View Full Version : Canon 20D or Nikon D70s ?
Antoine_Fabi
09-23-2005, 08:47 AM
Hi,
I am really hesitating between these two cameras...
If you have worked with both of these cameras, could you give me your opinion ?
I want to know more about dynamic range, color rendition, noise level etc...
thanks !
evinsky
09-29-2005, 03:59 AM
Nikon has more film like image, but more noise, cheaper though and comes with a great lens (18-70). Canon is cleaner at Hi-Iso and records a little more detail but nothing visible in a print.
D-70 is lighter and layed out more intuitively. I personally have the D2X and a D70, mostly because I like Nikon glass better. But thier both great systems.
Antoine_Fabi
09-29-2005, 09:17 AM
evinski,
thanks for the info. :)
I am also thinking of getting a D70... the images it takes are quite nice
Both are great cameras. I personally like Nikon's ergonomics better. I know it's not an issue usually brought up in reviews and it's definitely a personal preference, but hell, if the camera doesn't feel good in your hand you can't shoot with it.
I'd actually reccomend skipping both of them and picking up a Fuji S2 or S3-actually, I should qualify that. The Fuji has much better color rendition, especially in the skin tones. It's not the fastest camera in the world, however, and wasn't made with sports photography in mind.
Evinsky-how are you liking the D2X? I use it at work and have been really impressed with the Noise Reduction feature especially. Great camera...but it is kinda pricey, it costs almost as much as two DVX-100A!
ronik15
10-10-2005, 09:22 AM
I personnally like the 20D over the d70s. I do shoot sports so I needed at least 5 fps. The 20D also have a strong advantage with the autofocus. Of course the 20D is more expensive but go with your need. I you don't need a fast camera for sports and you have a little bit more money than the d70 costs, buy better lenses and more lenses, flashes and things like that. They will change much more in your images than the difference between the d70 and the 20d.
True, the Canon is a bit faster. The D70s is 3 fps. However, the 20D maxes out at about 25 shots, whereas you can do 144 continuous on the Nikon. Guess it depends on the kind of sports shooting that you do whether that makes a difference.
Neither of these things make a difference in my shooting and I'm not trying to start a brand war...I work part time at a camera store and unfortunately have memorized these minutiae...
Digigenic
10-11-2005, 01:19 AM
...I'd actually reccomend skipping both of them and picking up a Fuji S2 or S3-actually, I should qualify that. The Fuji has much better color rendition, especially in the skin tones. It's not the fastest camera in the world, however, and wasn't made with sports photography in mind...
Interesting that you should bring up Fuji. Some serious speculation is beginning to surface on some phototgraphy boards with regard to Nikon's upcoming release of a D100 successor and a possible full frame camera that would employ a Fuji sensor. Of course, nobody will really know until it's released, and there's no telling how long it will be before that happens. For now though, there are some great cameras out there, great images are made with both the D70 and the 20D.
Hadn't heard the rumor about a D200 with a Fuji sensor, but that would be great. I've been very pleased with my S2's color rendition. I should mention that it's based on a Nikon body and will take any F-mount lens...plus it's got a PC sync, which neither the D70, D50, or D100 have.
hillcity
10-17-2005, 03:28 PM
That's me and my D70 in my avatar. It's a freakin awesome camera... check out some of the pics on my page: page (http://www.hillcityparable.com/fotos) That gallery is about 70% D70 and 30% Pentax ZxM(35mm) see if you can tell what's what...
I never did a hands on, but all my research suggested that the D70 was the better camera to get esp. as a first Digital SLR. I was highly skeptical about spending 1200 clams on an image I might hate. Now that I have my D70, the cycle is complete. I used to be a DV snob over film, and a 35mm-still snob overt digital-stills. I'm officially a 100% digital snob.
I'm pretty sure it's the Nikon glass...whatever it is, I'm in love....
peace.
hillcity
10-17-2005, 03:51 PM
Yeah, how about I actually mention some of the things you asked about...lol
Regarding noise level, I have to admit that I'm a little T.O.'d about the noise in some of my high ISO pictures. On the other hand, I'm spoiled. When I used my 35mm Pentax, I never used to go above ISO 150. All my stuff was 50, (iso50.com is a great site btw) or 100 or 120...
and I shot slide film which is grainier to begin with...
So it's a toss up. Where can you EVER get a crystal clear 1600 print?
But the D70 is a tool like the DVX or any other camera, and to some degree it's only as good the eye behind it.
Also, I can't speak in terms of a comparison to the Canon, but I also notice that if I'm not mindful of the exposure, the color red will blow out more than I want it to. But this is easily corrected with care and attention to the settings.
I think the main thing is that DSLRS are so enchanting to old skool 35mm converts that sometimes we forget to keep our bearings about us. I'm still trying to break myself of the habit of using the preset aperture or shutter speed settings on my D70, but the fact that I trust them that much should tell you something about what it delivers...
Aejaz
10-26-2005, 11:28 AM
D70 vs 20D is exactly the same debate as is Pc vs Mac.
for a detailed comparison u may visit...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
nice review...
I myslef have the Nikon D70- and more than satisfied with the results
Has anyone tried a Canon 350D yet??
From the reviews I've read, it is as good as the 20D but much cheaper... I am thinking of getting one to replace my 35mm EOS.
crayolamarker
10-26-2005, 01:54 PM
Ive had the D70 for over a year and I love it.
Luis Caffesse
10-26-2005, 01:55 PM
I recently got a D70s (okay, to be honest it's my wife's camera...but I"ve been using it A LOT).
I'm absolutely in love with it. I don't regret buying it for one second.
We also picked up the Nikon SB-600 (i think) speedlight flash which can be used remotely as a slave. This makes taking natural looking flash photos MUCH easier. I think Canon offers the same wireless capability with their new flashes as well but I'm not sure. You should definitely consider it as I think it's an incredibly useful feature.
But, I'll echo what someone else said here... the lens will make a bigger difference than the camera body (between the 20D and the D70). That would be where I would look...check out the Canon lenses/prices and compare with the Nikon lenses/prices. I'm not sure if that will make your decision easier or harder. Our decision was a simple one as my wife already had a Nikon film camera, so we coudl use our existing lenses on the D70s.
I would also highly recomment Ken Rockwell's site that someone linked to above.
He really knows what he's talking about and has posted many good reviews (though you should know upfront that he seems to favor Nikon gear).
One thing I wished I'd known is that the D70s does not have the timelapse feature that the 20D has. If you've seen any of Drew's work on here, you know what that might be something you'd want. Check out the clips he put together here:
www.599productions.com
(20D Time-Lapse 1 is a fantastic example!)
Just something else to think about.
tigeba
10-26-2005, 04:52 PM
I feel these are both great cameras. Comparing the D70 to the 20D is a bit unfair to the D70, it should probably be compared with the 10D. I don't own a 20D, but I have had an opportunity to shoot with it and it is fantastic. The AF has really great sensitivity, and shooting at 3200 iso with almost no grain is pretty awesome. You might want to check out this review for some samples.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-location.shtml
Personally, I think the additional 2MP is a fairly big advantage if you need to crop or blow up. If you are just gonna make a little 4X6 print, it probably would never benefit you. If you already have good Nikon glass, you might want to just wait a bit for their new camera. I think it is fair to say that high-end Canon and Nikon glass are equivalent. I chose Canon when I did because Nikon did not offer much in the way of IS at the time, but I believe that now they do.
Graeme_Nattress
10-26-2005, 05:57 PM
The 350 gives the same great image as the 20D, but the 20D body is much, much nicer, and if you have big hands, you need the 20D. The 20D is easier to use and feels more robust.
The D70(s) produces lovely images also. Really, get either and take lots of photos....
Graeme
newbie
10-27-2005, 12:56 AM
I would go with D50. IMO it has better skin tones, it is cheaper and smaller, but yet with a good grip.
Or just wait for D200....
Luis Caffesse
10-27-2005, 01:04 AM
I would go with D50. IMO it has better skin tones, it is cheaper and smaller, but yet with a good grip.
Or just wait for D200....
I looked at the D50 when we were making our choices, and it was the ability to use the remote flash that sold me on the extra money for the D70s. And I'm really glad we went with it because we've been shooting with the flash off the camera a lot more than using it on the hot shoe.
If that's not important to you, then the D50 is a really good buy.
newbie
10-27-2005, 01:35 AM
Yes you are right about that and I agree. D70s has a few features that the D50 doesnīt have, but I never used any of them when I had the D70. The main reason why I didnīt use the wireless flash is because I have a studio flash at home.
greeches
11-01-2005, 02:48 PM
nikon nikon nikon! NIce glass, great feel... I do hear the canon's break down less in heavy use....
stabwound
11-01-2005, 03:11 PM
Now that the Nikon D200 is here...
Nikon D200!!!
This from a Canon fan. The D200 is fantastically priced. Under 2k.
What more can you ask?
I just got a email from Roberts Camera and they will be selling the D200 for $1649 and the new 18-200VR lens for $669.
I don't get why lenses like the 18-200, or even the Sigma 18-125, are so popular.
Let me get this straight:
I buy a digital camera for X amount of dollars (X usually equaling alot of money)
This expensive camera is cool because it has a) excellent image quality and b)the ability to use accessories such as external flash systems and lenses
Then I go and buy one lens that "does it all?" No thanks. I'd rather have one lens for each purpose. Nothing wrong with zooms, but at a certain length it gets ridiculous. Most pros carry around a minimum of 3 lenses, oftentimes more because one lens can not be good at everything.
One man's opinion...
Graeme_Nattress
11-02-2005, 12:06 PM
Why, because not all photography happens in easy to get to environments. Hence I bought a 70-300 IS DO, which is small and light, barely bigger than the stock 17-85 on the 20D, which means I can easily take it with me!
This means I can get photos which I'd not otherwise as the lens would be took clumbersome to take with me. That said, when you have the best of conditions, having a number of lenses for the right situations, is the best thing.
Graeme
It just seems to me that all-in-one cameras like the Nikon8800 or Canon Pro1 would be better if that's the kind of shooting you do...granted, you probably need and use the full capabilities of the 20D. I'm looking at this from the rather cynical perspective of a former camera store employee who would see people who didn't know the first thing about photography buying expensive cameras and using them in auto mode with the cheapest lens they could find...
*phew* got that out of my system. Anyway, I see your point...long zooms have their place. But I still don't understand this monstrosity. (http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3307&navigator=3)
Graeme_Nattress
11-02-2005, 12:41 PM
Well, they wouldn't be better, or else I would have gone for one instead..... It would certainly have been cheaper, but if I'm on the road, I need a camerabag I can take with me, not one which causes me back ache, but I do need a fully manual camera, so I get an expensive lens which gets me the range I need, but the lightness I need, without too much sacrifice on the quality.
And indeed, a 50-500 is a bit daft.
Graeme
I definitely see your point, Graeme. My solution is kinda extreme...I take either my whole camera bag (which weighs a ton) or my Minox 35mm.
The 50-500 is pretty ridiculous. I'm amazed that they even sell. They have a slow aperture, they're heavy, and they cost over a grand last I checked.
stabwound
11-02-2005, 09:04 PM
Well, they wouldn't be better, or else I would have gone for one instead..... It would certainly have been cheaper, but if I'm on the road, I need a camerabag I can take with me, not one which causes me back ache, but I do need a fully manual camera, so I get an expensive lens which gets me the range I need, but the lightness I need, without too much sacrifice on the quality.
And indeed, a 50-500 is a bit daft.
Graeme
The Sigma 50-500 (affectionately known as "Bigma") is highly regarded as it compares well with the best lenses in that range.
I'm no fan of "superzooms" as they usually trade range for sharpness.
Granted it's big and heavy (which 500mm isn't?) but I'd consider it for nature shots....
Graeme_Nattress
11-03-2005, 06:15 AM
At the moment, I'm carrying the 50mm f1.4, 17-85 IS, and 70-300 IS DO. That covers the range quite nicely, with a fast prime for darker environments, or portraits. I'm getting some nice shots, so I'm happy :-) I don't think I'd fit another lens in my camerabag, and it's heavy enough as it is, especially with a 1 yr old daughter in tow.
Graeme