Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon Rebel XTi (400D) vs. Nikon D80
- Thread starter eddx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tuartboy
macrumors 6502a
Silentwave said:
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.
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 😀 There is a reason why some people use the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor on Canon FF bodies 😛
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 😀 There is a reason why some people use the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor on Canon FF bodies 😛
tuartboy
macrumors 6502a
At this level of camera, resolving power involves the lens far more than the sensor (eg. wavelength, diffraction).Silentwave said:
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. 😛
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.
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.
eddx said:
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
macrumors 68000
maxiam said:
That's not including sales tax though, is it? 😱
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.
Yes, that's including Swiss sales tax of 7.6% 😛drlunanerd said:
EDIT: and I should say that the prices I quoted are from reputable companies within Switzerland
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.
I already have a 50mm 1.8D (you can also get these excellent portrait lenses cheap) and a 70-300 off my old Nikon.
maxiam said:
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
macrumors 68000
maxiam said:
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
macrumors 6502
Look at a D70s
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.
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.
sjl said:
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
macrumors 68000
BanjoBanker said:
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
macrumors regular
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.
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
macrumors regular
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.
You can't go wrong with that setup and it's perfect to grow with.
form said:
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.
drlunanerd said:
That is completely true, you would need to buy it IN Switzerland. This is why I gave the example of Germany.
maxiam said:
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.
eddx said:
Canon
3 words: Sensor Cleaning System 😀
now my bottle of Green Clean is going to last more
Pistol Pete
macrumors 6502a
milozauckerman said:
they are in store now...
anyways...You have to be comfortable with it...the D80 has a much nicer grip.
clintob
macrumors 6502
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.
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
macrumors 601
eddx said:
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
