Nikon D70/S Vs. Canon 300D/350D/20D/etc. for Optical quality only

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Feb 9, 2006.

  1. I'm going to be using all Sigma lenses on one of these cameras. Will I
    see an optical difference between any of the camera bodies listed above?
    Progressiveabsolution, Feb 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    SMS Guest

    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. I'm new to this board. Why do you call me a troll? All I want is a
    straightforward answer to a seemingly simple question. I don't care
    about one camera brand over another, just whether the body of "ANY"
    manufacturer will be superior given the same exact glass is on the
    other it is comparing against.
    Progressiveabsolution, Feb 9, 2006
  4. Progressiveabsolution

    SMS Guest

    Because no one would spend the money for one of those cameras and then
    negate the optical quality by using poor lenses.
    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  5. Ahhhh...sorry about that. I didn't know the Sigma 70-200mm EX APO and
    the newer 17-50mm EX DC are lenses you think are inferior for these
    Progressiveabsolution, Feb 9, 2006
  6. Progressiveabsolution

    FlyerOZ Guest

    In most cases I doubt you will see any difference.
    Lots of people get too preoccupied with technical details - it is still
    the photographer that makes the difference.
    All cameras you mentioned are good cameras. If you can go & play with
    them & pick something that you like the most. I found Nikon D70 most
    comfortable to use & bought it.
    Very happy with my choice.

    negate the optical quality by using poor lenses.

    Obviously you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
    Many Sigma lenses are as good & in some cases better optically to Nikon
    Nikon lenses usually have higher built quality & here in Australia MUCH
    higher price then Sigma equivalent.
    FlyerOZ, Feb 9, 2006
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    SMS Guest

    Sure you can choose the lowest quality Nikon lens and the highest
    optical quality Sigma lens, and conclude that Sigma is better, at least
    Yes, the price of the Nikon (and Canon) lenses are higher. If you're
    looking only at price, Sigma is indeed the way to go. If you are looking
    for the optimal combination of optical quality, build quality, and
    compatibility, then spend the extra money on Nikon or Canon lenses.

    "There is no product produced, that cannot be made cheaper in some way,
    and those that buy, based on price alone, are this man's legal prey."

    SMS, Feb 9, 2006
  8. Progressiveabsolution

    Tesco News Guest


    There will be no optical differences.

    The optical quality will depend on which Sigma lens you choose. Some are
    very bad and some are very good.

    Roy G
    Tesco News, Feb 10, 2006
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    cjcampbell Guest


    re: Sigma

    There are some people here who do not like Sigma lenses. In general,
    you get what you pay for. Carefully read lens reviews before buying any
    lens, remembering that some user reviews are written by people who have
    never used the product. Other reviews are written by engineers or
    gearheads who have not got the faintest idea of how to take a good
    picture. So be cautious.
    cjcampbell, Feb 10, 2006
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    Skip M Guest

    And some reviews are written by people who have had no experience with
    other, equivalent lenses that may actually be better, others are written by
    people who cannot admit that they made a mistake.
    Skip M, Feb 10, 2006
  11. Thanks all for your responses. The main one I was looking for is
    optical quality between different camera bodies and if each one is used
    effectively, why there would be a difference from one to the other only
    optically speaking. I did get one answer that there will be no
    difference. Any others with the same view?

    I agree about finding lenses based not only on numerous respected
    reviewers that seem as unbiased as possible, but to also tke these
    lenses in a shop and shoot some photos through each of them and see
    which I prefer when I get home and load them into TIFF files.

    Thanks again all!!!
    Progressiveabsolution, Feb 10, 2006
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Bill Funk Guest

    There will be differences. The firmware in each camera model will
    differ from others.
    One maker will like (and make their cameras' images reflect this) more
    saturated colors, while another will like them a little more muted.
    Then there's noise at higher ISOs; some will be better than others.

    As for "optical" differences, these are them. They are optical in that
    you see the images optically.
    Otherwise, if Optical is taken to mean how the images are taken,
    that's up to the lenses, which, of course, will vary from one lens to
    But, if you take one specific lens, (say, from Sigma) in mounts for
    both Nikon and Canon, any differences will be due to the camera (and
    the firmware in it) not the lens.
    Bill Funk, Feb 10, 2006
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    SMS Guest

    Remember, there are other issues with lenses besides just the optics.
    The issues of build quality, and compatibility are also of great concern.

    Lenses tend to be used for decades, on different camera bodies, i.e. I'm
    using three lenses from the last century on my digital SLR, lenses that
    were previously used on my film SLR. One of the key issues with
    third-party lenses is that while they work with current bodies, they may
    not be forward compatible with newer bodies, you won't run into that
    with Canon lenses, except for the EF-s lenses, which Canon has made
    clear will work only on certain 1.6 crop factor bodies.

    There are probably very few of us that haven't been tempted to use
    third-party lenses due to the lower prices.
    SMS, Feb 10, 2006
  14. Yes. I just ran across a Sigma labelled Canon FD mount lens. [30 years
    old or so]

    On the other hand none of the glass I now shoot with is 20th C.
    John McWilliams, Feb 10, 2006
  15. The only differeces that you should see are in the photographer or
    differences in the processing done by the camera (which the photographer
    should understand prior to snapping the shot). There is a possiblity
    that a poorly speced mount might leave enough give to affect picture
    quality, but I have not heard of it; the glass may be the same, but the
    mounts are different.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Feb 10, 2006
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    cjcampbell Guest

    Definitely a limitation on personal reviews. I am always glad to render
    an opinion on the lenses that I have, but unfortunately I cannot afford
    to compare them a lot to other brands. Probably true for most of us.

    What we need is a lens library, where we can check
    out a lens or other piece of equipment and check it out ourselves. I
    would be happy to maintain it. Donations are always welcome. :)
    cjcampbell, Feb 13, 2006
  17. Exactly so. Your previous comments are mostly right on the money too.
    Calling Sigma lenses junk seems to be a popular thing to do, and one wonders
    how many of the folks who do that have ever actually owned a Sigma lens.
    Many people seem to like to repeat what others have said, and with an
    authoritative air.

    I own a lot of Minolta lenses, and also Minolta-mount lenses by Sigma,
    Tamron and Tokina. I've found all to be very good for the price I paid for
    them. I have relatively expensive Sigma lenses (but much less expensive than
    the corresponding Minolta glass) that are excellent in every way, and also
    one cheap Sigma lens that looks and feels cheap, and plasticky, but works
    fine and is optically quite good. Over the years I've owned quite a few
    Sigma lenses and have had no problem with any of them.

    Since Sigma can produce the same lens design in a variety of mounts for
    different makes of camera, which camera makers generally cannot do, Sigma
    presumably has a much larger production volume--especially for the more
    extreme lens types--and this must be a good part of the reason for their
    much lower product prices. So "you get what you pay for" is not absolutely

    Just imagine what a Chevy would have to cost if GM's production numbers were
    the same as Ferrari's. ;-)

    John Falstaff, Feb 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.