Canon 350D or Nikon D70?
Discussion
I'm not aware that anyone on this forum actually has a 350 so you aren't likely to get much info about it... D70s however, well there is some sort of clud you could join if you buy one 
It's probably a while till we'll know how the 350 and D70 stack up. If it were me I would wait, as much as I love my D70, the 350 does look good.
It's probably a while till we'll know how the 350 and D70 stack up. If it were me I would wait, as much as I love my D70, the 350 does look good.
Have a look at the other thread currently running on the same topic: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=163507&f=109&h=0
beano500 said:Yes, the resolution increase from 6 to 8 does not equal a proportionate increase in actual linear dimensions - in fact the difference is very marginal and if I were in your position the difference in resolution would be low on my list of deciding factors.
But - in some seriousness - don't get fooled by the Megadifferences. 6.1 and 8 aren't that far apart. Anyway, the images are more important than the kit.
The Canons though have consistently proven themselves to be sharper and have better noise-handling and outright image quality than the Nikons. The 300D itself, aside from being able to shoot at ISO 100, simply produced better images than the D70 all else being equal. Sharpness especially is a Canon forté.
Though saying that the D70 user group is now resolutely huge, and like for like Nikon lenses are always generally cheaper than the Canon versions, with no compromise in quality over the competing Canon counterparts.
This to me was ultimately the deciding factor - the glass. Also the D70 was bundled with a superb "kit" lens whereas the low-end Canons come with crap (even the basic 20D kit comes with a plastic barrel so bad it would be worth more melted).
You pays your money and make your choices, but my advice is this: think lenses first, body second. Ultimately the lenses count more than the body (unless you plan to do fast action and need more FPS), but it's gotta be said - in the budget-mid range digital game, Canon has got the Nikon beat in outright image quality, though there's not a whole real-world lot in it.
D (a D70 user)
D70 every time.
6 or 8 mp is not the issue. for enlargements even up to poster size, you'll not notice the difference
More important to me is the better handling of the D70 and the fact that it is way more flexible, and much better featured to "grow" with you as you become more confident. A good example of this is the spot metering capability, which the Canon lacks.
For me ( I swapped a Canon Eos 10 for the D70 ) the Nikon is a better picture taking tool. It is more intuitive to use and after a while I forget about the camera and think about the pictures - which is as it should be and was something I never managed with the Canon.
The Canon was always too slow. Too slow to power up, too slow to access the functions, too many buttons to press to get to the functions I needed. The Nikon is easier, and so I take pictures with a better success rate.
IMO of course..
6 or 8 mp is not the issue. for enlargements even up to poster size, you'll not notice the difference
More important to me is the better handling of the D70 and the fact that it is way more flexible, and much better featured to "grow" with you as you become more confident. A good example of this is the spot metering capability, which the Canon lacks.
For me ( I swapped a Canon Eos 10 for the D70 ) the Nikon is a better picture taking tool. It is more intuitive to use and after a while I forget about the camera and think about the pictures - which is as it should be and was something I never managed with the Canon.
The Canon was always too slow. Too slow to power up, too slow to access the functions, too many buttons to press to get to the functions I needed. The Nikon is easier, and so I take pictures with a better success rate.
IMO of course..
tuscan_v8 said:I heard that - well actually that they'd tooled up the factory for the next one.
Heard that Nikon have stopped making 6.1 MP D70 now, they are planned to bring out 8.0 MP D70 (or whatever they call it !!) in few week time in Japan camera show (PIE 2005).
>> Edited by tuscan_v8 on Thursday 17th March 11:13
Be some cracking deals now, and plenty in the s/hand market!
Personally, I'd find a minimum ISO of 200 too limiting on the D70, so I'd go for the 350D everytime. I've never had a problem with the handling on my two Canon bodies, so it's really just what you get used to I think.
I prefer Canon's lenses too - they offer a larger range of Image Stabilised lenses, which are great.
That said, so much of it is down to the person pressing the buttons, so try them both and see what you prefer.
I prefer Canon's lenses too - they offer a larger range of Image Stabilised lenses, which are great.
That said, so much of it is down to the person pressing the buttons, so try them both and see what you prefer.
-DeaDLocK- said:
The 300D itself, aside from being able to shoot at ISO 100, simply produced better images than the D70 all else being equal. Sharpness especially is a Canon forté.
ATBE I'd have thought that sharpness mostly depends on processing, no? The image straight off a CCD is not particularly 'sharp' anyway, I think.
-DeaDLocK- said:
Also the D70 was bundled with a superb "kit" lens whereas the low-end Canons come with crap
Yes, the 18-70 is a very good 'general purpose' lens with good wide-angle.
Remember that it's easy to get carried away hair-splitting: all DSLRs are pretty damn good and offer results that 99% of people would find no fault with. I'm not going to tell you which way to jump, but I would recommend you get you hands on both contenders in a shop because ergonomics and layout of controls are important too. No point getting a camera just because it does ISO100 if you don't like the way it handles. If I took shots at ISO100 and ISO200, would the difference be noticeable in the real world? I don't think so. And the real world is the one where photography lies IMHO, not in a lab or on an oscilloscope.
Quality differences between ISO 50 and 200 may not be worth splitting hairs about, but the 2 stops extra are in my own experience. If you don't have (or have the time to fit) an ND filter, the difference in shutter speeds can make the difference between a boring "sharp" shot or a nice blurry shot with impact.
This is just my experience though, and if you're not into that sort of photography, then it's not an issue.
As for spot metering, the Canon's do have a partial mode which uses a very small area of the view finder (8% I think), so this is pretty much the same as spot metering to all intents and purposes. I've never found this to be a limitation on my EOS 30, and I've had some good results in challenging lighting conditions, so not really much of an issue IMHO.
Both are great cameras though, and you won't be disappointed with the results from either. They both have their advantages and limitations, so work out what features are important to you and go from there.
This is just my experience though, and if you're not into that sort of photography, then it's not an issue.
As for spot metering, the Canon's do have a partial mode which uses a very small area of the view finder (8% I think), so this is pretty much the same as spot metering to all intents and purposes. I've never found this to be a limitation on my EOS 30, and I've had some good results in challenging lighting conditions, so not really much of an issue IMHO.
Both are great cameras though, and you won't be disappointed with the results from either. They both have their advantages and limitations, so work out what features are important to you and go from there.
ehasler said:Very good point. Cliché blurred water shots during the day spring to mind.
Quality differences between ISO 50 and 200 may not be worth splitting hairs about, but the 2 stops extra are in my own experience. If you don't have (or have the time to fit) an ND filter, the difference in shutter speeds can make the difference between a boring "sharp" shot or a nice blurry shot with impact.
Also I had no idea the 350D didn't have spot metering - this would be a strong factor for me if I was in the market.
simpo two said:Yeah I think you're right, but maybe what I'm referring to is the quality of the processing software (which in effect equates to how "sharp" a camera is). RAW for RAW, the consensus seems to be that Canon has the upper-hand. DP Review did a test where I think they compared the outputs from the 20D and D70 and concluded that the Canon was sharper (this was obvious from the photos, though the difference really was tiny so I am splitting hairs here).
ATBE I'd have thought that sharpness mostly depends on processing, no? The image straight off a CCD is not particularly 'sharp' anyway, I think.
Ho hum - I guess most important is handling and ergonomics, followed by basic features like metering capabilities and frame rate. But the bottom line is that we end up with hardware that produces pride-inducing results so we can share 'em all on this forum.
Rudi
PS - Pleased to see they got rid of that nasty silver though!
-DeaDLocK- said:
Yeah I think you're right, but maybe what I'm referring to is the quality of the processing software (which in effect equates to how "sharp" a camera is).
I don't know about the Canon but the D70 in-camera sharpening can be adjusted in the custom menu - if that helps? Mine's on default and is fine for me.
beano500 said:
But - in some seriousness - don't get fooled by the Megadifferences. 6.1 and 8 aren't that far apart 
toppstuff said:
6 or 8 mp is not the issue. for enlargements even up to poster size, you'll not notice the difference
So by this analogy there's not much difference between 6 & 5? You could save the money and get an old D1X or a second hand D30 then.
By all means, if you prefer the handling of Nikon, buy it and enjoy it, the difference won't show on most prints but if image quality is important to you......
Nikon D70 at 800asa:
Canon 20D at 800asa:
Don't know about anyone else but I can see the difference with these 100% crops (no, I wasn't looking for comparisons as such, but they were on Mr Askeys' just published review of the Fuji S3 which I happened to notice). Again if you use the full frame of the picture and don't make large prints, 6 is fine. It's when you want to crop the picture down for composition purposes and then blow it up you'll wish you had some more detail to play with. You can never have enough money or resolution and there's always to much noise.
Yes, I know, at the end of the day it's the 'image' that counts, but wouldn't you want that award winning picture to have more detail less noise, higher res(artistic interpretations apart) etc? Both systems have advantages and disadvantages and, as Ed says, it's what you get used to anyway. (FWIW I haven't handled a 350D it might be terrible? But I never understand the argument that more res isn't worth bothering with or there isn't any difference when there obviously is..... for the same sort of money). Try them both out and good luck with your decision.
ATBE and all IMHO
What this thread has shown is that neither of these cameras are bad, in fact both are fantastic pieces of equipment!
I got my D70 over Christmas. It came down to two key reasons why I didn't get a 300D or 20D
1) The D70 fitted in my hand better, thus making it more comfortable to use. A very important consideration.
2) Graham.J (and other PHers) had a D70 already. This might sound weird, but its helped me out a lot knowing that if I was having a
moment, help was at hand from a number of close sources. It's helped me improve a lot more than knowing the spec of my camera.
There are a LOT of D70s on this site and I am yet to read a negative thread about them. None of us were paid to choose the D70, we choose them because thats what we wanted.
If any future or current owners have a problem, there is a wealth of knowledge just waiting to help out. That means a lot to a beginner like me.
Thanks all
I got my D70 over Christmas. It came down to two key reasons why I didn't get a 300D or 20D
1) The D70 fitted in my hand better, thus making it more comfortable to use. A very important consideration.
2) Graham.J (and other PHers) had a D70 already. This might sound weird, but its helped me out a lot knowing that if I was having a
moment, help was at hand from a number of close sources. It's helped me improve a lot more than knowing the spec of my camera. There are a LOT of D70s on this site and I am yet to read a negative thread about them. None of us were paid to choose the D70, we choose them because thats what we wanted.
If any future or current owners have a problem, there is a wealth of knowledge just waiting to help out. That means a lot to a beginner like me.
Thanks all
Bacardi said:
So by this analogy there's not much difference between 6 & 5?
Indeed. But I thought we got you to admit in another thread that the 6/8Mp question was pretty trivial. How much of the Baileys image difference is in sharpening, processing and lenses?
I take my (amateur) photography reasonably seriously but wouldn't be reaching for the piggybank to get an 8Mp D70.
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 )
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff