Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
news

Absolutely not. I own a lens. One was enough. Someone else mentioned
the sigma/canon problems. REchipping etc. If you have ever held a brand
new top end sigma lens in your hand and watch the end fall off. Then
again after returning from sigma for repair. Their cheap dx lenses for
digital cameras are the very worst. If you must go non manufacturer brand
go tamron or tokina. Trust me when i say sigma sell most cos dealers like
'em. They like em cos they are cheaper than the other brands but still
have a better markup not because of any optical or build quality merits.

A co-worker owns a Mercedes Benz that has been nothing but constant
headaches. It's a real lemon. Mercedes must be really lousy cars, all of
them.

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...
"ian lincoln" wrote in message
news

Absolutely not. I own a lens. One was enough. Someone else mentioned
the sigma/canon problems. REchipping etc. If you have ever held a brand
new top end sigma lens in your hand and watch the end fall off. Then
again after returning from sigma for repair. Their cheap dx lenses for
digital cameras are the very worst. If you must go non manufacturer
brand go tamron or tokina. Trust me when i say sigma sell most cos
dealers like 'em. They like em cos they are cheaper than the other
brands but still have a better markup not because of any optical or build
quality merits.

A co-worker owns a Mercedes Benz that has been nothing but constant
headaches. It's a real lemon. Mercedes must be really lousy cars, all of
them.


Actually, DaimlerChrysler has acknowledged that they have some severe
quality issues, especially when it comes to electronics, and the perception
is even worse, so that probably wasn't the best analogy you could have
used...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip M wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
. ..

Skip M wrote:

"Per Ting" wrote in message
...


How these two compare, the price of cannon is slightly higher, but in
terms
of quality how do they compare. I am thinking of D70s with 18-70 kit lens
and 20D with 17-85 IS lens. How do the lenses compare? Any suggestion for
better wakl around lenses to go with each? I have heard good things about
Sigma 18-50 and 18-200 lenses.

Thanks


As far as which camera, that's one only you can answer, really. The
pixel count is close, but in favor of the Canon, the noise issue is a
wash, the Nikon is a little better at low ISO, the Canon is better at
high ISO. Lens lines are pretty much equally deep, with consumer and pro
lenses both wide and tele. Canon has more stabilized lenses, but only in
the far reaches of the tele world, both have a good selection of zoom
lenses that have stabilization. If you're going to shoot architecture,
Canon offers some exotic tilt and shift lenses that Nikon doesn't. Some
people like the ergonomics of one over the other, again, that's something
best left up to you.


The Canon 17-85 IS is a better lens, somewhat, but its main claim to fame
is the IS feature, one that the Nikon lacks.

Skip, I recall reading a magazine article where the reporter was
interviewing someone in the Canon hierarchy. The 17-85 "S" lens was
mentioned along with other lenses and the Canon person said if it were not
for the 17-85 lens being a "S" lens, the lens is so good it would be have
been released as an "L" lens.

I have the 17-85 lens and it's almost always on the 20D camera. As to it
being good enough to be labeled an "L" lens ... shrug. But it is a darn
good lens.





No argument there, but quality is not the criterion for inclusion in "L"dom.
Exotic elements, defined as exotic types of glass such as fluorite, or low
dispersion glass, are needed for the lens to be considered an "L", according
to Canon's own literature. The 60mm Macro has this type of glass, but I
guess it is not included because it is an EF-S lens. (?) Makes little to
no sense to me...


The 10-22 "S" lens has S-UD glass and it isn't labeled as a "L" lens. I
don't think the 60mm Macro "S" lens has either S-UD (or UD), or fluorite
glass.

I don't know if lens build quality alone may be a criterion for labeling
a "L" lens, but I tend to think it may be. For example, the 14mm f-2.8
"L" lens and the excellent 35mm f-1.4 "L" lens doesn't have either
fluorite or S-UD glass yet they are "L" lens. However, they, like the
17-85 lens have aspherical elements. I'm equally puzzled.

The 18-70mm Nikkor kit lens is comparable in image quality to lenses
costing more than five times as much. Of course, it is not built nearly
as strongly, but most reviewers rave about this lens. I have not read
reviews of the Canon lens, but no doubt there are quite a few people
here who are familiar with it. I would bet that it is a very good lens.
Of course, Nikon is coming out with that new 18-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 DX
Nikkor next month. If it is a decent lens it is going to be very hard
to choose anything else. The 55-200mm DX lens was, um, a
disappointment.

