Dpreviews/Apparent contradictions

Regarding the Canon Eos 400d, dpreview say......

a.. Excellent resolution, lots of detail, not a leap from eight megapixels,
but certainly from six
a.. Good color with selectable PictureStyles for different subject types
a.. Good dynamic range (more than peers) with soft roll-off of highlights

as part of the pros.....and this as part of the cons....

Disappointing kit lens, better to buy body only and get a better lens.


How does this make sense?

I'm trying to decide between the Canon 400d and a Nikon d40x.
Dpreview even compare the 400d favourably against the more expensive Nikon
d80 when you'd think the d40x would be the comparable camera.
Yet they still compare the 400d well against the more expensive higher spec
d80 and quite favourably so how on earth can they diss the kit lens.
Either the darn lens is good or not, disappointing or acceptable.
How am I supposed to know which to buy with reviews like this.

Would you agree with the retailers that the lens in a Nikon d40x is superior
to that in the d400 Canon, which seems to be in agreement with that remark
by dpreview....or is that just snobbery about Nikon?

This comparison shopping is doing my head in.....I think I'm going to buy
the one with the niftiest on/off switch at this rate.

JB

Jackson Bryan wrote:
Regarding the Canon Eos 400d, dpreview say......

a.. Excellent resolution, lots of detail, not a leap from eight megapixels,
but certainly from six
a.. Good color with selectable PictureStyles for different subject types
a.. Good dynamic range (more than peers) with soft roll-off of highlights

as part of the pros.....and this as part of the cons....

Disappointing kit lens, better to buy body only and get a better lens.


How does this make sense?

I'm trying to decide between the Canon 400d and a Nikon d40x.
Dpreview even compare the 400d favourably against the more expensive Nikon
d80 when you'd think the d40x would be the comparable camera.
Yet they still compare the 400d well against the more expensive higher spec
d80 and quite favourably so how on earth can they diss the kit lens.
Either the darn lens is good or not, disappointing or acceptable.
How am I supposed to know which to buy with reviews like this.

Would you agree with the retailers that the lens in a Nikon d40x is superior
to that in the d400 Canon, which seems to be in agreement with that remark
by dpreview....or is that just snobbery about Nikon?

This comparison shopping is doing my head in.....I think I'm going to buy
the one with the niftiest on/off switch at this rate.

JB


They are reviewing the camera, not the optional kit lens that you can
buy with it. A lot of people will by the camera but not the kit lens
and go for a more expensive lens. Or for that matter you can get some
pretty cheap prime lenses that do very well, like the 50mm f/1.8, cost
of about $70.

Scott

"Jackson Bryan" wrote in message
...
Regarding the Canon Eos 400d, dpreview say......

a.. Excellent resolution, lots of detail, not a leap from eight
megapixels, but certainly from six
a.. Good color with selectable PictureStyles for different subject types
a.. Good dynamic range (more than peers) with soft roll-off of highlights

as part of the pros.....and this as part of the cons....

Disappointing kit lens, better to buy body only and get a better lens.


How does this make sense?

I'm trying to decide between the Canon 400d and a Nikon d40x.
Dpreview even compare the 400d favourably against the more expensive Nikon
d80 when you'd think the d40x would be the comparable camera.
Yet they still compare the 400d well against the more expensive higher
spec d80 and quite favourably so how on earth can they diss the kit lens.
Either the darn lens is good or not, disappointing or acceptable.
How am I supposed to know which to buy with reviews like this.

Would you agree with the retailers that the lens in a Nikon d40x is
superior to that in the d400 Canon, which seems to be in agreement with
that remark by dpreview....or is that just snobbery about Nikon?

This comparison shopping is doing my head in.....I think I'm going to buy
the one with the niftiest on/off switch at this rate.

JB



The body is capable of all of the pros. The lens since they can be changed
and there are better ones available are not. So if you buy a good lens you
can have all of those pros and probably more. If you stick with the kit lens
you will not be realizing the full potential of the camera. BTW this is true
for all dSLR cameras. Generally the bodies and what's in them is very good.
It is the lens that can cause most of the problems. Buy good lenses and you
are in for a real treat. Buy cheap lenses are treat becomes...

=(8)

On Jun 26, 7:58 am, "Jackson Bryan" wrote:
How does this make sense?

"For each camera the relevant prime lens was used."

Yes, the Nikon kit lens gets better reviews usually, but if a kit lens
makes you happy, I'd wonder why you would buy a DSLR...

(Just stirring..)

wrote:
On Jun 26, 7:58 am, "Jackson Bryan" wrote:
How does this make sense?

"For each camera the relevant prime lens was used."

Yes, the Nikon kit lens gets better reviews usually, but if a kit lens
makes you happy, I'd wonder why you would buy a DSLR...

(Just stirring..)

I bought a canon 20d with a kit lens. The lens was great to figure out
what I want to do. Now I use 10-20, 50-150 and a fast 50mm prime and
almost no 18-55mm at all any more, it's just not interesting enough
for me.
A kit lens certainly has its value for the price.

"Jackson Bryan" wrote:

I'm trying to decide between the Canon 400d and a Nikon d40x.
Dpreview even compare the 400d favourably against the more expensive Nikon
d80 when you'd think the d40x would be the comparable camera.

If you check the dates, you will (most likely) find that the 400D review
was written before the D40x was released, so there was no D40x to compare it
to.

Yet they still compare the 400d well against the more expensive higher
spec d80 and quite favourably so how on earth can they diss the kit lens.

Many people who buy a dSLR, buy it so they can use a variety of lenses with
it. People of this ilk, don't care much about the kit lens.

Either the darn lens is good or not, disappointing or acceptable.
How am I supposed to know which to buy with reviews like this.

You might check out the D40x review. Again, since the D40x didn't exist, the
400D review can't refer to it.

Would you agree with the retailers that the lens in a Nikon d40x is
superior to that in the d400 Canon, which seems to be in agreement with
that remark by dpreview....or is that just snobbery about Nikon?

Be careful of retailers: they need to sell you what they have in stock. And
some have been known to lie to do so...

The kit lenses tend to be el-cheapo throwaways. But there still can be
significant differences.

If you are just going to use the kit lens, then check the D40x review
carefully; it'll tell you what you need to know.

WARNING! Most Nikon primes don't AF with the D40x. If you plan on using
prime lenses (for their speed and image quality, things you sacrifice with
zooms), you will not be happy with the D40x. All current Canon primes work
fine with the 400D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Jun 25, 2:58 pm, "Jackson Bryan" wrote:
Regarding the Canon Eos 400d, dpreview say......

a.. Excellent resolution, lots of detail, not a leap from eight megapixels,
but certainly from six
a.. Good color with selectable PictureStyles for different subject types
a.. Good dynamic range (more than peers) with soft roll-off of highlights

as part of the pros.....and this as part of the cons....

Disappointing kit lens, better to buy body only and get a better lens.

How does this make sense?


I doubt any of the camera tests were done with the kit lens. No way to
accurately test the camera with the cheapest lens available. The pros
are referring to the camera itself. Most people who buy the kits are
trying to save money, or don't know enough yet to buy a better lens.
The review is telling buyers to skip the kit lens and get something
better.

I'm going through the same decision-making process you are. I have
noticed a lot of posters here say that the 40x gives better images than
the 400D and a number of other reasons why it is better, but I have come
to a different conclusion for me. First, there is general consensus that
the kit lens is better on the 40x. OK, if the kit lens is that
important to you, then this could be a deciding factor. But many advise
getting better lenses regardless, and I don't think the kit lens quality
is going to decide it for me. Besides, I have studied a number of
pictures taken with the 400D kit lens, and I don't think it is so bad.
Maybe wide open it would bother people, but the images with this lens on
dpreview (download the full file) are quite respectable.

Some pros and cons that matter to me.

1. Image quality. I think the 400D has better image quality. It has a
higher dynamic range, which means less tendency to blow out highlights.
When I studied carefully the images on dpreview in the review of the
40x, I concluded that in the comparisons to the 400D, the 40X is not a
good in both detail and noise. I just like the look of the images with
the 400D better. I would never coclude that the 40x is better. But make
your own conclusions. First-class lenses were used for this comparison.
I see no evidence that the 40x is better than the 400D in the test
images. Study the images carefully yourself. I have noted a bias toward
Nikon in dpreview.

I rate image quality very highly, though whether these differences would
make a difference in the real world is another question; I doubt it.

2. There is something about the actual autofocus action that I like
better in the 400D. It's a small thing, but I thought the 400D seemed
snappier and more assured. This is hard to explain, and I'm sure others
will prefer the 40x motion.

3. Viewfinder. There is no question that the viewfinder is brighter in
the 40x. The 400D seems sort of dim in comparison. But one thing bothers
me a lot about the 40x viewfinder. At best focus, the center looks
sharp, but the outer parts of the field have obvious blurring and/or
distortions from aberration. I also checked two copies of the 40, and
they looked the exactly the same, so I don't believe this was a problem
with the one camera I looked at. The 400D viewfinder image is
beautifully sharp across the whole field, which I much prefer. I don't
like seeing blurry pictures in the viewfinder, even if has no
relationship to the picture itself. I do know how to focus the
viewfinder diopter adjustment, so that was not an issue. I'll take the
dimmer, sharper image over the brighter, blurry one, but many people
wouldn't care at all about the blurry view or even notice it. As a
builder of optical instruments, I have a low tolerance for poor image
quality.

3. Handling. I like the fit of both cameras in my hand about equally. I
much prefer them to the D80, which I find too big for my hands.


The rest of the features are matter of taste. I like it that the flash
isn't needed for low-light focusing in the 40x, while it is used on the
400D. I much prefer how easy it is to navigate and change parameters
using the screen on the 400D, but that's just my opinion. Try making a
quick change to the ISO. On the 400D the layout is so simple and obvious
you will find it hard to make a mistake. I don't like the fact that the
40x is retricted only to lenses with their own motors if you want
autofocus. All these and other things are a matter of personal choice,
but in the end I rated the superioirity of image quality, the sharpness
of the viewfiner, and the feel of the focus action in the 400D as
decisive, though it does focus just fine.

All of the above are my opinions of course. Others will certainly
disagree with many of the things I say, but FWIW, this is my take. Hope
it helps. I own two Nikon cameras and two Canon ones and like them all,
so I have no brand preference in this matter.

Both the 400D and the 40x are superb cameras, and I believe both are
bargains. You can't go wrong with either, but I believe that reviews
will never decide it completely for you. There is no substitute for
trying them out.

Joe


Jackson Bryan wrote:
Regarding the Canon Eos 400d, dpreview say......

a.. Excellent resolution, lots of detail, not a leap from eight megapixels,
but certainly from six
a.. Good color with selectable PictureStyles for different subject types
a.. Good dynamic range (more than peers) with soft roll-off of highlights

as part of the pros.....and this as part of the cons....

Disappointing kit lens, better to buy body only and get a better lens.


How does this make sense?

I'm trying to decide between the Canon 400d and a Nikon d40x.
Dpreview even compare the 400d favourably against the more expensive Nikon
d80 when you'd think the d40x would be the comparable camera.
Yet they still compare the 400d well against the more expensive higher spec
d80 and quite favourably so how on earth can they diss the kit lens.
Either the darn lens is good or not, disappointing or acceptable.
How am I supposed to know which to buy with reviews like this.

Would you agree with the retailers that the lens in a Nikon d40x is superior
to that in the d400 Canon, which seems to be in agreement with that remark
by dpreview....or is that just snobbery about Nikon?

This comparison shopping is doing my head in.....I think I'm going to buy
the one with the niftiest on/off switch at this rate.

JB

Both Nikon and Canon have a large number of lenses in their lineup, but
they do offer different choices. If a particular Nikon or Canon lens
really appeals to you, that could also be a deciding factor in which
camera you pick.

Joe

On 2007-06-25 14:58:08 -0700, "Jackson Bryan" said:

Regarding the Canon Eos 400d, dpreview say......

a.. Excellent resolution, lots of detail, not a leap from eight megapixels,
but certainly from six
a.. Good color with selectable PictureStyles for different subject types
a.. Good dynamic range (more than peers) with soft roll-off of highlights

as part of the pros.....and this as part of the cons....

Disappointing kit lens, better to buy body only and get a better lens.


How does this make sense?

Simple. They say the body is nice, but the kit lens is not worth the
money. Get a better lens.

The D40x kit lens is no prize, either. But Nikon will not sell you a
D40x without it. Too bad. Nikon had a great kit lens they introduced
with the D70: the 18-70mm lens. This lens had a sharpness and build
quality well beyond what most people expect in a kit lens. Why didn't
they use it for the D40x kit lens? Who knows?

The typical kit lens is just an inexpensive lens that the manufacturer
can throw in the box with the body as a first lens to get you up and
running. It is like the training wheels on a bicycle. The kit lens is
almost never as good as the body.

You are making a mistake if you think the tiny differences in picture
quality made in tests for DPReview are going to equate to your taking
better pictures. Even the poorest kit lens and body is capable of far
better pictures than most photographers, especially those who think
these specs matter -- the sure sign of the tyro. Nobody, and I mean
absolutely NOBODY, can look at a print and tell what camera was used to
take the picture. That ought to tell you something about how important
the specs a if you can't tell the difference, then what good are the
tests?

The things that matter most in camera are handling. Are the controls
where you want them to be? Are they easy to use? Can you easily make
the most common adjustments to aperture or shutter speed? Do you have
to wade through layers of menus to change the ISO or white balance? Is
it fragile or could you use it to pound tent pegs? Will mist or rain or
salt spray or blowing sand ruin it? Can you see through the viewfinder
well enough to focus? At night? Can you remember what the controls do
or are you going to have to carry the manual around with you? Does your
favorite software understand the raw formats for this camera? Can you
hold it steady? Is it awkward to hold vertically? Does it have little
access covers that come off and get lost? Are the accessories you need
available for it? Can you use the lenses you want with it (not *every*
lens -- just the lenses that *you* intend to buy some day)? Is all this
gear so heavy and awkward that you are going to just end up leaving it
on a shelf at home?

Most reviewers show lens and body tests because people expect them. But
these are the least important parts of the review. Read DPReview
carefully -- what does the reviewer really say about the camera?

This comparison shopping is doing my head in.....I think I'm going to buy
the one with the niftiest on/off switch at this rate.

You could do a lot worse. The on/off switch is probably a lot more
important than the stuff you have been paying attention to so far. ;-)
Personally, when I am considering a camera, I just pick it up and walk
around the store with it in my hand for awhile. A long while, long
enough for my grip to get tired. Then I pick the camera that is the
most comfortable. For me, that is invariably a Nikon, although the D40x
feels a little strange. Your hand is shaped differently than mine. You
are probably also younger and stronger and you probably don't have
arthritis. There is no way that I, or any reviewer, or anybody else,
could choose a camera for you. And that is the truth.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor