Canon Rebel XTi (400D) vs. Nikon D80

[eddx]

I want an upgrade from my Canon compact as I am a very serious hobbyist photographer with an eye for part time professional work. My average shutter count on my Canon Powershot S60 (5 megapixels) is over 1,000 images a month.

Time for a D-SLR (heard it all about a million times before I know)

I need either a Nikon (preferable but expensive) or a Canon (cheaper but less "professional")


So why the Canon Rebel XTi (or 400D if your in the UK)...

Its 10 megapixels and takes Compact flash, which is the same card as my old system BUT I would need a new 2GB memory card anyway so thats in my budget. My dad has the original rebel (300D) and has a sigma 100-300mm zoom lens but the quality is very poor in the image it produces and the auto-focus on the lens is slow and inaccurate.

So why the Nikon D80...

Its also 10 megapixels but seems to have a better build (seperate LCD display for camera data for example). It takes SD cards which are cheaper but in general lenes cost a lot more, as do other add-ons and extras (which Nikon seems to have more of) like flash units and wireless / gps packs. I think I could afford this camera with the 35 - 135mm lens kit. (could be 55-135mm)


I may one day (after uni) be a full time professional photographer and want to invest in the right system from the start. I cant afford a Nikon D200 but could maybe push the budget for a Canon EOS 20D (but would have to get the basic lens. The pro photographers I know of all seem to use Nikon systems, only sports photographers and hobbists seem to be in the Canon camp.

You will probably all recommend Canon which I think would be great for me for the next 2 or 3 years but after this who knows what systems and options and features high range cameras will have in 5 or 10 years when this new system may become a backup system. Travel is VERY important to me and I will be travelling a lot with this camera so weight is important, but I think they are similar weights.

From my research these are two VERY new camera systems (so new no shops have the models yet) but I am looking to buy between now and christmas. I have £1,000 (nearly $1,900 - probably around $1,500 by the time u take into consideration the cost of stuff in the UK)

What do you recommend? Nikon or Canon? and why?

[milozauckerman]

The D80 will have a better (brighter) viewfinder and a sturdier build. But it doesn't seem to be shipping until the tail end of October and there could be delays even after that, given Nikon's track record.

[Clix Pix]

The D80 will have a better (brighter) viewfinder and a sturdier build. But it doesn't seem to be shipping until the tail end of October and there could be delays even after that, given Nikon's track record.


Actually, Ritz Camera (online) has the D80 in stock now (limited quantities) and is shipping....

[eddx]

D80 in stock now (limited quantities) and is shipping....

Ritz Camera do seem to ship to the UK but I couldnt figure out the cost. Why is the Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm lens kit $1,300 shipped in the USA but $1,900 in the UK shipped (£1,000).

So I could fly to the US and get the camera for the same price as I could go to a shop to get it here. $600 cheaper! thats crazy money discount!

Looks like I will have to wait till October for either camera to come out here unless I find someone going to the US soon.

So far Nikon winning over the Canon! Anyone else give me a reason for the Canon?

[iGary]

I think Nikon makes better cameras and Canon makes better glass.

I just wanted to say that for some reason.

Oh, and David Ritz is Devil Spawn.

[eddx]

I think Nikon makes better cameras and Canon makes better glass.

So Nikon body and Sigma glass? or a Sigma even worse than Nikon in terms of lens quality, I was using a Sigma lens today to shoot the red arrows on a borrowed D-SLR and the lens is so poor its a wonder I even got a decent photograph!

Is it me or is Nikon glass over priced?!

[iGary]

So Nikon body and Sigma glass? or a Sigma even worse than Nikon in terms of lens quality, I was using a Sigma lens today to shoot the red arrows on a borrowed D-SLR and the lens is so poor its a wonder I even got a decent photograph!

Is it me or is Nikon glass over priced?!

All glass is overpriced. :D

I'm a Canon guy, but Nikon is doing so many neat things lately, I have been tempted to hock my whole outfit (no small feat) and get a D2X with all the goodies and lenses...but I wait for the fall season to see what Canon has up its sleeve.

All depends with Sigma - I had a 12-24 that I absolutely loved - an awesome lens. I have an 8mm fisheye from them that is pretty crappy now. I think they make nice lenses, but you have to pick and choose based on what others have experienced. I think some of their gear is just as good or better than Canon or Nikon glas and some of it is unusable crap.

[beavo451]

So Nikon body and Sigma glass? or a Sigma even worse than Nikon in terms of lens quality, I was using a Sigma lens today to shoot the red arrows on a borrowed D-SLR and the lens is so poor its a wonder I even got a decent photograph!

Is it me or is Nikon glass over priced?!


You make it sound as if Nikon glass is not good. Nikon glass is excellent. Better than Canon? Sure. Worse than Canon? Sure. Personally I don't notice a practical difference. But Nikon glass being crap? I don't buy that. Remember a long time ago, Nikon made lenses for Canon.

[Zeke]

I would have to disagree about the most pros use Nikon. I've actually seen quite few pros who use Nikon (wedding photographers, nature, etc...) but hock that up to my just not seeing them. I would venture it's pretty evenly split so find the camera that you like the build of. The XTi is going to feel kinda cheap, but have nice features. I haven't personally felt the D80 but would be it's comparable to the 20d in feeling quite solid.

You can pick up a 20d for a great price now so that's what I would go for. It takes great pictures, its noise performance is great, and it saves the money for what really makes the pictures great...glass. Get a Tamron 28-75 2.8 or 17-55 2.8. Great lens for a comparatively bargain price.

[milozauckerman]

hmmm, B&H listed a ship date of 10/30 a couple of weeks ago, must have been a place-holder or screwup.

I prefer Canon glass myself, the pro-sumer primes (50/1.4, 28/1.8, etc.) have the excellent USM system, which makes for quieter, faster autofocus. Better build quality and feel to the focus ring if you choose to work manually, as well.

The upscale Nikon bodies have traditionally drawn more interest (F100, F5/6) for the matrix metering and distance-based flash (I forget what that system is called), but Canon bodies are equally good in most cases.

[Silentwave]

The upscale Nikon bodies have traditionally drawn more interest (F100, F5/6) for the matrix metering and distance-based flash (I forget what that system is called), but Canon bodies are equally good in most cases.

And the D80 has Nikon's excellent 3D Color matrix Metering II system (complete with spot meter :D), with the i-TTL flash system including wireless command functions for up to two independent banks of external speedlights.

[Abstract]

I just wanted to point out that since Canon has like 50-60% of the DSLR market, and Nikon has 25%, you're likely going to get 2/3rds of people here telling you to go with Canon, and 1/3rd telling you to go with Nikon. :p

My dad has the original rebel (300D) and has a sigma 100-300mm zoom lens but the quality is very poor in the image it produces and the auto-focus on the lens is slow and inaccurate.
Really? That Canon DSLR is supposed to take nice photos.


The pro photographers I know of all seem to use Nikon systems, only sports photographers and hobbists seem to be in the Canon camp.

I'd say more pros are in the Canon camp if they're shooting sports, but other than that and possibly several other areas, it'll be around the same. I love my Nikon bodies, and feel that the lenses are similar enough in quality to not make much of a practical difference as long as you can get the focal lengths, aperture size, and overall optical quality from the lenses you think you'll want. :) I do like the lenses Nikon is releasing though. They're doing great.

I just shot some photos of a sunset with a Canon shooter I met while I was there. I saw him and said hello. He saw that I was shooting with a Nikon, and he said, "Oh....Nikon. You're lucky." He continued to talk to me about how he goes there quite often, but all I was wondering was, "Why am I 'lucky?'" ;)



You will probably all recommend Canon which I think would be great for me for the next 2 or 3 years but after this who knows what systems and options and features high range cameras will have in 5 or 10 years when this new system may become a backup system. Then we can't give you any advice. ;)


I'd get the Nikon D80 over the Canon 400D. I don't know about the 400D's build quality, but the 350D felt poor in comparison to.....well......just about every Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax camera I have held. It's even cheap compared to other Canon's, and I don't think it's just because of the low price of the 350D. I just think they made a mistake. I don't think the 400D will feel as cheap, but I could be wrong. Also, it'll still be too small and too light.

I also travel a lot, and I have a Nikon D50, which is great. The D80 is making me jealous, though. ;)

[extraextra]

If the 300D is having problems focusing with the Sigma 100-300, it may be the lens. And, Sigma tend to have problems like backfocusing, front focusing, the right side of the image is blurry, etc (it's sort of hit-and-miss with them, but if you send the lens back they'll fix it and it'll work like a charm).

I have a Rebel XT. I lusted after a Nikon but somehow ended up with a Canon.. uh. I love my camera but I still kind of want a Nikon. If you want to feel "professional" and have a more "substantial" camera in terms of build, weight and ergonomics, then I'd definitely go Nikon. The Canon 400D is very small, and very light. Some say it's almost comparable to a point-and-shoot. If size and weight matter to you (in terms of portability) then the Canon might be for you.

I'd say right now go for the 400D or D80, and then in a few years down the road, make it your backup camera and then upgrade to the 5D or D200.

[sjl]

I'd get the Nikon D80 over the Canon 400D. I don't know about the 400D's build quality, but the 350D felt poor in comparison to.....well......just about every Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax camera I have held. It's even cheap compared to other Canon's, and I don't think it's just because of the low price of the 350D. I just think they made a mistake. I don't think the 400D will feel as cheap, but I could be wrong. Also, it'll still be too small and too light.
I have to second this. When I bought my 20D, I had three DSLRs in the knockoff: the 5D, the 20D, and the 350D. I quickly put the 5D out of the running (didn't want to buy an external flash at the time, and it was too expensive for my budget). On paper, I couldn't see much of a difference between the 20D and the 350D. It wasn't until I held the 350D in my hand (with a heavy lens attached) that I settled on the 20D; it just wasn't solid enough.

Very happy with the 20D. Although I am lusting after the 5D, I can't afford it (nor justify it, since the 20D does everything I want it to); maybe if I win the lottery ... :D

I'd very, very strongly recommend that you go into a camera store and physically hold the cameras in your hands before you make a decision.

[law guy]

I think Nikon makes better cameras and Canon makes better glass.

I just wanted to say that for some reason.

Oh, and David Ritz is Devil Spawn.

Why iGary, why go and say it... Nikon builds a fine Thailand package around the sony-supplied Matrix image processing components as well as the sony image sensor, but I have come to like Canon camera bodies much more. That said, even though I prefer the in-house R&D results that have produced two different full-frame sensors, image processing systems, and the Japan-based production of the cameras, I would rather have a 30D than a 400D for the body features that I find more important, but still find my sister's 350D very usable compared to my 30D and would prehaps prefer it with a compact lens for some travel.

[fitinferno]

I'd very, very strongly recommend that you go into a camera store and physically hold the cameras in your hands before you make a decision.

I note this because it is absolutely NECESSARY. When I was purchasing my first DSLR (which kudos to the ppl of MacRumours for helping me out on--I've yet to update my request for advice thread), I really thought I'd wind up getting a Canon 350d...but before getting it off the net, I went to PC World to test it out.

And oh my god did it ever cramp my hands. I could barely hold it for 5 minutes without getting uncomfortable, it was hard to imagine a whole day of shooting. Because these cameras are not out yet and I understand your excitement to get one asap, at least go out and try out a Nikon D70s and a Canon 350d.

My money's on Nikon...it just feels so much better and at the end of the day, you want a camera that you are going to feel is part of you, otherwise you just won't use it.

[lucero1148]

From my experience as a photojournalist I've seen more pros with Canons than Nikon. MOst of them like myself used to shoot with Nikons but switched because Canon's camera bodies and lenses provided superior overall performance. Thats due to the lense systems were able to focus faster and more accurately than Nikon and the pro bodies had easier more intuitive controls. Nikon has improved quite a bit in the last 4 years, but still doesn't have a full frame sensor or the has anything close to the resolving power of Canons 12 and 16 megapixel cameras.

I use a EOS 1D, 8 MP file size, but if I was to buy another camera it would be a 5D because its a 12MP file.

AS far as glass goes both Canon and Nikon are equally good. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 2 of them on image quality.

[stagi]

I have been a pro for over 7 years and it seems like the canon/nikon debate is always pretty split from other pro's. Lately though it has seemed that more pro's in my area are going with Canon. I have always preferred canon to nikon. I like the layout of the camera's better and have shot with them ever since I started out in high school. I also do think the Canon glass is better than the Nikon glass, but that is always up for debate and when you compare the pro series in both companies they are very similar.
In testing both out I have also felt that the auto focus for some of the canon systems were a little bit quicker and more accurate.

I would start out with a canon 30D, it's an awesome camera for a good price.

-- Mark

[Silentwave]

From my experience as a photojournalist I've seen more pros with Canons than Nikon. MOst of them like myself used to shoot with Nikons but switched because Canon's camera bodies and lenses provided superior overall performance. Thats due to the lense systems were able to focus faster and more accurately than Nikon and the pro bodies had easier more intuitive controls. Nikon has improved quite a bit in the last 4 years, but still doesn't have a full frame sensor or the has anything close to the resolving power of Canons 12 and 16 megapixel cameras.


Wow.

While it's true there has been a trend towards Canon recently, Canon has been pushing kickbacks to news agencies and the like- free equipment and so on.

In reality, you can get similar performance out of either system.

Most people I talk to tend to find Canon pro cameras far from intuitive in terms of controls. Big time. two small buttons and a wheel to change ISO or drive mode, on/off switch at the bottom....Canon's pro line still uses old NiMH batteries with far less shots per charge and far greater weight than Nikon's Li-ion batteries- the D2 series cameras achieve in excess of 2,000 shots per charge, now more thanks to an even more powerful battery released in June.

But it is your last statement that has no basis in fact, only advertising.

Nikon's D2X/Xs has a 12.4mp CMOS DX format sensor with a pixel density noticeably greater than anything Canon has to offer. It is not MP but pixel density that determines the resolving power of a sensor. Thanks to this actual physical advantage, the D2X/Xs resolve more detail than Canon's 1DS MkII and 5D.

[cgratti]

Ritz Camera do seem to ship to the UK but I couldnt figure out the cost. Why is the Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm lens kit $1,300 shipped in the USA but $1,900 in the UK shipped (£1,000).

So I could fly to the US and get the camera for the same price as I could go to a shop to get it here. $600 cheaper! thats crazy money discount!

Looks like I will have to wait till October for either camera to come out here unless I find someone going to the US soon.

So far Nikon winning over the Canon! Anyone else give me a reason for the Canon?


Do you know anyone in the US who can get the camera and ship it to you?

[Jay42]

I think it seems like most people like the D80 on paper. The one problem I see with the 400D is the lack of a settings LCD. That means the color LCD is on a lot of the time, and will significantly reduce battery life. Also, its tough to justify spending $800 on a body without a spot meter. And why does Canon insist on only one thumb dial?

The D80 looks excellent, but it is still more expensive. Also I personally prefer Canon's lens system. There are simply more choices. There is something to be said with going with the biggest company. Also, while both bodies shoot at 3fps, the 400D has a deeper buffer.

[vectormasked]

Check www.dpreview.com

You probably alreayd know about this site, but if not check it out.

For in-depth reviews of those two models click on this links

Canon XTi http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos400d/
Nikon D80 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/

[eddx]

I'd very, very strongly recommend that you go into a camera store and physically hold the cameras in your hands before you make a decision.

I will definately do this, I would like it before November but I think I'm going to wait and try the two bodies in my local camera store before I rush into this, its a huge jump into photography and one that could effect my whole (future) career in digital photography.

[eddx]

Do you know anyone in the US who can get the camera and ship it to you?

Simply put...no I dont, I could probably email a couple of people but I dont know how I would go about getting it shipped and paying the person, I would have to really trust them, plus the hassle of any possible import taxes etc.

But $600 saving on the Nikon D80 is definately worth it, even if it cost $50-100 to get the person to ship the beast.

Check this out for rip off UK prices...my local camera shop (a national chain called Jessops) sell 1GB SD cards at between £85 - £124 (thats $160-240!!!) for ONE GB SD CARD!

Seriously, I might just look for a cheap flight to the US and get the camera that way!

[sjl]

Nikon's D2X/Xs has a 12.4mp CMOS DX format sensor with a pixel density noticeably greater than anything Canon has to offer. It is not MP but pixel density that determines the resolving power of a sensor. Thanks to this actual physical advantage, the D2X/Xs resolve more detail than Canon's 1DS MkII and 5D.

Everything has a price. The price of Nikon's greater pixel density (and hence greater resolving power) is an increased amount of noise.

The difference is most marked at ISO 3200, but that's a setting that you'd not use unless there was no other way you could get the shot. It appears, though, that Nikon encourages D2X users to go no further than ISO 800, whilst Canon encourages 20D (for example) users to stop at ISO 1600.

Whether or not this is an issue for you depends on what you want to shoot, of course.

The other point, of course, is that you're not going to be able to take advantage of that greater resolving power without spending big dollars on glass. But then, to buy a D2X (or a 5D, or a 1Ds) and then stick a $200 zoom lens on it is to spend thousands of dollars on a $300 point-and-shoot. :D

[beavo451]

The other point, of course, is that you're not going to be able to take advantage of that greater resolving power without spending big dollars on glass. But then, to buy a D2X (or a 5D, or a 1Ds) and then stick a $200 zoom lens on it is to spend thousands of dollars on a $300 point-and-shoot. :D

The 18-70mm DX for ~$250 works.... :D

[tuartboy]

But it is your last statement that has no basis in fact, only advertising.

Nikon's D2X/Xs has a 12.4mp CMOS DX format sensor with a pixel density noticeably greater than anything Canon has to offer. It is not MP but pixel density that determines the resolving power of a sensor. Thanks to this actual physical advantage, the D2X/Xs resolve more detail than Canon's 1DS MkII and 5D.

I agree about MP not meaning too much, but are you suggesting that a higher pixel density is better? Having pixels placed closer together means that there is more noise produced by the sensor and it is evident in images. This is the same reason that a PaS with a small sensor, but same pixel count and equal glass cannot produce as smooth and balanced an image as a FF or even crop body D-SLR. The lower the density, the less noise induced, not the other way around.

The real issue here is not the camera body. The body is the tool; get a tool you feel comfortable with. The real issue is glass. Research glass far more than the body and pick a system you know has the glass you want and need. I have found canon L lenses to be of higher quality at the same price range than Nikon lenses.

If you are interested, the Canon 16-35 L is a great ultra wide and will work perfectly with a crop body like the xti. The 17-40mm is cheaper, but still a fantastic lense and is great for a starter L lense. Also, research the 70-200mm f4 which is a fantastically priced zoom with great build quality and resolution. The L series is a little pricey, but there are some steals to be bad (the last 2 mentioned) and they are tanks, take beautiful pictures and will last forever.

If you become a little more serious than a casual D-SLR user you will likely be spending more money on lenses than on your body, so plan accordingly.

Oh, and yes, the 300D is still a fantastic camera and you likely had a bum sigma lense.

[Silentwave]

We were talking pure resolving power.

As far as lenses, if I were going Canon with a 1.6x body at this point, i'd skip the mediocre 17-40L and the 16-35L altogether and just go straight for the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS USM. it seems to be very good optically, has IS, etc.

And I have found that similarly priced lenses from Canon's L series to not always be as good as the Nikons myself :D There is a reason why some people use the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor on Canon FF bodies :p

[tuartboy]

We were talking pure resolving power.

As far as lenses, if I were going Canon with a 1.6x body at this point, i'd skip the mediocre 17-40L and the 16-35L altogether and just go straight for the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS USM. it seems to be very good optically, has IS, etc.

And I have found that similarly priced lenses from Canon's L series to not always be as good as the Nikons myself :D There is a reason why some people use the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor on Canon FF bodies :p
At this level of camera, resolving power involves the lens far more than the sensor (eg. wavelength, diffraction).

I personally skipped over the 17-55 ef-s and went straight for the 16-35 L for multiple reasons.

Better build quality.
Weathersealing.
Full-frame compatibility.
Optically equivalent.

And 1 good lense doesn't make a whole line.

Disclaimer: I like canon. :p

[milozauckerman]

I've never heard the 17-40 referred to as 'mediocre' - all indications point to it being tack-sharp throughout the range. The 16-35 is an older design but performs well enough wide open.

Resolving power is well and good if you're on a tripod, using MLU and a cable or radio release, but not so important if you're shooting at 400-1600 ISO handheld (which is far more often my situation).

The deal breaker for me is the D2X's 1.5X crop factor camera - Nikon's offerings on prime lenses in the wide-medium range are slim. If you're content to shoot at f/2.8 the Nikon zooms are fine, but I like fast primes.

[maxiam]

Ritz Camera do seem to ship to the UK but I couldnt figure out the cost. Why is the Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm lens kit $1,300 shipped in the USA but $1,900 in the UK shipped (£1,000).

You don't need to go to the US when you can get good deals in Europe. Keep in mind if you have it shipped from outside the EU you would also have to spring for import duty.

I live in Switzerland and am also looking at picking up a D80. Here the best prices are:
body: 1141 Francs, US$926, £487
+ 18-70 lens: 1517 CHF, US$1231, £648
+ 18-135 lens: same as 18-70

In Germany you can get similar deals (and is within EU), you just need to look on the internet.

[drlunanerd]

You don't need to go to the US when you can get good deals in Europe. Keep in mind if you have it shipped from outside the EU you would also have to spring for import duty.

I live in Switzerland and am also looking at picking up a D80. Here the best prices are:
body: 1141 Francs, US$926, £487
+ 18-70 lens: 1517 CHF, US$1231, £648
+ 18-135 lens: same as 18-70

In Germany you can get similar deals (and is within EU), you just need to look on the internet.

That's not including sales tax though, is it? :eek:

The prices the OP has quoted are expensive. The D80 body is going for £599 in the UK already - a couple of places throw in a 2 year warranty too. I predict prices will fall closer to £549. These are UK/Europe models - not grey imports.

[maxiam]

That's not including sales tax though, is it? :eek:
Yes, that's including Swiss sales tax of 7.6% :p

EDIT: and I should say that the prices I quoted are from reputable companies within Switzerland

[maxiam]

If you don't have Nikon lenses already, you can buy the body and get a new 18-55 that was sold with the D50 kit. On Ebay these go for about 100 Euro and many reviews say they are better than the 18-70.

I already have a 50mm 1.8D (you can also get these excellent portrait lenses cheap) and a 70-300 off my old Nikon.

[eddx]

You don't need to go to the US when you can get good deals in Europe. Keep in mind if you have it shipped from outside the EU you would also have to spring for import duty.

I live in Switzerland and am also looking at picking up a D80. Here the best prices are:
body: 1141 Francs, US$926, £487
+ 18-70 lens: 1517 CHF, US$1231, £648
+ 18-135 lens: same as 18-70

In Germany you can get similar deals (and is within EU), you just need to look on the internet.

Thanks for the advice, I will definately look at getting a Euro import, maybe from Germany or Switzerland. The prices seem very much similar to US prices. I think for a starter kit I will look at getting the Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm lens and a 2GB SD card. Should be an OK lens / body combo to start with, then look at getting a 70-300mm lens some time in the future.

Pixmania usually have some good prices on imports from France, I have delt with them before and althugh the manuals are in French only its worth it for the money you save. I will definately look around the internet for Euro imports. Thanks

[drlunanerd]

Yes, that's including Swiss sales tax of 7.6% :p

EDIT: and I should say that the prices I quoted are from reputable companies within Switzerland

I think we have to pay UK VAT and import duty when buying things from Switzerland, as it's not in the EU. That significantly narrows the price difference, so it wouldn't be worth it IMO.

To the OP: at the moment Pixmania are not competitve on price for the D80. However I expect that will change as places start to get stock and prices may drop a bit.

Note that when buying Nikon camera bodies, the warranty is only for the country which it was bought in and Nikon UK won't touch it (although I believe you're OK if buying in Europe). Lenses have an international warranty though, so Nikon UK will honour it.

[BanjoBanker]

I have a D70s that I bought last year and I love it. I have used Nikon professionally for the last 25 years and never had a problem. I see about an evan split amongst my peers w/ Nikon/Cannon bodies. The D70s will probably be discontinued in a year or so, but it has all the basic features that the D80 does and it uses CF cards. That is one of the reasons that I bought it. I have a D2x and I use the D70s as a second body on shoots. I bought a battery pack from Hood Man that holds two of the Li batteries and I get about 4000 shots before a recharge is due. My daughter uses the D70s for her school; annual and newspaper shots and her results have been excellent. I was out Saturday lusting after a D2xs ( ordered one!) and the store where I buy my equipment had D70s for $800 USD w/ the 18/70 3.5-5 lens. They are currently an excellent buy and you would never miss the "improvements" of the D80.

[ChrisA]

Everything has a price. The price of Nikon's greater pixel density (and hence greater resolving power) is an increased amount of noise.

The difference is most marked at ISO 3200, but that's a setting that you'd not use unless there was no other way you could get the shot. It appears, though, that Nikon encourages D2X users to go no further than ISO 800, whilst Canon encourages 20D (for example) users to stop at ISO 1600.

Whether or not this is an issue for you depends on what you want to shoot, of course.

The other point, of course, is that you're not going to be able to take advantage of that greater resolving power without spending big dollars on glass. But then, to buy a D2X (or a 5D, or a 1Ds) and then stick a $200 zoom lens on it is to spend thousands of dollars on a $300 point-and-shoot. :D

The limmiting factor in a DSLR's resolving power is something Nikon and Canon don't like to talk much about. It's in the "low pas filter". This is a device that is attached directly to the CCD and light passes through it before the light reaches the CCD. The function of the low pass filter is to blur the image such that there is no details smaller then about 2.5 pixels.

Let's assume we have 3,000 pixels across a 24mm frame. that is 125 pixels per mm. The most detail the low pas filter will let through is about 50 lines per mm. If don't mater if the MTF chart on your $2,000 lens says it can do better the filter will blur the image down to 50 lines per mm. But this is a good thing. Without the filter these higher spacial frquencies would alias and you'd get what looks like banding.

As it turns out just about any Nikon lens can do 50 lines/mm some can do better.
I have an olldr 35-85mm f/5.6 zoom that sold for about $100 and it makes an image as sharp as my D50 can record. It actually makes a nice macro lens at the 85mm setting.
My 55mm macro lens is no sharper due to the limit of the low pass filter.

BTW a 13.5 MP full frame sensor would have the same resolution (in terms of lines/mm.) as a 6 MP DX size sensor.

[drlunanerd]

I have a D70s that I bought last year and I love it. I have used Nikon professionally for the last 25 years and never had a problem. I see about an evan split amongst my peers w/ Nikon/Cannon bodies. The D70s will probably be discontinued in a year or so, but it has all the basic features that the D80 does and it uses CF cards. That is one of the reasons that I bought it. I have a D2x and I use the D70s as a second body on shoots. I bought a battery pack from Hood Man that holds two of the Li batteries and I get about 4000 shots before a recharge is due. My daughter uses the D70s for her school; annual and newspaper shots and her results have been excellent. I was out Saturday lusting after a D2xs ( ordered one!) and the store where I buy my equipment had D70s for $800 USD w/ the 18/70 3.5-5 lens. They are currently an excellent buy and you would never miss the "improvements" of the D80.

The D70s is discontinued as of now. Nikon are no longer manufacturing it as the D80 has replaced it.

The D70s is a nice camera, but I wouldn't buy one now. The larger, brighter viewfinder (and LCD) on the D80 are improvements you most definitely will notice.

[form]

To those persons insisting that greater pixel density is the deciding factor...do you believe that the density being referred to is that found on the sensor - how close the photodetectors are to each other, and how small each pixel is (Pixel Pitch: consumer P&S cameras are an extreme example of forcing millions of pixels onto a tiny sensor, and consider their quality)...or the density of actual resolution - in which case a higher MP count in an identical photograph means higher pixel density, which does actually mean more detail?

When the sensors are approximately the same physical size and have the same MP, how can one resolve hardly any more detail than the other, say at ISO100 where noise shouldn't interfere?

If anything, smaller pixel pitch means more noise and less dynamic range; for the latter, this explanation was provided to me: The analogy of buckets was made on a website I read a while ago. Each photodetector is a "bucket," which fills up with light. The smaller the bucket, the fewer grades between black and white. The larger the bucket, the more subtle the grades can be.

All evidence I have read has pointed to a larger pixel pitch having greater potential for image quality in several aspects.


...As for the subject of which camera to get, it's very subjective, and there have not yet been any good reviews of either one from which to make any kind of semi-informed decision about the body.

Lenses are somewhat less subjective, and the options available for both Nikon and Canon seem more than adequate. I think some of Nikon's wider primes may be better in the corners than Canon's...while Canon's 85mm lenses seem very highly regarded for portraits. They each have many other ups and downs compared to each other, as well.

Read some information online, find samples and comparisons from the different lenses/manufacturers. If it's such an important decision, you should do extensive research before choosing.

[agentmouthwash]

Buy yourself a Nikon D80 with the 18-200mm Nikon lens.
You can't go wrong with that setup and it's perfect to grow with.

[Silentwave]

If anything, smaller pixel pitch means more noise and less dynamic range


Actually, DPReview has done some testing on DR recently.

The D2X, D200, and EOS 5D have *identical* amounts of DR.

The D200 and 5D are closer to each other in where the response lies, the D2X tends to have more shadow DR.

They didn't test the D2Xs but I bet it is similar.

The current champion is the 1.6x crop 30D.
by 0.2EV.

[maxiam]

I think we have to pay UK VAT and import duty when buying things from Switzerland, as it's not in the EU. That significantly narrows the price difference, so it wouldn't be worth it IMO.

That is completely true, you would need to buy it IN Switzerland. This is why I gave the example of Germany.

In Germany you can get similar deals (and is within EU), you just need to look on the internet.

I have checked on the internet and Germany seems a bit more expensive than Switzerland. The very low sales tax in Switzerland would be the major factor in the price difference.

If I were you, I would wait a month and see what the reviews say about the camera when more people have received them. Also, as has been pointed out, the price is likely to drop before xmas.

[eyup]

I note this because it is absolutely NECESSARY. Because these cameras are not out yet and I understand your excitement to get one asap, at least go out and try out a Nikon D70s and a Canon 350d.


Fitinferno is right - you must handle a camera before buying - I was in three minds between a 20D, 350d and a Nikon D50. Tried them out in the shop and boy was the 350d small - too small. The 20D was a brick - too big. The D50 was perfect.

[Teddy's]

What do you recommend? Nikon or Canon? and why?

Canon
3 words: Sensor Cleaning System :D
now my bottle of Green Clean is going to last more

[Pistol Pete]

The D80 will have a better (brighter) viewfinder and a sturdier build. But it doesn't seem to be shipping until the tail end of October and there could be delays even after that, given Nikon's track record.

they are in store now...

anyways...You have to be comfortable with it...the D80 has a much nicer grip.

[clintob]

Neither. Having used both in a pro setting, here are my two cents:

1) Nikon makes SLIGHTLY better bodies than Canon (although the difference is negligible for the most part).

2) Canon's L glass (professional series lenses) are superior to Nikon's professional glass.

3) You will quickly outgrow and find irritating the Rebel's small size and lack of external controls.

2 and 3 are VERY important factors to consider. Your lenses are far more important than your body, so I always lead people in the direction of the better lens lineup (almost always Canon).

The Rebel body, however, has it's controls hidden inside of menus (instead of on the body itself, like the 10/20/30D) and it's a bit undersized and cheaply constructed. Also, don't be fooled by the 10MP sensor. The basically crammed extra MP onto the same size sensor as before, without making any improvements to the chip itself, so that means more digital noise.

Find a way to swing a few extra bucks, and get yourself a 30D and one or two really nice L-series Canon lenses. You will have an incredible setup that way, and it's something you can grow into and continue to use even at a professional level without any sacrifices.

[compuwar]

I think Nikon makes better cameras and Canon makes better glass.

I just wanted to say that for some reason.

Oh, and David Ritz is Devil Spawn.

Actually, Nikon owns their own glass manufacturing facilities, and makes their own lenses, unlike Canon. Though there's really not a great deal of difference in the high-end line of either manufacturer.

[compuwar]

What do you recommend? Nikon or Canon? and why?

The camera doesn't make a whole lot of difference overall. The decision is really "where should I spend my money lens-wise?" Subjectively, I prefer the contrast of Nikkor lenses to that of Canon, but image quality wise, my Nikkor 400mm 2.8 lens is not a great deal different than the same sized Canon lens- you'll find that most people who hold opinions haven't shot with both systems. I find Nikon's bodies more intuitive, but then I've been using them for a very long time, I doubt it's all that much of a deal killer for anyone looking to do pro-level work where you're mostly shooting from support anyway. Nikon's flash system is superior to Canon's, but if you're going to do off-camera strobes, that won't make much difference. Canon's high-ISO noise is less, though it seems more due to programming in camera than the sensors. Nikon outsources its sensors to Sony, Canon doesn't.

Glass-wise, if you're just going to get a couple of small lenses, then go with the system that has the lenses in the range you want to shoot in. Spend as little as possible on the body and as much as you can on lenses, they make the most difference.

Canon's long lenses (the ones that cost as much as small cars) are all image stabalized, Nikon's aren't. Canon's long glass is cheaper than Nikon's.

With a few rare exceptions, 3rd party lenses suck in comparison to the OEM lenses unless they're made by Zeiss. Also, OEM "pro" lenses hold their values a lot more, so you don't end up eating the full cost if you need to swtich.

If you know photographers with one system or the other, and they'll let you borrow their glass, then go with that, otherwise find a store with both bodies and a fair selection of lenses and give them both a try.

Paul

[Karpfish]

I switched from NIkon to canon, if that says anything. For the price, the canon 20D owns. The 20D is cheaper than the D80 is now. I am using the 1D now, what a beast, its amazing.

[beavo451]

2) Canon's L glass (professional series lenses) are superior to Nikon's professional glass.



Are they really? If Canon is better, it would only be very slightly. Having seen many shots from either system, I really can't tell a real world difference.

[clintob]

Are they really? If Canon is better, it would only be very slightly. Having seen many shots from either system, I really can't tell a real world difference.

The truth of this Canon/Nikon debate is probably right there. If you have a decent body, and equivalent lenses (both professional glass), and set up the same shot with each camera, it would take some serious loupe studying to really see a difference.

The differences are subtle... Nikkor glass tends to be a little higher contrast, Canon glass tends to be a little more crisp. I personally have found Canon's wide angle lenses to show a bit less distortion than most, but that could very well be a personal experience since frankly every lens, no matter how carefully constructed, is a little different.

If you put good glass on your average or better body, you're going to be happy with your results. If you're not, you're too picky and need a new hobby.

[compuwar]

From my experience as a photojournalist I've seen more pros with Canons than Nikon. MOst of them like myself used to shoot with


This is true, Canon's much larger and has better marketing, they have probably 2x the professional market share of Nikon, and that's not likely to change.


Nikons but switched because Canon's camera bodies and lenses provided superior overall performance. Thats due to the lense systems were able to focus faster and more accurately than Nikon and the pro bodies had easier


This isn't true. 1. Most pros "switched" because Canon offered their newspapers/magazines gear at ridiculously low prices- the only way to get folks to switch if they have a heavy investment in lenses and several bodies.

Outside of wedding photographers, the bulk of professional photographers are in the media industry where their employers furnish the gear.


more intuitive controls. Nikon has improved quite a bit in the last 4 years, but still doesn't have a full frame sensor or the has anything close to the resolving power of Canons 12 and 16 megapixel cameras.


Actually, Nikon's controls and handling really haven't materially changed since at least the 8008s days, which would be ~1989 if I rembmer correctly. As for full-frame, a full-frame sensor would need to be ~30 megapixels to get the same sensor resolution as my D2x has at 12.4MP. In fact, most of the reviews when the D2x came out raved at its resolution compared to the Canon 1DS MkII which cost twice as much at the time.


I use a EOS 1D, 8 MP file size, but if I was to buy another camera it would be a 5D because its a 12MP file.


If the size of the file is your criteria for switching camera bodies, then I'd question your evaluation criteria pretty seriously. It's not all about megapixels, in fact, the more megapixels the more you're going to run into diffraction limitations due to the size of the photosites.


AS far as glass goes both Canon and Nikon are equally good. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 2 of them on image quality.

This is also true.

[compuwar]

Everything has a price. The price of Nikon's greater pixel density (and hence greater resolving power) is an increased amount of noise.


It's also worth pointing out that Canon does a lot more noise reduction in the camera's firmware than Nikon does, but for 3200 shots, currently Canon is the choice to make. Personally, I hardly ever shoot above ISO 400, but if I did, I'd probably have a Canon.


The difference is most marked at ISO 3200, but that's a setting that you'd not use unless there was no other way you could get the shot. It appears, though, that Nikon encourages D2X users to go no further than ISO 800, whilst Canon encourages 20D (for example) users to stop at ISO 1600.


I'm not sure if the "Hi" designation is discouragement or if it's how many LCD segments they had, or some other reason. However the latest firmware updates add 1000 and 1250 spots to the Hi range and seem to reduce blue channel noise in all of the high ISO ranges. At this point though, it's difficult to tell if Nikon is sticking to the designation because the older 4MP pro bodies did suck at high ISO and they want to keep nomenclature compatibility or if it's just their faith in the current sensors.


Whether or not this is an issue for you depends on what you want to shoot, of course.

The other point, of course, is that you're not going to be able to take advantage of that greater resolving power without spending big dollars on glass. But then, to buy a D2X (or a 5D, or a 1Ds) and then stick a $200 zoom lens on it is to spend thousands of dollars on a $300 point-and-shoot. :D

Indeed, the D2x and D200 bodies have shown flaws in a few lenses that were fine on 6MP bodies.