If money is no object, then the 20D. But why not the even better Nikon
D200, then?

For me, it just came down to which camera feels better in my hand. I
like the feel of the Nikon over the Canon, but that is an extremely
personal perspective. Get whichever camera has the controls where you
are likely to remember them and use them easily. Imagine walking around
all day holding the camera by its grip. Better yet, get a loaner and
walk around all day with it. Get the camera that makes you hurt less.

Purple Frigeing?

Guy

Colin D wrote:
Martin Francis wrote:
snip
Seen side by sides with the 17-40mm L, the IS lens is definitely not
an L. PF something fierce, corners seemed softer at 17mm f5.6 than
the L.

What is PF? I tried googling this abbreviation, and inferred from
some hits that it is an alternative for CA, or chromatic aberration,
but I would like clarification

If it is in fact CA, why not say so?

BTW, I have the 17-85 lens, and while it exhibits some barrel
distortion and CA at the short end, it's not all that bad for a 17mm
lens. I've seen worse, and it probably takes an 'L' lens to be
better, but not all of us can afford 'L' glass. Furthermore,
software correction for both BD and CA is readily available, and does
a creditable job of minimizing the effects.

Martin Francis wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
. ..

Skip, I recall reading a magazine article where the reporter was
interviewing someone in the Canon hierarchy. The 17-85 "S" lens was
mentioned along with other lenses and the Canon person said if it were not
for the 17-85 lens being a "S" lens, the lens is so good it would be have
been released as an "L" lens.

I have the 17-85 lens and it's almost always on the 20D camera. As to it
being good enough to be labeled an "L" lens ... shrug. But it is a darn
good lens.


Seen side by sides with the 17-40mm L, the IS lens is definitely not an L.
PF something fierce, corners seemed softer at 17mm f5.6 than the L.

Martin



I'm aware of the 17-85 lens exhibiting some distortion at 17mm and
while I tend to shrug off the theoretical "L" lens designation, I still
would consider this lens to be a darn good lens.

Bigguy wrote:

Purple Frigeing?

Guy

Colin D wrote:
Martin Francis wrote:
snip
Seen side by sides with the 17-40mm L, the IS lens is definitely not
an L. PF something fierce, corners seemed softer at 17mm f5.6 than
the L.

What is PF? I tried googling this abbreviation, and inferred from
some hits that it is an alternative for CA, or chromatic aberration,
but I would like clarification

If it is in fact CA, why not say so?

BTW, I have the 17-85 lens, and while it exhibits some barrel
distortion and CA at the short end, it's not all that bad for a 17mm
lens. I've seen worse, and it probably takes an 'L' lens to be
better, but not all of us can afford 'L' glass. Furthermore,
software correction for both BD and CA is readily available, and does
a creditable job of minimizing the effects.

Aaahh, yes, of course. Thanks.

Colin D.

In article ,
says...

The 20D and D70s are in different classes. The Nikon competitor to the
20D will be the D200 which will be coming out in December. At the moment
the D70s should be compared with the 350D and the D70 with the 300D.

The D70 compared with 300 D?? The D70 is a much better camera.

I know that, you know that, but the vast majority of newbies don't.

The way it works is like this;

Canon comes out with a camera that makes people sit up and take notice.
Nikon responds after about a year with a camera that is priced about the
same, but is a lot better. Canon responds within 6-12 months with a new
feature or a new camera altogether.

And so on...

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:22:19 -0500, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
news

Absolutely not. I own a lens. One was enough. Someone else mentioned
the sigma/canon problems. REchipping etc. If you have ever held a brand
new top end sigma lens in your hand and watch the end fall off. Then
again after returning from sigma for repair. Their cheap dx lenses for
digital cameras are the very worst. If you must go non manufacturer brand
go tamron or tokina. Trust me when i say sigma sell most cos dealers like
'em. They like em cos they are cheaper than the other brands but still
have a better markup not because of any optical or build quality merits.

A co-worker owns a Mercedes Benz that has been nothing but constant
headaches. It's a real lemon. Mercedes must be really lousy cars, all of
them.


Euro cars score third of three in reliability tests. But it's nice to
know you can sit in luxury while you wait for the tow truck.
-Rich

"nick c" wrote in message
. ..

I believe you must have BOTH aspherical and fluorite to qualify for L.
There are low dispersion lenses that aren't L. I believe water or at least
dust protection is required to qualify also.