Cnet Reviews Nikon D80 and Canon DR XTi

I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.

In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses
(excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the big
thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that Nikon
did not include.

If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking care)
changes their lenses at least 2 to 3 times on an outing; I would like to
know just how serious this dust issue is. Is it enough of a problem to
favor Canon for this feature or is a composition grid and a spot meter
to favor the Nikon.

From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the sensor and
the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does not
come back perfect.

Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much
difference between the two as far as results, I have read that Nikon has
better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more appealing
color.

Comments Welcome!

measekite wrote:
I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.

In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses
(excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the big
thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that Nikon
did not include.

If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking care)
changes their lenses at least 2 to 3 times on an outing; I would like to
know just how serious this dust issue is. Is it enough of a problem to
favor Canon for this feature or is a composition grid and a spot meter
to favor the Nikon.

From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the sensor and
the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does not
come back perfect.

Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much
difference between the two as far as results, I have read that Nikon has
better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more appealing
color.

Comments Welcome!

Dust isn't really a big problem, I have had a Nikon D200 for 8 months
and haven't had to go near the sensor (actually the glass sealing the
sensor). I switch lenses often as I have mostly primes. I have a 4 year
old Fuji S1 in my office and it hasn't needed a sensor cleaning either,
we photograph eyes so there is a lot of white in the picture. Friends
who have cleaned their sensors have used a Giotto Rocket Blower or some
obscenely expensive sensor pads. They look at the sensor cleaning as a
chore and not a difficult one.
Don't let rumors of sensor cleaning keep you from getting a DSLR. It is
not as big a deal as some would have you think. Have you ever had a
strait scatch accross your film, that is from dust on the pressure
plate.

Tom

Nikon provides a software solution to removing dust from Nikon RAW,
NEF, files and there are other photo editing programs that can remove
dust from other formats including Jpegs.

Even Point and Shoot cameras can get dust on their sensors but you can
not remove it.

measekite wrote:
I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.

In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses
(excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the big
thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that Nikon
did not include.

If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking care)
changes their lenses at least 2 to 3 times on an outing; I would like to
know just how serious this dust issue is. Is it enough of a problem to
favor Canon for this feature or is a composition grid and a spot meter
to favor the Nikon.

From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the sensor and
the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does not
come back perfect.

Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much
difference between the two as far as results, I have read that Nikon has
better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more appealing
color.

Comments Welcome!

measekite wrote:
I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.



The people at dpreview forums are having fun with this particular
review, The CNN reviewer claims that Canon had to trim back the XTi
(400d) sensitivity a full stop from ISO 3200 to ISO 1600 because the
new sensor was noisier than the previous sensor. The question is:
Since when did the Digital Rebel ever have 3200 ISO?

A quote from the review lamenting the XTi's new sensor: "the XTi's
measured and visible image noise was significantly worse than that of
the CCD-based Nikon D80 for any given ISO speed." Again, it has been
shown conclusively by several reputable websites (with 100% crops) that
the XTi had far, FAR more details than the D80 on high ISO. The reason
being that the D80 uses aggressive software noise reduction (hiss!
boo!) at high ISO --- blurring out the noise and the details at the
same time. The effects of the D80's noise reduction is shown
conclusively on various charts and graphs in the otherwise-glowing D80
review at dpreview.

Final quote complaining about the XTi's lack of spot metering: "Simply
metering on the subject's face should have solved this shot's exposure
problem, but the partial metering didn't work. A spot meter probably
would have been able to handle it. Instead, I had to boost the exposure
value of the entire scene by jumping to ISO 400."

Honestly, reading that last quote, you can tell the reviewer was not
only an amateur, but was a clueless one at that. What kind of moron
tries to use ISO settings in lieu of proper metering? What do ISO
settings have to do with proper metering at all? It's a disgrace the
way CNN lets unqualified people do reviews these days.

"measekite" wrote in message
m...

[clipped]
In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses (excluding
Canon L series) appear to be more expensive.
[clipped]
Comments Welcome!

I think Canon's whole lens thing is a marketing ploy. To how many people do
they sell a set of lenses twice? Most consumers, and hobbyist will
initially go for the non "L" glass, as it is less expensive, but a large
percentage upgrade to "L" glass soon after. Why sell a line of lenses that
don't live up to the capability of the manufacture, and their cameras? My
recommendation, if you're going to buy Canon quality, do it across the
board.

Nikon does it right the first time!

Bill Crocker

tomm42 wrote:

measekite wrote:


I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.

In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses
(excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the big
thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that Nikon
did not include.

If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking care)
changes their lenses at least 2 to 3 times on an outing; I would like to
know just how serious this dust issue is. Is it enough of a problem to
favor Canon for this feature or is a composition grid and a spot meter
to favor the Nikon.

From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the sensor and
the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does not
come back perfect.

Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much
difference between the two as far as results, I have read that Nikon has
better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more appealing
color.

Comments Welcome!



Dust isn't really a big problem, I have had a Nikon D200 for 8 months
and haven't had to go near the sensor (actually the glass sealing the
sensor). I switch lenses often as I have mostly primes. I have a 4 year
old Fuji S1 in my office and it hasn't needed a sensor cleaning either,
we photograph eyes so there is a lot of white in the picture. Friends
who have cleaned their sensors have used a Giotto Rocket Blower or some
obscenely expensive sensor pads. They look at the sensor cleaning as a
chore and not a difficult one.
Don't let rumors of sensor cleaning keep you from getting a DSLR. It is
not as big a deal as some would have you think. Have you ever had a
strait scatch accross your film, that is from dust on the pressure
plate.

Tom



I saw the Canon XTi today and other than a nice menu system I was not
impressed with the look and feel in my hands. I have not seen the D80 yet.

Once thing is certain I found the D70 having a much better balance and
feel than the Canon DR XT and expect the D80 to be better than the
XTi.. Like I said, other than the Dust Removal system it apperars that
the Nikon D80 had more favorable reviews.

The other thing is the cost of the lenses when compared to Canon
(excluding the expensive Canon L: series. I only want to consider VR vs
IS lens comparisons.

One last thing. Currently Nikon does not make a full frame sensor
camera but I expect them to. People have said that one should not buy
the fine, smaller, lighter, and better balanced DX lenses because you
will not be able to upgrade your system to full frame. They tell me to
go with the non DX lenses. The same decision applies to the D200 as
well. What do you think?

George K wrote:

Nikon provides a software solution to removing dust from Nikon RAW,
NEF, files and there are other photo editing programs that can remove
dust from other formats including Jpegs.


I know PS can do it but you first have to scour the photo for it and you
may miss some.

Even Point and Shoot cameras can get dust on their sensors but you can
not remove it.

measekite wrote:


I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.

In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses
(excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the big
thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that Nikon
did not include.

If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking care)
changes their lenses at least 2 to 3 times on an outing; I would like to
know just how serious this dust issue is. Is it enough of a problem to
favor Canon for this feature or is a composition grid and a spot meter
to favor the Nikon.

From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the sensor and
the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does not
come back perfect.

Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much
difference between the two as far as results, I have read that Nikon has
better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more appealing
color.

Comments Welcome!

wrote:

measekite wrote:


I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in
Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch
the D80 is a better choice.





The people at dpreview forums are having fun with this particular
review, The CNN reviewer claims that Canon had to trim back the XTi
(400d) sensitivity a full stop from ISO 3200 to ISO 1600 because the
new sensor was noisier than the previous sensor. The question is:
Since when did the Digital Rebel ever have 3200 ISO?

A quote from the review lamenting the XTi's new sensor: "the XTi's
measured and visible image noise was significantly worse than that of
the CCD-based Nikon D80 for any given ISO speed." Again, it has been
shown conclusively by several reputable websites (with 100% crops) that
the XTi had far, FAR more details than the D80 on high ISO.


Can you provide the links to these websites?


The reason
being that the D80 uses aggressive software noise reduction (hiss!
boo!) at high ISO --- blurring out the noise and the details at the
same time.


I thought there was a menu option to regulate this.

And is it no true that if you shoot RAW then there is no processing of
any kind?

The effects of the D80's noise reduction is shown
conclusively on various charts and graphs in the otherwise-glowing D80
review at dpreview.

Final quote complaining about the XTi's lack of spot metering: "Simply
metering on the subject's face should have solved this shot's exposure
problem, but the partial metering didn't work. A spot meter probably
would have been able to handle it. Instead, I had to boost the exposure
value of the entire scene by jumping to ISO 400."

Honestly, reading that last quote, you can tell the reviewer was not
only an amateur, but was a clueless one at that. What kind of moron
tries to use ISO settings in lieu of proper metering? What do ISO
settings have to do with proper metering at all? It's a disgrace the
way CNN lets unqualified people do reviews these days.



AND WHICH SYSTEM DO YOU THINK IS BETTER AND WHY? Assuming you have no
lenses and will build a system.

measekite writes:
The other thing is the cost of the lenses when compared to Canon
(excluding the expensive Canon L: series. I only want to consider VR
vs IS lens comparisons.

I don't think there's a big difference. Do you have specific examples?

One last thing. Currently Nikon does not make a full frame sensor
camera but I expect them to. People have said that one should not buy
the fine, smaller, lighter, and better balanced DX lenses because you
will not be able to upgrade your system to full frame. They tell me
to go with the non DX lenses. The same decision applies to the D200
as well. What do you think?

I'm not sure which lenses you're considering. You said you weren't
considering Canon L lenses, so you're presumably also not trying to
decide between, say, the 17-55 DX and the 17-35 non-DX. That leaves
longer lenses, for which you should go full frame; and the "kit" 18-70
DX (etc.) lenses. The kit lenses go with the D200 quite nicely and
are not that expensive, so you might as well get one. And if you're
into wideangles, the 12-24 DX is probably indispensible, with no full
frame substitute possible.

I'd be resistant to the D200 given that the next price jump puts you
in EOS-5D territory. The full frame sensor really is a big deal. I
was hoping Nikon would announce something at Photokina (happening
now), but no such luck.

Right now you are somewhat out of luck for copy photography with
Nikon. They have no flat-field macro lens shorter than 55mm, which on
a DX is like 90mm on a full frame camera, so you end up with
inconveniently large distance between the camera and the subject.
Canon doesn't have a shorter lens either, but at least you can use a
5D and get the same working distance you'd get with a film SLR.

measekite writes:
AND WHICH SYSTEM DO YOU THINK IS BETTER AND WHY? Assuming you have no
lenses and will build a system.

If there was a simple answer that worked for everyone, then there'd
be no way for both brands to keep existing.

It seems to me that Nikon has better ergonomics and UI than Canon.
But Canon is somewhat ahead of Nikon in technology. Low-end Canons
have more features per dollar than the comparable Nikons, and high end
Canons (5D, 1DS) have no Nikon counterparts.

If I were starting from scratch with $10,000, it would be a no
brainer, I'd go with Canon because of the 5D. With a lesser budget,
it's not so clear. I've been using Nikon for ages so I can't be
really neutral, but if I were starting over, there's a pretty good
chance that I'd switch to Canon based on my own shooting agendas and
technology preferences. Those are likely to be different from your
agendas and preferences. So you have to say more precisely what
you're hoping to accomplish and so forth.

You could possibly rent these cameras for a few days and see how you
like them.