Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi

<plastic_razor RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164583445.384389.155980@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Rick Roof wrote:
>> Any recommendations? All seem to be a good choice. Are there any
>> things to
>> be aware of before deciding on one? Just looking for any
>> information that
>> the experts can pass along. Thanks for your insight.
>
> The EOS 20D was made in 2004. It's almost 2007, which makes that
> model
> ancient by digital camera standards. It's still a nice camera, but
> it
> will lack many features that people take for granted in newer models
> nowadays.

Somewhat true. Since the OP is buying new, he might as well get the
latest technology. Unless he's willing to trade a few features for a
good price on the 20D.

> As for the D80 vs 400D comparisons...
>
> D80 Advantages:
>
> 1) Has many nice features that, while strictly unnecessary, are very
> convenient for advanced users. These include a spot meter, more
> bracketing options, auto-ISO, longer battery life, etc.

Unneccessary? Depends on your needs.

Obviously you don't feel the need for these options, but others do.
Spot meter can be an important feature, and in fact I use it a fair
bit.

The other features, like better viewfinder, better grip, better
ergonomic layout, better display screen and menu, top info panel,
direct controls, etc., are important to some people.

> XTI Advantages:
>
> 1) Noticeably better performance in low light High-ISO images.
> Technically speaking, the D80 can match the same low noise levels as
> the XTi in high ISO images ---- but only after using aggressive
> in-camera noise reduction that blurs many details away.

When using JPG mode in default settings.

Using RAW, the images are almost the match of Canons sensor and detail
is easily as good as the Canon - better if using a better lense of
course. The D80 is surprisingly good in this regard, better than I
expected when I switched from my Rebel XT to the D80.

Canon is still a little bit better (not a lot better) at high ISO, but
when you're pushing the extremes it doesn't really matter, noise is
too high with both sensors and a good noise reduction program is
essential. I never increase the ISO setting over 100 unless the scene
is too dim and I don't have a tripod. Yet noise is still far better
with almost any digital SLR than what film offered.

> 3) With dSLRs, lenses are just as important as camera bodies. The
> XTi
> body is over $250 USD cheaper than the D80 body. That's money that
> can
> be spent on better lenses, tripods, and accessories. In fact, the
> price of a D80 is much closer to a 30D than a XTi. Depending on the
> quality of kit lenses chosen, the D80 kit can be as much as
> $300-$400
> more expensive than the XTi kit.

It's true the D80 costs more, but it offers more usability over the
Rebel series.

It has more direct controls with more shooting features. The grip is
substantially better than the tiny and thin Rebel XT/i models for me -
handling is so much better. And the lense included with the D80 kit
(18-135) is better in almost every way over the Canon (18-55)
offering. Size and weight is its only disadvantage.

Lenses aside, the Nikon body is a camera for someone more serious
about creative photography and having a tool that makes it easier to
be adaptive and creative, which is a part of why I now own the D80.

> 4) The variety of Canon's high-end lens collection is unrivaled in
> the
> camera industry. Especially when it comes to telephoto lenses for
> sports and wildlife, Nikon isn't even in the same league.

Now you're just spreading FUD.

Nikon lenses easily match Canon, and vice-versa. To say one is
substantially better than the other is quite simply a load of
bullshit. I've had the opportunity to shoot with numerous lenses from
both Canon and Nikon, and in most cases there was little to complain
about with either system.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

Canon 30D
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

plastic_razor RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> don't tell me water isn't blue. As I wrote before: Nikon has pretty
> good lenses, but its collection of high-end lenses are quite as
> versatile as Canon's.

Errr... that's "arent' quite as versatile".

Damn those typos coming in at he worst possible moments
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

Miller lite? Coors lite? Bud lite?
Ford? Chevy? Dodge?
The differences between any of these cameras are insignificant if you do not
know why one might have a feature that you need/cannot live without.
Canon and Nikon lenses are generally good and vastly overpriced for the
performance most of them deliver, particularly considering the actual
aethetic and technical capabilities of most amateur/advanced amateur users
and the uses to which the lenses will be applied. The price structure of OEM
camera lenses compared to cameras is analagous to the price of inkjet ink
compared to the printer. The cameras are great bargains, the lenses are not.
Nikon lenses, and I am a long time Nikon user, are generally priced higher
compared to Canon and Pentax equivalents. The only real bargain in the Nikon
line-up is the 18-70 kit lens.
Brand preference is simply that, unless you are sophisticated enough to
already know why a specific product is what you require.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

"bmoag" <aetoo DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LAqah.6702$yf7.1059@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> The cameras are great bargains, the lenses are not.

Since when is $800-5000 a great bargain for a camera? Prices have come
down over time, but that doesn't mean they're bargains. $100 or so is
a bargain.



> Nikon lenses, and I am a long time Nikon user, are generally priced
> higher compared to Canon and Pentax equivalents.

Obviously you haven't compared lately. Since I recently switched from
Canon to Nikon, I know for a fact that prices are similar for like
lenses - I did some comparison shopping before making the switch. Take
the 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR models for example, prices are $1699 and $1615
at B&H. Or the 16/17-35 f/2.8 models which are $1399 and $1499. Or the
28-105 f/3.5-4.5 at $229 and $249.

Prices are close enough that it's not really a factor.

> The only real bargain in the Nikon line-up is the 18-70 kit lens.

The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D is considered a bargain too. I've used it a
lot lately on my D80 and optically it's a great lense.

How many bargains are in the Canon camp? I know the 17-40 f/4 L and
70-200 f/4 L are considered bargains because I owned them. But I
wouldn't consider much else from Canon to be a bargain. The same for
Nikon.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

"bmoag" <aetoo.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LAqah.6702$yf7.1059@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> Miller lite? Coors lite? Bud lite?
> Ford? Chevy? Dodge?
> The differences between any of these cameras are insignificant if you do
> not know why one might have a feature that you need/cannot live without.
> Canon and Nikon lenses are generally good and vastly overpriced for the
> performance most of them deliver, particularly considering the actual
> aethetic and technical capabilities of most amateur/advanced amateur users
> and the uses to which the lenses will be applied. The price structure of
> OEM camera lenses compared to cameras is analagous to the price of inkjet
> ink compared to the printer. The cameras are great bargains, the lenses
> are not. Nikon lenses, and I am a long time Nikon user, are generally
> priced higher compared to Canon and Pentax equivalents. The only real
> bargain in the Nikon line-up is the 18-70 kit lens.
> Brand preference is simply that, unless you are sophisticated enough to
> already know why a specific product is what you require.
>
>

Personally, I never drink lager - they all taste as if they have already
been drunk by someone else. And I drive a Fiat.

For someone who does not know much about the Specs of these Cameras, and the
advantages and dis-advantages of the differences, the most important aspect
has to be the handling.

That can only be judged by going to a dealer and getting hands on. There is
no point in buying a camera which has every feature, if you do not enjoy
using it.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

plastic_razor.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> plastic_razor.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
>> don't tell me water isn't blue. As I wrote before: Nikon has pretty
>> good lenses, but its collection of high-end lenses are quite as
>> versatile as Canon's.
>
> Errr... that's "arent' quite as versatile".
>
> Damn those typos coming in at he worst possible moments

But of course! And ironies abound. Telling one to not use obscenities
and a little later including blasphemy....

And, thanks for trimming!

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

> Philip Homburg wrote:
>
> As a Nikon user, I don't care all that much about Canon lenses (can't use
> them), but I got curious.

As a Canon user I feel 180 degrees out of phase

> The following tables are from Canon and Nikon's web-sites:

I think you left off some interesting specialty lenses in the Canon
lineup, like the 65 mm MP-E, which is a 1x - 5x super macro lens, and
the three tilt/shift lenses (I think 24, 45 and 90 mm). I don't know
if Nikon has comparable lenses (they aren't on your list of Nikkors).

Also I didn't see the 100 f/2.8 USM macro so maybe you only listed "L"
series fixed-focal length lenses?

> When it comes to primes:
> Nikon has a 200/2

Canon used to offer an EF 200 f/1.8 L USM but for some reason (probably
slow sales) dropped it from their line.

> Canon has IS versions of the 400, 500, 600 where Nikon doesn't have VR.

This is a really big deal to sports and wildlife photographers and the
main reason you see mostly BWLs on the sidelines at sporting events.

> For zooms:
> Nikon's 200-400/4 is one stop faster than Canon's 100-400 4.5-5.6

Not only is it one stop faster it also has much better optics than the
Canon 1-4 (at several times the price though ... the 100-400 competes
directly with the 80-400 VR). For wildlife this 200-400 VR is a great
lens and the one gaping hole in Canon's lineup when compared to Nikon,
I feel.

> Conclusion: if you need a 400/2.8, a 500 or a 600 with IS/VR, then you want
> Canon.

Or maybe tilt/shift lenses (not sure if Nikon offers these) ... or
maybe the 1x-5x macro (not sure if Nikon has this either).

Then there's full frame digital bodies ...

> So we are down to the well known fact: Nikon doesn't have IS/VR on all of
> its long lenses.

Well at least Nikon finally got VR in the 300 f/2.8 ... only six years
after Canon first introduced it in *their* 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 and
500 f/4 and 600 f/4

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

In article <1164603791.502535.54930.TakeThisOut@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
<plastic_razor.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Please
>don't tell me water isn't blue. As I wrote before: Nikon has pretty
>good lenses, but its collection of high-end lenses are quite as
>versatile as Canon's.

As a Nikon user, I don't care all that much about Canon lenses (can't use
them), but I got curious.

The following tables are from Canon and Nikon's web-sites:

============================================================
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 300mm f/4L USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM

EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

============================================================
180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor
200mm f/4D AF Micro-Nikkor IF-ED
200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor
300mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
600mm f/4D AF-S Nikkor IF-ED II

18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor
70-300mm f/4-5.6G Zoom-Nikkor
80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
============================================================

When it comes to primes:
Nikon has a 200/2
Canon has a 1200/5.6.
Canon has IS versions of the 400, 500, 600 where Nikon doesn't have VR.
Nikon has VR on the 200/2 and Canon doesn't have an IS equivalent.

For zooms:
Nikon's 200-400/4 is one stop faster than Canon's 100-400 4.5-5.6
I can't find any other exiting differences in their zoom line ups.

Conclusion: if you need a 400/2.8, a 500 or a 600 with IS/VR, then you want
Canon.

So we are down to the well known fact: Nikon doesn't have IS/VR on all of
its long lenses.

That doesn't have anything to do with the number of pages at B&H. Nikon is
just a bit slow in updating the lens line-up.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

>> Bill Hilton <bhilton665.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think you left off some interesting specialty lenses in the Canon
>>lineup, like the 65 mm MP-E,
..
> Philip Homburg wrote:
>
> The claim was about lenses longer than 150mm.

Ah ... sorry, my mistake ... I confess I don't read these Canon vs
Nikon threads word for word as after a while they seem depressingly
repetitive

> I'm not sure why that MP-E 65 is so great. When I need extreme magnification
> I get a bellows or an extension ring:

It's nice to be able to focus thru the entire 1x - 5x range rather than
be limited to small subsets like with tubes, which I use often.
Haven't used bellows but I'd guess they are not too practical in the
field.

> I wonder what Canon is going to invent next. There is DO, but I'm not
> sure it is all that hot.

About five years ago a Canon contract pro was telling me about the
great things on the drawing board with DO technology ... 500 f/2.8 DO
smaller than the present 500 f/4, 200-400 f/4 DO etc ... last year I
bumped into him and mentioned this and he said they couldn't quite get
all the aberrations out of these extreme lenses without adding too much
expensive glass and that DO was a bit of a disappointment, so I think
you are right.

I'm sure I could shoot happily with two D2X bodies and the 500 f/4 and
200-400 f/4 VR Nikkors, but I'm a bit happier with the 1D M II and the
500 f/4 IS ...

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

Bill wrote:
> "bmoag" <aetoo DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LAqah.6702$yf7.1059@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> The cameras are great bargains, the lenses are not.
>
> Since when is $800-5000 a great bargain for a camera? Prices have come
> down over time, but that doesn't mean they're bargains. $100 or so is
> a bargain.
>
>
>
>> Nikon lenses, and I am a long time Nikon user, are generally priced
>> higher compared to Canon and Pentax equivalents.
>
> Obviously you haven't compared lately. Since I recently switched from
> Canon to Nikon, I know for a fact that prices are similar for like
> lenses - I did some comparison shopping before making the switch. Take
> the 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR models for example, prices are $1699 and $1615
> at B&H. Or the 16/17-35 f/2.8 models which are $1399 and $1499. Or the
> 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 at $229 and $249.
>
> Prices are close enough that it's not really a factor.
>
>> The only real bargain in the Nikon line-up is the 18-70 kit lens.
>
> The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D is considered a bargain too. I've used it a
> lot lately on my D80 and optically it's a great lense.
>
> How many bargains are in the Canon camp? I know the 17-40 f/4 L and
> 70-200 f/4 L are considered bargains because I owned them. But I
> wouldn't consider much else from Canon to be a bargain. The same for
> Nikon.
>
>
>

Also it would pay to check equivalent spec higher end lenses for KM/Sony
and Pentax. They aren't less expensive than Canon / Nikon - in fact
often quite a bit more expensive. I guess in expectation of the K10d
and release of the Sony a100, second hand quality KM and Pentax lenses
have evaporated from internet auction sites.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

>> Bill Hilton <bhilton665 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>>It's nice to be able to focus thru the entire 1x - 5x range rather than
>>be limited to small subsets like with tubes, which I use often.
>>Haven't used bellows but I'd guess they are not too practical in the
>>field.
..
> Philip Homburg wrote:
>
> I wonder how that 5x is supposed to work 'in the field'.

My wife has this lens and I tinker with it a little, but not much ...
from 1 - 3x it's pretty easy for me to use, above that it's harder for
me to hold focus because the depth of field is so shallow.

> I guess that with the kind of sturdy setup required for this kind of work,
> a bellows is not going to be a major problem.

Believe it or not most people hand-hold it when chasing insects and
such and use one of the macro flash setups for light source (because
you lose so much light due to the extension). We have the ring flash
(I think 24 MR or something like that) ... works pretty well ... here's
a web page a guy put up with some shots from the lens using flash ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/mp-e-65.shtml

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi 

In article <1164648131.762736.119680.RemoveThis@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Hilton <bhilton665.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>> Philip Homburg wrote:
>> As a Nikon user, I don't care all that much about Canon lenses (can't use
>> them), but I got curious.
>
>As a Canon user I feel 180 degrees out of phase

Except that *you* can use Nikon glass as well

>> The following tables are from Canon and Nikon's web-sites:
>
>I think you left off some interesting specialty lenses in the Canon
>lineup, like the 65 mm MP-E,

The claim was about lenses longer than 150mm.

>> Canon has IS versions of the 400, 500, 600 where Nikon doesn't have VR.
>
>This is a really big deal to sports and wildlife photographers and the
>main reason you see mostly BWLs on the sidelines at sporting events.

Yes, that is the fun thing. First everybody had to have USM/AFS. Now that
Nikon has AFS everywhere, everybody has to have IS/VR.

I don't know. I'm having to much fun with 'cheap' MF lenses, because
everybody has to have the lastest greatest.

>> Conclusion: if you need a 400/2.8, a 500 or a 600 with IS/VR, then you want
>> Canon.
>
>Or maybe tilt/shift lenses (not sure if Nikon offers these) ... or
>maybe the 1x-5x macro (not sure if Nikon has this either).

Nikon never made wide angle tilt lenses. I don't know why not. They do have
a tilt shift 85mm macro.

I'm not sure why that MP-E 65 is so great. When I need extreme magnification
I get a bellows or an extension ring:
<http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/55_3.5_PK13_D1.jpg>
<http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/55_3.5_bellows_D1.jpg>

(the second image should be about 3x). I guess somebody thought it was a
good idea. (Note that these images are from a discussion about diffraction.
The second image is taken with a 55/3.5 from the 1960's at f/32)

>Then there's full frame digital bodies ...

If Canon can really make money selling 5Ds at around $2000, then Nikon
may have a serious problem.

>> So we are down to the well known fact: Nikon doesn't have IS/VR on all of
>> its long lenses.
>
>Well at least Nikon finally got VR in the 300 f/2.8 ... only six years
>after Canon first introduced it in *their* 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 and
>500 f/4 and 600 f/4

I wonder what Canon is going to invent next. There is DO, but I'm not
sure it is all that hot. Otherwise, Nikon may be able the catch up in
the next 6 years


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Canon XTi