EOS 300D vs. D70

I have decided to move from compact digital to SRL digital camera, but I can't decide between the Canon and Nikon entry-level products. I am new to the SLR world, so I have no existing lens collection, no accessories that would influence the choice.

I read several reviews of the Canon that pointed out to the bad quality of indoors shots (chronic overexposure) and low quality of the 18-55 lens in the pack.

On the other end, the initial opinions of the Nikon 18-70 DX bundled lens seem much more positive. However, first users have criticized the viewfinder.

Is this important? What matters most?

I am interested in your opinions on this. I need some advice on how to make the choice.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eric

I have decided to move from compact digital to SRL digital camera, but I can't decide between the Canon and Nikon entry-level products. I am new to the SLR world, so I have no existing lens collection, no accessories that would influence the choice.

I read several reviews of the Canon that pointed out to the bad quality of indoors shots (chronic overexposure) and low quality of the 18-55 lens in the pack.

On the other end, the initial opinions of the Nikon 18-70 DX bundled lens seem much more positive. However, first users have criticized the viewfinder.

Is this important? What matters most?

I am interested in your opinions on this. I need some advice on how to make the choice.

Thanks!

---

First, every new camera is given high praise and then there is a backlash. Look at some of the nasty D70 comments showing up around the net... the honeymoon for Nikon didn't even have a chance!

The "problems" with the Rebel are almost all due to the users not having a clue. Most have moved from a P&S to the DSLR and blame their lack of skill on the equipment. Others want a bunch of whiz-bang features but don't want to pay extra. The D70 is seeing the same nonsense.

Picking a DSLR is just like picking a film camera. You have to do the homework and play with the camera for a bit. Neither camera is a bad choice and neither has any major problems. Be realistic about the features you need rather than the features you have never used. You take the photographs, not the camera.

I agree with Michael's post. However, I want to emphasize just how important it is to get the "feel" of both cameras. I know for me personally, and what others have also mentioned, is their bottom line is .......which camera feels best in your hands. They are similar, give or take a few features.

Like Michael said, compare the features, etc. Then go to a camera/electronic store & check both of them out, try them out....ask questions and decide from there. :cool:

Liz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Fanelli

First, every new camera is given high praise and then there is a backlash. Look at some of the nasty D70 comments showing up around the net... the honeymoon for Nikon didn't even have a chance!

The "problems" with the Rebel are almost all due to the users not having a clue. Most have moved from a P&S to the DSLR and blame their lack of skill on the equipment. Others want a bunch of whiz-bang features but don't want to pay extra. The D70 is seeing the same nonsense.

Picking a DSLR is just like picking a film camera. You have to do the homework and play with the camera for a bit. Neither camera is a bad choice and neither has any major problems. Be realistic about the features you need rather than the features you have never used. You take the photographs, not the camera.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eric

I have decided to move from compact digital to SRL digital camera, but I can't decide between the Canon and Nikon entry-level products. I am new to the SLR world, so I have no existing lens collection, no accessories that would influence the choice.

I read several reviews of the Canon that pointed out to the bad quality of indoors shots (chronic overexposure) and low quality of the 18-55 lens in the pack.

On the other end, the initial opinions of the Nikon 18-70 DX bundled lens seem much more positive. However, first users have criticized the viewfinder.

Is this important? What matters most?

I am interested in your opinions on this. I need some advice on how to make the choice.

Thanks!

---

Another person from Paris, France, how nice. What you should have done is go to the Salon de la Photo last weekend and take both cameras in your hands. I did, and the 300D, c'est du toc, je ne comprends pas comment on peut vendre ca a 1000€ (translation : I much preferred the Nikon).

The viewfinder on both cameras is equally depressing. Sure you can compare the features but in six months there will be something even more wonderful that hits the market. When you buy a camera, make sure you feel comfortable with it the just use it.

BTW the 18-55 Canon seems to be quite a decent performer, according to the reviews and what people have published here.

Charles

Hello Franglais,

Effectivement, le D300 donne une impression de fragilité déconcertante, which is why I am waiting to see what comes out on the market. I can't wait to see and hold a D70.

regards

Seb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seb

Hello Franglais,

Effectivement, le D300 donne une impression de fragilité déconcertante, which is why I am waiting to see what comes out on the market. I can't wait to see and hold a D70.

Seb

---

Oddly enough, the digital Rebel is substantially more rugged than the film version. The film version got rough treatment without problems, the 300D should do at least that well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Fanelli

Oddly enough, the digital Rebel is substantially more rugged than the film version. The film version got rough treatment without problems, the 300D should do at least that well.

---

I was in FNAC in Velizy II tonight and they have the D70+lens at 1490€ (I think) and the 300D+lens at 200€ less (that much I'm sure about).

I think it's unfortunate that Canon made the 300D look like - a Rebel. In particular I think the lens looks - sigh - cheap (which is a pity because it's supposed to be a good performer). Everyone I've spoken to finds the Nikon looks better.

To reply to the original question a bit more - the features I would find particularly useful in the D70 are:

a) 1/500 sec flash sync speed. This would be rally useful when doing fill-in flash in sunlight
b) high-performance light meter which gives accurate exposure and precise automatic light balance
c) linking the color space to the program mode subject types i.e. landscape mode gives vivid colours whereas portrait mode is more subtle
d) the fast start-up. Switch it on and it's ready

I'm still holding out for the "D70x" though (see yesterday). Better viewfinder, support for older flash systems, add-on battery pack with a second shutter release...

Charles

D70 ofcourse the BEST Choice

Comparing with Canon EOS 300D

Image sensor size
D70 à 23.7 x 15.6 mm (DX Format)
Canon EOS 300D à 22.7 x 15.1 mm

Effective pixel
D70 à 6.1 megapixel
Canon EOS 300D à 6.3 megapixel

Shutter speed
D70 à 30 to 1/8,000 sec.
Canon EOS 300D à 30 to 1/4,000 sec.

Flash sync speed
D70 à 1/500 sec.
Canon EOS 300D à 1/200 sec.

AF sensor
D70 à 5 points
Canon EOS 300D à 7 points

AE sensor
D70 à 1005 segments
Canon EOS 300D à 35 segments

Power up*
D70 à 0.19 sec
Canon EOS 300D à 2.79 sec.

Image Transfer
D70 à USB2.0
Canon EOS 300D à USB1.0

Frame rate
D70 à 3 fps
Canon EOS 300D à 2.5 fps

Consecutive shots (buffer)
D70 à 12 shots
Canon EOS 300D à 4 shots


I can say in continuous mode Nikon can take 17 frames at 3 fps (frames per second ) then it drops to 1.5fps and took 27 more frames all in just 20 seconds it took in total 44 frames, using a Lexar 256 MB WA CF Card .Shutter speed was 1/500. Image Quality Normal, file size ( L ) 6 MP.

While Canon took just 4 frames at 2.5 fps and then dropped to 1.05 fps clicking 19 frames more in 20 seconds, with the same card and settings.
In 20 seconds:
D70: 44 frames
300D: 23 frames

Main difference: The D70 buffers the compressed JPEG file, while the EOS 300D buffers the RAW data from the sensor

Comparing with Canon EOS 300D (Time statistics)

a) D70 b) EOS 300D

From power up to shutter release a) 0.19 sec b) 2.79 sec.

RAW display time
(automatic confirmation display after shooting) a) 0.76 sec b) 2.61 sec.

JPEG-FINE – large display time
(automatic confirmation display after shooting) a) 0.73 sec b) 1.82 sec.

Image transfer rate (RAW) a) 4.57MB/sec. b) 1.23MB/sec.

Image transfer rate (JPEG-FINE – large) a)3.4MB/sec b) 1.08MB/sec.

Image processing (RAW) a) 1.03 sec b) 2.21 sec.

Image processing (JPEG-FINE – large) a) 0.8 sec b) 1.53 sec.

Recording time (RAW) a) 1.13 sec b) 5.04 sec.

Recording time (JPEG-FINE – large) a) 0.77 sec b) 1.08 sec.

Is there any thing left to say D70 is a WINNER.


Go through this Reviews : I keep my finger on my lips !

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0404/04...rd70review.asp

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D70/D70A.HTM

http://www.photoreview.com.au/

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ni...ew/index.shtml

About true colour this allows the photographer to get a better end result on the computer. Than memory colour which gives an immeditately pleasing result and is used in the Coolpix cameras.

I know this is an old thread... but:

Pick the brand of lenses you want to be stuck with, then get the camera.

You'll keep the lenses, you won't keep the camera.

I chose Canon lenses, so I got a rebel.

It really doesn't "matter" matter. Canon will do everything they can do pull ahead of Nikon, and vice versa. We are blessed with a competitive market that will make them both keep trying to one up eachother. Before the end of the year, there will be some sort of new Canon at 1200 bucks that will make the D70 and D100 look like babies toys. And then nikon will do the same next spring, yadda yadda yadda....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Dempsey

Before the end of the year, there will be some sort of new Canon at 1200 bucks that will make the D70 and D100 look like babies toys. And then nikon will do the same next spring, yadda yadda yadda....

---

I hope you are right. I sold my 300D to a friend (a long story) last week for the full replacement cost, including tax, etc. Circumstances made it a "win-win" deal

Since my next major trip is to Chile in late Dec, I'm planning to wait a while to replace it, with the thought that there will be something new to put my Canon lens collection on by then. If not, I will buy a new 300D.

In the meantime, I still enjoy my Oly 2100UZ with its 10X IS zoom; and since mostly I do presentations with my XGA projector, 2 mp is enough for that.

Phil

As a Rebel to 10D converter... I think I can't reccomend the Rebel anymore. For the extra money, the 10D is that much more of a camera. I know LOTS will argue with me and say that the 10D isn't worth the extra 400 bucks, but as a person who used both alot, I say it IS worth the money. The first day I had the 10D, I laughed, the Rebel was a joke compared to it.

So anyways... if you've got Canon lenses, I say just save a little more cash and get the 10D. Until there's another Canon sub $2000 (like the mythical 20D), the 10D is the way to go.

DPreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/) talked enough about it, the good and the bad, but how does it affect a poor guy that spent over $1500 and wanted to justify the worth?

D70 beats EOS 300D in almost every category, EXCEPT ONE. EOS has ISO 100, D70 doesn’t.

Amateurs don’t carry their most expensive cameras everyday. When they did, they mostly took still pictures – landscapes, portraits, and close-ups. Unlike Ansel Adams who spent the whole life in mountains pursuing a unique angle, amateurs don’t have time for angles. All they got was the image quality. Then what’s making the different? The ISO sensitivity.

The first time I use ISO 100, the depth of color and the levels of light stunned me. It was at Natural Bridge of Blue Ridge Mountain in September 2001. I shot from inside the shadow of Natural Bridge directly at the sun. The print gave me clear-contoured sunray outlined by the dark dome of Natural Bridge. If I used an ISO 200 or higher film, the direct sunlight would have blown out the highlights. Confining the highlights is the most important virtue of still pictures, especially landscape pictures. Professional landscape photographers like Peter Watson (see book “Light In The Landscape: A Photographer's Year” by Peter Watson) frequently use low sensitivity films like ISO 50 and Graduated ND filter to keep highlights in bay. Another example was the winning picture of San Diego Union-Tribune, May 12th 2002, by professional photographer Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/hawaii.htm). The article claimed “The camera has nothing to do with it”. Yeah right. If he used an ISO 400, the golden walls with tremendous detail would have been all blown out.

Low ISO is capable of high exposure, thus gives more room to maneuver the shutter speed. Because D70 can only go as low as ISO 200, I only managed a 1/3 second maximum shutter speed in shooting the waterfall in the “Hiking in Shenandoah” post(http://familyjournalofharryliuhao.blogspot.com/). If I have ISO 100 or 50, I could get a 1 second or even 2 seconds, and the water fall would be even smoother. Peter Watson even used a 20-second shutter in a waterfall shot.

So why I still bought D70 while cursing so bad of it? If EOS 300D had ISO 50 too, my choice would have been Canon, but it doesn’t. The closest product that offers ISO 50 was over $4000, way over my budget. There’s always trade-off too. CMOS sensor gives 300D an edge in lower ISO, but is less consistent in higher ISO. At higher ISO, 300D’s CMOS generated more and con****uous blotch than D70’s CCD sensor.

I do have reasons to stuck with the D70. Shooting aerobatics with a D70 is ecstasy. The instant power-on, twice the speed in continuous shooting mode than 300D, and consistent image quality in high ISO put D70 second to none. With the finger on the snap, the shutter went off like a .50 caliber machine gun. What a joy! The one more level of ISO sensitivity gives 300D some edge, but not that much in general after all.

Kodak just pushed the ISO limit to ISO 6 with KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS Pro at $3000 range, but I am not in hurry, nor am I rich. If I get rich enough this life, I will go for a low ISO camera with carbon tripod – just for still pictures.

You sound like a prime candidate for neutral density filters. Slap a 3-stop one of these on your lens and ISO 200 becomes ISO 25. I don't think you need to dump your D70 for the Kodak back due to ISO range; just for the greater resolution and bigger CCD.

But if you like the feel of instant power-on and 3 fps, try the D2H. Or Canon 1DII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHall

But if you like the feel of instant power-on and 3 fps, try the D2H. Or Canon 1DII.

---

Sorry, couldn't resist. One of those "I'm proud of the 8.5 fps of my 1D MkII" things. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionheart

Sorry, couldn't resist. One of those "I'm proud of the 8.5 fps of my 1D MkII" things. :D

---

Flaunt it if ya got it! :D

Yeah, I meant if you love 3 fps, try 8+ fps. Those things are machine guns. I was pretty happy with the double speed of my 20D (5 fps) vs. Rebel, but then I tried the 1D II. :( Now where did I put that $4500?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHall

You sound like a prime candidate for neutral density filters. Slap a 3-stop one of these on your lens and ISO 200 becomes ISO 25. I don't think you need to dump your D70 for the Kodak back due to ISO range; just for the greater resolution and bigger CCD.

---

One thing I don’t like about the ND lenses was their bluish tones to the picture. I know I can always adjust temperature in Photoshop with add-ins or with the color layer, but I just don’t feel comfortable with the trade-off yet, either am I patient enough in Photoshop to get the color temperature back to perfection. Also the regular ND lenses gave me dark corners on my Aperture Nikkor lense because I already had a UV lense on and was too lazy to switch it.

Anyway thanks for the tip. With the options provided by digital SLR, I do face the challenge to remain as a shot-n-post amateur or upgrade it into a serious hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chicken Sandwich

One thing I don’t like about the ND lenses was their bluish tones to the picture. I know I can always adjust temperature in Photoshop with add-ins or with the color layer, but I just don’t feel comfortable with the trade-off yet, either am I patient enough in Photoshop to get the color temperature back to perfection. Also the regular ND lenses gave me dark corners on my Aperture Nikkor lense because I already had a UV lense on and was too lazy to switch it.

Anyway thanks for the tip. With the options provided by digital SLR, I do face the challenge to remain as a shot-n-post amateur or upgrade it into a serious hobby.

---

Yeah okay, but if you see it as a serious detriment to your photography, there are ways to work around it. Try the Cokin P holder and Singh-Ray ND filters--expensive, but reportedly no blue or other color tinging. The Cokin P holder will allow you to quickly swap the filters without vignetting the corners. They also have a vari-ND filter for this.

http://www.singh-ray.com/morefilt.html