10MP with a single Zoom

Would those two systems produce very similar quality images?

Nikon D80 with AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Canon 400D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM



The Nikon lack VR, but how helpful is it on a wide zoom?

The Canon cost less.

Michel

On Mar 23, 3:45 pm, "michelo" wrote:
Would those two systems produce very similar quality images?

Nikon D80 with AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Canon 400D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

The Nikon lack VR, but how helpful is it on a wide zoom?

The Canon cost less.

Michel

There is no reason not to expect "similar" performance from either
system. Look at what is available, image wise, on-line, Pbase,
Dpreview and so forth. But more importantly if you are looking, go to
a retail store and pick them up and play with the controls and test
fire a few frames.

Now, look at some of the older models because unless you are going to
make massive enlargements, 6-8MP is sufficient for most things and is
much more affordable or leaves more money for glass, which is where
you really need to spend it to make extraordinary images.

Jim

"michelo" wrote in message
...
Would those two systems produce very similar quality images?

Nikon D80 with AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Canon 400D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM



The Nikon lack VR, but how helpful is it on a wide zoom?

The Canon cost less.

Michel



The Nikon is a superior camera, the 400D is similar in specs to the D40, not
the D80.
Nikon is also well known for producing the best wide angle lenses in the
industry.

At those focal lengths VR is completely useless, a mere marketing gimmick.
VR is only really useful for long teles.

"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in message
l.nl...

"michelo" wrote in message
...
Would those two systems produce very similar quality images?

Nikon D80 with AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Canon 400D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM



The Nikon lack VR, but how helpful is it on a wide zoom?

The Canon cost less.

Michel



The Nikon is a superior camera, the 400D is similar in specs to the D40,
not the D80.
Nikon is also well known for producing the best wide angle lenses in the
industry.

At those focal lengths VR is completely useless, a mere marketing gimmick.
VR is only really useful for long teles.



Never used VR/IS on a short lens, have you?

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Jeroen Wenting wrote:
"michelo" wrote in message
...
Would those two systems produce very similar quality images?

Nikon D80 with AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Canon 400D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM



The Nikon lack VR, but how helpful is it on a wide zoom?

The Canon cost less.

Michel



The Nikon is a superior camera, the 400D is similar in specs to the
D40, not the D80.
Nikon is also well known for producing the best wide angle lenses in
the industry.

At those focal lengths VR is completely useless, a mere marketing
gimmick. VR is only really useful for long teles.

Rita!


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:

At those focal lengths VR is completely useless, a mere marketing
gimmick. VR is only really useful for long teles.

Never used VR/IS on a short lens, have you?

I'm sure he did and found out VR/IS is totally useless at 50mm and wider.
Some people are actually pretty keen at picking out the placebo.



Both you and he should watch out for blanket statements. IS/VR is useful at
50mm and wider, but it takes a very slow shutter speed to justify it. Which
you know, even though you won't admit it.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
...
Both you and he should watch out for blanket statements. IS/VR is
useful at 50mm and wider, but it takes a very slow shutter speed to
justify it. Which you know, even though you won't admit it.

Maybe if you are shooting landscapes on a still day it *MIGHT* add
something, but beyond that it doesn't do much for panning.

rita, this is a _photo_ group, not video group. nobody here in their right mind
would possible need to do any "panning" with short lenses.

"JimKramer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 23, 3:45 pm, "michelo" wrote:
Would those two systems produce very similar quality images?

Nikon D80 with AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Canon 400D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

The Nikon lack VR, but how helpful is it on a wide zoom?

The Canon cost less.

Michel

There is no reason not to expect "similar" performance from either
system. Look at what is available, image wise, on-line, Pbase,
Dpreview and so forth. But more importantly if you are looking, go to
a retail store and pick them up and play with the controls and test
fire a few frames.

Now, look at some of the older models because unless you are going to
make massive enlargements, 6-8MP is sufficient for most things and is
much more affordable or leaves more money for glass, which is where
you really need to spend it to make extraordinary images.

Jim


I was looking at 10MP cameras because I want to make good 8x12 and the
printers are at 300 dpi. I looked the prices at B&H and the 6-8MP don't cut
the price of the kit by much. I just notice that there is a new 10MP Nikon
coming out soon at half the price of the D80.

BODY LENS TOTAL
350D $500 + $980 = $1480
400D $670 + $980 = $1650
D40 $470 + $1140 = $1610
D40x $730 + $1140 = $1870
D80 $925 + $1140 = $2065

Michel

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:

I'm sure he did and found out VR/IS is totally useless at 50mm and
wider. Some people are actually pretty keen at picking out the
placebo.

Both you and he should watch out for blanket statements. IS/VR is
useful at 50mm and wider, but it takes a very slow shutter speed to
justify it. Which you know, even though you won't admit it.

Maybe if you are shooting landscapes on a still day it *MIGHT* add
something, but beyond that it doesn't do much for panning. It's better
carrying a cinderblock to rest your camera on than have your lens in that
focal range optically crippled with VR/IS.



Yes, it might. And IS/VR is much, much lighter than a cinder block, and you
don't run the risk of dropping it on your foot...
Optically crippled? Sheesh, dipping into that hyperbole bucket, again,
aren't you?

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

Both you and he should watch out for blanket statements. IS/VR is
useful at 50mm and wider, but it takes a very slow shutter speed to
justify it. Which you know, even though you won't admit it.

Maybe if you are shooting landscapes on a still day it *MIGHT* add
something, but beyond that it doesn't do much for panning.

rita, this is a _photo_ group, not video group. nobody here in their
right mind would possible need to do any "panning" with short lenses.

See, you even admit that VR/IS is totally worthless on 50mm and wider
lenses.


Wow, that's a leap. I didn't read that anywhere in what he wrote...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm