[pug406]

Methanol said:

The D70 doesn’t even stack up to the 300D let alone the 350.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS