Less expensive DSLR's, Nikon or Canon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jack, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. Jack

    Jack Guest

    I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon is
    a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    you people think? Nikon or Canon?
     
    Jack, Mar 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Jack" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9786A9BF6A3ADadeljack@216.196.97.142...
    >I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon
    > is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    Both are good. Don't worry too much about MPs.
     
    Charles Schuler, Mar 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jack wrote:
    >I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I
    > wonder if the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the
    > same. The Nikon is a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look
    > about the same. What do you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    Right. They are too close to call. I have the Canon and I have been
    very happy with it. I had several Canon lens and was a little more use to
    the current Canon way of doing things so for me Canon was the best choice.

    Had I not had those lenses, I would have been equally happy with the
    Nikon.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Jack

    Eatmorepies Guest

    "Jack" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9786A9BF6A3ADadeljack@216.196.97.142...
    >I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon
    > is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    I don't know the Nikon. Nikon have an excellent rep.

    I have an XT - it's excellent. If you buy an XT you won't be buying a pup.
    The advantage of 8Mp over 6Mp lies in cropping - probably. I produced an A3
    B&W yesterday from 65% of the pixels of myXT (5.2Mp) and it's technical
    quality is rather good. I won't vouch for the artistic qualiity.

    Canon make a very large range of lenses and their L lenses are very very
    good. If you buy into Canon and buy good lenses you can upgrade the body in
    a few years and take advantage od technical advances. I imagine the same is
    true of Nikon lenses.

    I don't think you will go wrong with either brand.

    John
     
    Eatmorepies, Mar 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Jack

    bmoag Guest

    Nikon kit lens better than Canon kit lens by far.
    Cameras about equal.
     
    bmoag, Mar 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Jack

    Guest

    Don't know the D50, but upgraded from the DigiRebel to Rebel XT for:

    1. Faster start-up/wake-up

    2. Greater ability to crop 8 mp vs 6

    I also like the Image Stabilization lenses from Canon--

    Paul B.
    www.scienceteacher.biz
     
    , Mar 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Jack

    SMS Guest

    Jack wrote:
    > I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    One advantage of the Nikon is that Nikon has their new 18-200 DX VR
    lens, which is a good amateur "walking-around" lens, while Canon has no
    lens like this.

    OTOH, The XT is really a step up from the D50, the XT competes more
    against the D70s, but is higher resolution and lower noise.

    In either case, the kit lens should be avoided.

    These are the choices:

    Nikon D50 ($500 D50 body, plus $350 Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
    lens). $850

    Nikon D70s kit (with Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED lens). $1200

    Rebel XT ($750 Rebel XT body, plus $500 EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM
    LENS). $1250

    Canon has no non-IS lens that competes against the Nikon 18-70mm non-IS
    lens. So to get a decent kit on the XT, you're spending a lot more than
    you would with the D50. Hence for entry level, the D50 is the way to go,
    but not with the kit lens.
     
    SMS, Mar 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Jack

    Dimitris M Guest

    Both are good cameras and the diferences are a matter of taste mostly. If
    you ask for opinions, for votes over the one or the other, I vote for the
    Nikon.
    --
    Dimitris M


    > I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon
    > is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?
     
    Dimitris M, Mar 15, 2006
    #8
  9. "Jack" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9786A9BF6A3ADadeljack@216.196.97.142...
    >I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon
    > is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    My choice between those two would be for the Nikon.
     
    John Falstaff, Mar 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Jack

    John Fryatt Guest

    Jack wrote:
    > I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    I think they are both good cameras and you should get good results from
    either.

    I would not place too much emphasis on the 6 vs 8MP issue. An extra 2MP
    is a good thing, but the actual effect of it isn't that great. MP values
    are an area thing, but resolution are usually thought of in linear
    terms, such as 'dpi'. In those terms the Nikon is 3008 vs the Canon's
    3456 (both long-side pixel count), meaning that the Canon is 15%
    'better' (as opposed to 33% using area values). Hence, the net
    difference is not that great.
    Also, there are other factors which contribute to image quality, as well
    as the number of pixels.
    I know people with Nikon D50s and D70s and they are quite happy, and not
    especially lusting after a Canon. :)
    I would suggest going to a shop and having a good play around with both
    and see which one feels better, which one's controls make more sense, etc.

    Re. kit lens, you don't actually have to buy that do you? Maybe you
    could get a body and some other lens, if that suited you better?
    I presume the kit is cheaper, but that's partly because they usually put
    a fairly low-end lens in those kits (as I understand it). Maybe you coul
    d spend a little more money a get a better lens. After all, it the lens
    that makes the image, so it's worth having a good 'um.
     
    John Fryatt, Mar 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Jack

    Bolshoy Huy Guest

    "Rebel XT ($750 Rebel XT body, plus $500 EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM
    LENS). $1250 "

    if you are loaded or doing weddings then spend $500 for 17-85mm;
    if you are not a pro, go with the Lumix FZ-30 8mp, 420mm for $550.
     
    Bolshoy Huy, Mar 15, 2006
    #11
  12. bmoag wrote:
    > Nikon kit lens better than Canon kit lens by far.
    > Cameras about equal.


    Interesting view. I found that the Canon kit lens looked and felt very
    cheap, but it performs quite well.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Jack

    [BnH] Guest

    Not the D50 18-55 kit lens :) and also the non USM Canon 350D 18-55 kit
    lens.
    Both are quite bad.

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:n_HRf.56661$...
    > Nikon kit lens better than Canon kit lens by far.
    > Cameras about equal.
    >
     
    [BnH], Mar 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Jack <> wrote:

    > I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder
    > if the Canon Rebel XT is better.


    The Pentax DS2 is cheap and better (has a bright true pentaprism finder,
    unlike the dim D50 peephole); the low-end Pentax DL is cheaper and just as
    good (has a less-desirable pentamirror finder like the low-end Nikon and
    Canon models).

    Pentax DSLRs are underrated thanks to little advertising, but are wonderful
    values and great to use. My Rebel XT broke after only one day... replaced
    it with a Pentax DS which is far better :^)
     
    Charles Gillen, Mar 15, 2006
    #14
  15. Jack

    SMS Guest

    Bolshoy Huy wrote:
    > "Rebel XT ($750 Rebel XT body, plus $500 EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM
    > LENS). $1250 "
    >
    > if you are loaded or doing weddings then spend $500 for 17-85mm;
    > if you are not a pro, go with the Lumix FZ-30 8mp, 420mm for $550.


    This camera looks great in the specs, but the noise levels are intolerable.
     
    SMS, Mar 15, 2006
    #15
  16. Jack

    SMS Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > Nikon kit lens better than Canon kit lens by far.


    The Nikon D50 18-55 kit lens, and the Canon Rebel XT 18-55 kit lens, are
    about equal, but actually the Canon is a bit better.

    You may be confusing the kit lenses. On the D70s, the kit lens is the
    18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED, which is indeed much better than the 18-55.

    > Cameras about equal.


    In fact, the XT is a much better camera than the D50, and about equal to
    the D70s. Canon has no entry level D-SLR like the Nikon D50 yet.
     
    SMS, Mar 15, 2006
    #16
  17. Jack

    Pete D Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4417a8c3$0$95961$...
    > bmoag wrote:
    >> Nikon kit lens better than Canon kit lens by far.

    >
    > The Nikon D50 18-55 kit lens, and the Canon Rebel XT 18-55 kit lens, are
    > about equal, but actually the Canon is a bit better.
    >
    > You may be confusing the kit lenses. On the D70s, the kit lens is the
    > 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED, which is indeed much better than the 18-55.
    >
    >> Cameras about equal.

    >
    > In fact, the XT is a much better camera than the D50, and about equal to
    > the D70s. Canon has no entry level D-SLR like the Nikon D50 yet.


    Defin, much better? Personally I really hate the ergonomics of the 350D,
    most others I could live with.
     
    Pete D, Mar 15, 2006
    #17
  18. Jack

    cjcampbell Guest

    Jack wrote:
    > I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    Any independent reviewer has raved about both cameras. The difference
    in megapixels is negligible. More important to you is handling and
    ergonomics.

    Come to think of it, though -- are there really any terrible DSLRs
    currently being manufactured?
     
    cjcampbell, Mar 15, 2006
    #18
  19. Jack

    John Fryatt Guest

    Charles Gillen wrote:
    > Jack <> wrote:
    >
    >> I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder
    >> if the Canon Rebel XT is better.

    >
    > The Pentax DS2 is cheap and better (has a bright true pentaprism finder,
    > unlike the dim D50 peephole); the low-end Pentax DL is cheaper and just as
    > good (has a less-desirable pentamirror finder like the low-end Nikon and
    > Canon models).
    >
    > Pentax DSLRs are underrated thanks to little advertising, but are wonderful
    > values and great to use. My Rebel XT broke after only one day... replaced
    > it with a Pentax DS which is far better :^)


    Good point. Buy a Pentax and help keep them going. It'd be a shame if
    the choice was limited to only Canon and Nikon. ;-)
     
    John Fryatt, Mar 15, 2006
    #19
  20. In article <Xns9786A9BF6A3ADadeljack@216.196.97.142>, Jack
    <> wrote:

    > I looked at the Nikon D50 with it's kit lens and liked it, but I wonder if
    > the Canon Rebel XT is better. The prices are about the same. The Nikon is
    > a 6MP while the Canon is 8, but the results look about the same. What do
    > you people think? Nikon or Canon?


    Can't go wrong with either - and I say that as a Nikon user since the
    70's. One point - would your budget stretch another couple of hundred
    dollars? I think the move from a D50 to a D70 is well worth while, if
    only for the better kit lens, and CF instead of SD storage cards.

    Or as my father used to say: "Always buy middle of the line. The
    cheapest model is stripped to meet a price point, and the most
    expensive is loaded with useless junk."
     
    Scott Schuckert, Mar 15, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jorge Alvarez

    Flash card more expensive than a DSLR

    Jorge Alvarez, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    509
    Ron Hunter
    Aug 6, 2003
  2. Dobey House Elf
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,940
    John Vogel
    Jul 21, 2004
  3. paul

    Digital photography is more expensive, not less.

    paul, Nov 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    1,034
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Dec 5, 2004
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,403
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
  5. james

    nikon DSLR has less high ISO noise?

    james, Mar 29, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    2,103
    Bob Larter
    Apr 1, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page