Dilemma: 20D with 70-200 F4 or D70 with 80-200 F2.8

[tomar10]

Hi,

I would appreciate any comments on which kit is better. I have a $2000 budget. Which of the two kit in your opinion would serve me better.

20D with basic kit lens($1500) + 70-200 F4(~$600)=$2100 ... and another lens to replace the kit lens but not in the near future.

or D70 with kit($1050) + 80-200 F2.8 AFD($700 after rebate)=$ 1750

Now I have read a lot of these reviews but I am still not sure what to get. So I ask you to shed some light on this and help me sleep better at night. :-)) I placed an order for 20D and am second guessing myself continually.

In my view D70 has accurate exposure and good flash performance(Three flash modes and sync speed advantage). Also the ability to use SB 800 wirelessly.
Though there is a problem with blown highlights sometimes. How much of a problem is it?? Also the best nikon flash for digital (SB800) is cheaper than the best Canon Flash.

Now I hear 20D is better. Better noise performance, usable 3200 ISO. Forgiving in highlights etc.

Let me also say that I intend to keep the camera I get for the next two to three years atleast(if it is Nikon, otherwise even longer). Also I do not care about 5fps speed. Now my question is - Is it that much better to pay such a premium. I would obviously like to get the 20D if it is better. Some people insist dust is a lesser problem with CMOS sensor in 20D.

Uwe said these cameras they are close in his post and that set me thinking whether it is worth paying the premium. Because getting the Nikon would save me a lot of money. People say they are apples and oranges I would like to know why they are apples and oranges. I don't mean to offend anyone just want to understand better what I am getting. If we discount the higher fps speed and the build then how do these two compare.

Also it is said that it is better to spend more on a lens than the camera. (And of course if you have good technique nothing like it.)

Whichever kit I get will be my travel kit also. I know the Nikon zoom is heavier and bigger. I intend to carry it in a backpack. Is it impractical ?

The Canon 70-200 f4 does not come with a tripod collar. If I get a tripod collar for it then it costs as much as the nikon 80-200 2.8 AFD

Maybe it may seem trivial. But this is a major decision for me and I want get it right. So any thoughts inputs would be highly appreciated from you knowledgeable folks.

[Mando327]

Hello Tomar,

I bought my Canon 20D about a month ago and i counln't be happier. I was in the same dilemma that you were in when i first bought mine. For startup kits, I would not hesitate to say that the nikon would probably be a better initial choice. I tried them both side by side and i really liked the nikon's feel, especially shutter and the quietness and smoothness of the lens. However, the Canon puts out better quality pics, and that's all that matters right? Also, I decided to go ahead and not buy the consumer lens, but rather the 24-70mm 2.8L. I went with Canon because in my opinion, they have more lenses with higher reviews than Nikon (in this site at least, and i'm talking about higher-end lenses). Also, when you think about it, most press photographers use Canon. Heck, most people BUY Canon (this is a relative statement). It's more supported in my opinion, and therefore has more sales, which gives them more money, which in turn gives them more money for research, which is why THEY invented Image Stabilization, which is why they are always pushing the boundaries of Digital :-) They are always the FIRST to come out with the best, THEN, Nikon follows and copies, along with the rest. Also, Nikon is overall MORE EXPENSIVE. Their top of the line lenses are MORE expensive without necesarily being better, according to lots of reviews I've read. The 24-70mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L that i bought with the camera BOTH have overall EXCELLENT reviews, with Nikon's respective class lenses being MORE EXPENSIVE, and not getting as high reviews. To put an example, the D70 is MORE expensive than the 10D, which is more in it's class. With the 20D you will get a higher resolution, faster performance, cleaner ISO images, and latest technology (i'm sure very soon to change...lol). What I would suggest is to first buy a quality medium zoom range, and THEN, look for for a good quality tele-zoom. The 70-200mm 4.0L has VERY good reviews, but it doesn't go down all the way to 2.8. If you get this lens, I'd recommend the software program Neat Image (i'd recommend it regardless of any lens), which takes out ISO noise considerably, which will allow you to shoot at high ISO levels. I love this program. You can also choose how much sharpening you want for the processed image, and you can put from 0-250% with 0% making it a bit less sharp than original image and 250% will render you with sharper, ISO Noise free images. I personally put it at 250%, as I love the end result.
This is what i recommend. Invest FIRST in quality lenses, and THEN, on top quality DSLR cameras. Cameras, especially Digital, will be outdated before you know, it, but the lenses will most likely not for a LONGER TIME.
As for the lenses, i chose the 24-70mm 2.8L because it gives me a better "wide angle" view with the 20d's 1.6 crop image, even though it's not really wide angle, but rather 38.4mm. It works for me though. I will be waiting for a quality true DSLR wide angle lens (for my camera at least, as the new 10-22mm is not really top noch).
I'd recommend to just stick with the 20D. Or, maybe get the 10D and get a better medium zoom lens.
Whatever you do, i strongly recommend getting a flash. I never minded regular flash until i tried bounced flash with my 580EX. Man, what a difference!!! Like night and day! You will never go back unless you must. I don't know what more to put here, but my email is Mando327@yahoo.com in case you have more questions. I will gladly answer any questions.

