Selection Dilemma: D-70 or 20D

I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
This is my first venture into digital.

Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
me a few pointers on making my selection?

My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
Your thoughts please.............

Thank you very much for your time and courtesy.

John

i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:26:05 GMT, "Abheet Gidwani via PhotoKB.com"
wrote:

i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was
about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d
and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the
canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

I don't doubt you are correct, given just the price difference - The
street price of the 20D is 45% more expensive than the D70.

...and that's a significant price hike when you consider the D70 isn't
cheap to begin with.

But, you get what you pay for, and probably save money in the long run
because Canon lenses are cheaper.

...but again, even with the lenses..
...you get what you pay for :-p

--
Owamanga!

Owamanga wrote:

wrote:
i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was
about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d
and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the
canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

I don't doubt you are correct, given just the price difference - The
street price of the 20D is 45% more expensive than the D70.
....
But, you get what you pay for, and probably save money in the long run
because Canon lenses are cheaper.

But, if you get the good Nikon kit lens, it's even -more- cheaper
(ugh) than the Canon. One off-putting thing is the cost of a
reasonably good Canon lens (okay, I would have gone for the 17-85 IS)
on top of the body.

Are you sure Canon lenses are more expensive than Nikon? I will
certainly admit the Nikon range is poorer than the Canon one, which
has a lot of options including slower (lighter) IS lenses in the
tele- range, of which Nikon has none.

I think the OP needs to consider whether he needs an SLR, but I
personally am -extremely- happy to be back in the SLR world after
fighting with a higher-end p&s for a long time. I've tried the
FZ20 too, and am pleased I didn't go that route. I wanted fast
response and a crisp viewfinder, and that's exactly what I got.
I also like the user i/f of the D70, and can do what I need
quickly. (Though an ISO indication in the viewfinder for
'eyes free' changing would be handy).

--
Ken Tough

Owamanga wrote:

wrote:
i have been a photographer since the last 4 yrs now.. i was
about to change to nikon from canon until i saw the 20 d
and i tell i dont regret sticking with canon ... i suggest the
canon 20 d is a far superior camera in all aspects to nikon d 70.

I don't doubt you are correct, given just the price difference - The
street price of the 20D is 45% more expensive than the D70.
....
But, you get what you pay for, and probably save money in the long run
because Canon lenses are cheaper.

But, if you get the good Nikon kit lens, it's even -more- cheaper
(ugh) than the Canon. One off-putting thing is the cost of a
reasonably good Canon lens (okay, I would have gone for the 17-85 IS)
on top of the body.

Are you sure Canon lenses are more expensive than Nikon? I will
certainly admit the Nikon range is poorer than the Canon one, which
has a lot of options including slower (lighter) IS lenses in the
tele- range, of which Nikon has none.

I think the OP needs to consider whether he needs an SLR, but I
personally am -extremely- happy to be back in the SLR world after
fighting with a higher-end p&s for a long time. I've tried the
FZ20 too, and am pleased I didn't go that route. I wanted fast
response and a crisp viewfinder, and that's exactly what I got.
I also like the user i/f of the D70, and can do what I need
quickly. (Though an ISO indication in the viewfinder for
'eyes free' changing would be handy).

--
Ken Tough

"TORENGI" wrote in message
...

I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between the Nikon D-70
and the Canon 20D. Been a photographer for over 40 years.
This is my first venture into digital.

Does anyone have some experience with both that could give
me a few pointers on making my selection?

My only concern with the 20D is the file size of each photo.
Your thoughts please.............

Thank you very much for your time and courtesy.

John


They are both excellent mid skill level dSLR cameras, but the 20D has
required more firmware upgrades to fix some bugs that never should have made
it to market...with Canon it has become money first, consumer ease second...

You mention you've been a photographer for over 40 years so I'm assuming
you're not referring to instamatic cameras. What lenses do you have already?
Are any compatible with either the D70 or 20D? If the answer is yes than go
with the model camera that allows you to use all or some of your old lenses.
If the answer is no, Canon offers more choice for lenses, and more can be
found on the second hand market if budget is a consideration.

The 20D is a newer camera, and is the answer to Nikon's release of the D70.
As such the D20 has some offerings the D70 does not have, but don't let that
be your deciding factor because the D70 is cheaper, enough so that an extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.

It is not likely that a replacement for the 20D will be out in the next 1.5
years, but the D70 replacement is 'likely' on the horizon to be released in
August, announced sooner.

Canon puts out more rebates on dSLR and lenses than Nikon does on average
which in the long run can get your those lenses which normally would be cost
prohibitive.

Linda

Linda_N wrote:
The 20D is a newer camera, and is the answer to Nikon's release of
the D70.
As such the D20 has some offerings the D70 does not have, but don't
let that
be your deciding factor because the D70 is cheaper, enough so that an
extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.

Replace 20D with D70 and D70 with 300D in the text above and the logic
still stands ;-)

It would be:
The D70 is a newer camera, and is the answer to Canon's release of the
300D.
As such the D70 has some offerings the 300D does not have, but don't
let that
be your deciding factor because the 300D is cheaper, enough so that an
extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.
Now, throw in the Wasia hack!!! )

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
ups.com...
Linda_N wrote:
The 20D is a newer camera, and is the answer to Nikon's release of
the D70.
As such the D20 has some offerings the D70 does not have, but don't
let that
be your deciding factor because the D70 is cheaper, enough so that an
extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.

Replace 20D with D70 and D70 with 300D in the text above and the logic
still stands ;-)

It would be:
The D70 is a newer camera, and is the answer to Canon's release of the
300D.
As such the D70 has some offerings the 300D does not have, but don't
let that
be your deciding factor because the 300D is cheaper, enough so that an
extra
lens or two could be had for the difference, and both models still
offer
more than most hobby photographers will ever use.
Now, throw in the Wasia hack!!! )

- Siddhartha

I gather you are joking since the Canon 300D doesn't even touch the Nikon
D70. The Nikon D70 put the beginner level Canon 300D to shame in every
aspect including body quality. The D70 even put the intermediate level Canan
10D to shame, and some argue Nikon put its own intermediate D100 to shame
with the D70 too. The D70 is also considerably more expensive than the Canon
300D, less so now that Nikon dropped the price points by 2 since the 20D
came out. Your logic might work if you compaired the Canon 10D with the
Nikon D70 though, but the D70 would likely come out on top since the 10D is
so old (older than the 300D) and does not support EF-S which Canon is moving
towards for new digital lens development, and the 10D lacks in some
performance areas that the D70 excels in.

The D70 is older than the 20D, and the original poster has decided he will
get either the D70 or the 20D.

Linda

Linda_N wrote:
I gather you are joking since the Canon 300D doesn't even touch the
Nikon
D70. The Nikon D70 put the beginner level Canon 300D to shame in
every
aspect including body quality.
I will give you faster response, faster shooting speed, better flash
modes, and a spot meter.

Body quality: So a black painted plastic body is better than a silver
painted plastic body?

Image quality, hell no. Find me one respectable reviewer who puts the
D70's image quality way over the 300D or vice versa.

And as you pointed out, with the price difference I can buy an
additional lens.

So am I ashamed to carry a 300D with a D70 owner around. NO!!
- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
ups.com...

Body quality: So a black painted plastic body is better than a silver
painted plastic body?

Image quality, hell no. Find me one respectable reviewer who puts the
D70's image quality way over the 300D or vice versa.

And as you pointed out, with the price difference I can buy an
additional lens.

So am I ashamed to carry a 300D with a D70 owner around. NO!!
- Siddhartha


The Rebel is plastic, the D70 is plastic coating over the main surface, but
even if that were not the case the Rebel is cheaply built, very flimsy, the
D70 is much tighter and solid in construction. The Rebel comes in silver and
black flimsy plastic btw.

You can't just say the D70 produces a better image or the 300D does without
getting into a discussion of the lens(es) being used at the time the images
were taken. The body alone does not a sharp and crisp picture make.

I still say the 300D is a piece of crap that cost way more than it was
worth. Even now with the reduced pricing of $799US I'd still recommend
people save the extra and get either the D70 or the save more and get the
20D. The 300D doesn't even factor in.

Linda