Good Luck,

Armando-

P.S. I was second guessing myself too when i first bought my camera. I think it's just a natural process that we go through. I have no regrets!

[Mando327]

ohh...www.dpreview.com is also an EXCELLENT site with lots of information about all of these cameras and a wealth or resources.

[Lionheart]

I'm one of those guys that has been saying that the comparisons aren't quite appropriate.
Basically two reasons why I believe this.
1) The 20D is Canon's replacement for the prosumer 10D. It is higher priced and certainly has many features that make it more desirable than the lower priced D70. It is aimed at the serious amateurs/professional wannabees/semiprofessional group. Nikons equivalent (which is sadly not very equivalent) is supposed to be the D100, which is long over due for replacement.
2) That being said, the D70 is supposed to be an entry level consumer DSLR aimed squarely at unseating Canon's entry level digital Rebel, and is priced closer to that camera.
However, in terms of actual performance, the D70 measures up quite well against cameras destined for higher performance markets, including the 10D and 20D (remember that this is still a fairly new product) and is definitely a step up on the digiRebel imho.
I've played some with the 20D, and it is one awesome camera, right up there with my 1D Mk II in terms of outright speed and performance, and on a par for image quality at a fraction of the price. About the only thing you're giving up is the tank like build of the 1D.
You really cannot go wrong with the 20D. My wedding photographer told me when I got started 15 years ago, to get the best I can afford because in the end I'll spend more on film and lab costs than on the equipment, so why buy something I'll outgrow, right? It's not quite true today, but it still has some merit in principle. You will be hard pressed to outgrow either of these cameras. I know that doesn't really help you, but I thought I might elaborate on the apples and oranges comparison.
p.s. Go for the 20D ;)

[tomar10]

Thanks Armando and Lionheart for your replies.

Armando what you say about digital cameras becoming outdated soon and lenses holding their value, you are actually making a case for Nikon D70. As it is cheaper and here we are getting a much better lens f2.8 vs f4 for a lower cost(nice kit lens as a bonus). So even if D70 depreciates in value it won't hurt as much. When 20D beater comes eventually and has been around for an year then it would be time to buy that at a reasonable price.

You are right image does matter. And that is why if there is a substantial difference in image quality then I would go with 20D.

[Lionheart]

there really isn't much difference in image quality between the 20D and the D70 until you get to the higher ISO settings (800+), then the 20D really begins to shine. As far as Mp go, 8 Mp is overkill. I've got a 20x30 inch poster in my office from my 4 mp 1D that looks as good or better than anything I've shot on 35mm with my 1V, and we've got 18x20 portraits from our 6 Mp 10D's in the reception area that are way sharper than anything I've ever shot on 35mm. Unless you plan on shooting ISO 800 and higher all the time, get the D70 and get some high quality fast (f2.8) glass for it, unless of course you've already ordered the 20D