SLR - Rebel vs D50

[reefin300]

I'm getting ready to make my purchase on an entry level SLR camera without dropping $1000 on it. I'd just like to get some feedback from those who have either of the two cameras and to see how you like it. I've heard great things about both cameras and I've experienced using the NikonD50 that it's really awesome with the automatic mode and better than most point and shoot cams. j

 

Which is better and more bang for the buck including purchasing lenses later, which would offer more as far as versatility and use.

[Andy Somnifac]

I have to go with the Rebel XT. I'm more of a fan of the Canon UI, and the EOS system. But to each their own.

[reefin300]

I have to go with the Rebel XT. I'm more of a fan of the Canon UI, and the EOS system. But to each their own.

 

I was thinking about getting the rebel as well.

 

Only 2 votes? c'mon guys and gals!

[reefin300]

4-2 in favor of the rebelious rebel!

 

Keep them coming

[geekreef_05]

The rebel XT is my pic. I have a nikon 5700 coolpix...not quite that class, but my father has a EOS Rebel XT and the rebel outperforms the nikon to the max! Specially when it comes to those delicate photos you can really see the different. The nikon fails (where the canon excels) during: low light conditions, speed lighting, motion photography and more.

 

And remember, all canon EOS lense are interchangable. So you can use that sweet lense from your old canon EOS on your new digital!

 

happy reefin'

[p.o.t.u.s]

Get the Rebel...

 

or get this...

 

# 16.7 MP full frame CMOS sensor

# 4 Frames per Second

# 32 frame continuous shooting

# DPP RAW processing software

# DIGIC II

# E-TTL II flash system

# Wide ISO speed range

# Weather resistant magnesium body

# Dual performance memory card slots

# LCD with 230k pixels

 

BAM!

[Perpetual98]

p.o.t.u.s, I think that you must have seen an extra couple of 00's in the budget.

 

My vote is for the Rebel XT as well.

[andykee]

I have the Rebel XT and so far I am pretty happy with it. I have one small issue with it however: the built in sharpening is not very strong, so many of my images come out a little fuzzy. I have read that this is as expected, and that I need to do some post-processing sharpening to get the sharpest images. I would expect that this occurs in both cameras, but it is a bit irritating. Also, I am pretty sure that the lens that comes with the package is mediocre at best. I bought just the body because I already had several EOS lenses, but considering that the body is only $100 than the package including the lens, Canon is putting a $100 lens on their $800 camera. The image quality is only as good as the lens quality (up to a point), but I would suggest looking in to a better lens down the road.

[Bluemorningwind]

Nikon's glass is far better. Unless you want very long focal lengths.

 

Front end, baby.

[reefin300]

you all have made very good points.

 

I also read an article that the rebel tends to come out with some haze or fuzziness to it that would require you to edit the photo further before it was complete.

 

However the majority of articles I read online does say that the Canon camera does outperform the Nikon by a good distance. I going to try and make it out to a camera shop today to see if they will let me take some pics and upload it to my memorycard and then I can take it home and compare the 2.

 

The lenses I will purchase as time progresses - I want to get the macro almost immediately but will haveto wait until I can afford it. Telephoto, and wide angle lense.

 

potus that is one sweet cam! But waaaaaay too much for my blood. Maybe After I've done like 100 weddings I can afford one of those!

[Perpetual98]

Maybe After I've done like 100 weddings I can afford one of those!

 

Ahh, the whole 'chicken before the egg' theory. Wouldn't you want the best possible equipment before you tackled lots of weddings. Having been married recently, I can attest to the fact that brides can be a little 'picky'

[reefin300]

HAHA Yes they can be very picky. I got out of an engagement about a year ago and umm yeah I would have to agree!!!

[Nednai]

Nikon's glass is far better. Unless you want very long focal lengths.

 

I love my Nikon F5! But the best Nikon glass is no better than Canon L series glass. And on my Sinar I like my Schneider and Rodensock lenses more than my Nikon.

[reefin300]

NedNai glad to hear it. I found this article just as I seen this post and thought I woudl share to help others who may be interested...

 

Choosing lenses for your digital SLR:

Which focal lengths and types are best for you?

by Jason Schneider

 

In the not-too-distant past, digital SLRs (DSLRs) were expensive professional tools selling for $5000 and up. As little as three years ago, even the so called “prosumer” DSLRs purchased by early adopters and serious photo enthusiasts were selling at prices ranging from $1,500 to $2000, putting them out of the range of most average consumers. Today the situation is vastly different. When Canon broke the $1000 price barrier by bringing out the Canon EOS Digital Rebel in 2003, they created, in effect, a new market category, the consumer DSLR, and other manufacturers followed hot on their heels. You can now buy a Pentax*ist DS or a new Nikon D50 for about $900, an 8-megapixel Canon D Rebel XT for under $1000, and the original Canon Rebel D for under $800, all with normal zoom lens. No wonder industry gurus are hailing 2005 as the year of the DSLR.

One of the main attractions of a single-lens reflex camera is, of course, the ability to use interchangeable lenses, but which lenses should you choose from the hundreds, if not thousands, of lenses on the market? Can you use your old 35mm SLR lenses on your new digital marvel? Which focal-length ranges will give you the maximum picture-taking bang for your buck? Should you favor certain focal lengths based on your style of shooting? Do single-focal-length lenses have any advantage over zooms? Do you need to buy special “digital lenses” or a separate macro lens if your zoom has a macro setting? Read on, and you’ll find concise answers to these and many other DSLR lens questions.

Before we get into picking lenses, it helps to understand a few technical things about your shiny new DSLR. Unless you’re shooting with a high-end pro SLR like a Canon EOS 1DS Mark II (which has a 24x36mm CMOS image sensor that’s the same size as a 35mm film frame) or an Olympus E-series DSLR (which uses a smaller Four Thirds-format CCD), you can safely assume that your consumer DSLR uses a CCD or CMOS image sensor that measures about 15.6x22.3mm, or roughly the same size as C format used on APS film cameras. This format has the same 2:3 aspect ratio as 35mm—when positioned horizontally it’s 1-1/2 times as wide as it is high and will therefore fit a 4x6-inch print perfectly.

What’s more important in terms of selecting lenses is that the diagonal dimension of the 35mm format (43.3mm) is 1.5 or 1.6 times as large as the diagonal of your DSLR’s format, which measures between 27 and 28mm.The diagonal is important because it represents the diameter of the image circle the lens must provide to produce a sharp image over the entire format. In practical terms this means that you have to multiply the focal length of any given lens you use on your DSLR by 1.5 or 1.6 to calculate its “35mm equivalent focal length.” Examples: A 35mm lens that works as a moderate wide-angle on your 35mm SLR actually works like a 55.5mm longish normal lens on a DSLR with a 1.5X multiplication factor, and a 50mm normal lens is functionally equivalent to an 80mm medium telephoto on a DSLR with a 1.6X multiplication factor. By the way, you don’t have to calculate these factors for yourself—they’re always included in your DSLRs instruction manual under “specifications.”

Most people who buy a new DSLR get it with the standard “normal zoom” lens. Typically it’s an 18-55mm or 18-45mm that’s the respective equivalent of a 28-85mm or 28-70mm lens on a 35mm SLR. It’s also of moderate speed, usually around f/3.5 at the wide-angle setting and f/5.6 at the telephoto end. No doubt these are useful general-purpose lenses for getting started, but they can’t do everything. They don’t provide the ultra-wide-angle settings you may need to record scenic vistas or get the whole family into a holiday shot in a small dining room. At their telephoto end, they don’t provide ideal focal lengths for portraiture (which really begin at 100-105mm), nor do they let you zoom long enough to capture most sports action or wildlife subjects. And of course, they don’t provide fast apertures in the f/1.4 to f/2.8 range that you may need when shooting non-flash pictures in low light.

This brings us to question number one, can you press your 35mm SLR lenses into service on your DSLR? The answer is yes, providing your DSLR uses the same lens mount as your 35mm SLR. If your DSLR has a Canon EF, Konica Minolta Maxxum, Pentax K-AF, or Nikon F mount, in the vast majority of cases your 35mm SLR lenses, camera brand or independently made, will work on your camera. However if you have older non-autofocus lenses in Pentax and Nikon mounts, you’ll have to focus them manually, and there may be other restrictions on metering. The good news here is that the 50mm f/1.4 or f/2 normal lens from your 35mm SLR will now be a good high-speed moderate tele, your 28-80mm normal zoom will be equal to a 45-125mm or thereabouts, and your 80-200mm tele zoom will be the equivalent of a whopping 120-300mm long tele zoom on your DSLR. The situation is less rosy on the wide-angle end of the spectrum. Due to the multiplication factor, your 20mm will give you the35mm-equivelent coverage of lens of 30mm or so lens (a focal length already covered by your DSLR’s normal zoom) and even your expensive 14mm ultra-wide will only equal a 21mm on 35mm.

What about the image quality of 35mm lenses on DSLRs? Much ink has been spilled on this subject, but there are three key factors to consider—the angle at which the lens’s light rays strike the sensor, antireflection coatings, and optimum format coverage. Much has been made of the fact that the edge light rays transmitted by many ultra-wide-angle lenses designed for 35mm cameras strike the image sensor at very oblique angles. This was perfectly acceptable when film was the capture medium, but it can cause image degradation at the edges and corners of the field when CCD and CMOS sensors are used. This effect can certainly be shown in side-by-side comparison pictures shot with 35mm and digitally optimized ultra-wide-angle lenses on professional, 24x36mm-format DSLRs, but it is far less pronounced with consumer DSLRs using APS-size image sensors. It is also true that digitally optimized lenses made by camera makers and leading independents (e.g. Tamron Di lenses) use improved coatings designed to reduce flare, which is more likely to affect pictures taken with digital imaging systems. However, the most important lens factor affecting DSLR image quality is optimum format coverage. In general, lenses specifically designed to cover the APS-C format have an inherent image-quality advantage over lenses designed to cover the larger 35mm format because their coverage precisely matches the frame. The bottom line: By all means use your present 35mm SLR lenses on your DSLR, but when buying new lenses for your DSLR, favor those optimized for digital photography. Furthermore, unless you plan to use these new lenses on both your 35mm SLR and your DSLR, you’re better off buying lenses designed to cover your DSLR’s format.

Okay, now that you’ve got a handle on some of the parameters, which focal lengths and lens types should you go for? Well, obviously much depends on what you’ve already got in your optical arsenal, but on the telephoto side, an 18-200mm optimized for the APS digital format is an excellent choice, since it provides the equivalent of a 28-300mm in 35mm. This has the advantage of allowing you to leave the lens on the camera as a “universal lens” thereby minimizing the possibility of dust getting on your image sensor when you change lenses—this can result in spots on your pictures. Don’t try to clean your DSLR’s sensor with lens tissue or a lens brush! It should really be cleaned professionally, and that costs $30-50 a pop! The only downside to a long-range zoom lens like an 18-200 is that its aperture is usually fairly small (f/6.3 or so) at the 200mm setting. A nice solution to this dilemma would be getting a 180mmm f/3.5 macro lens, which would provide a long tele setting (270mm in 35mm terms) plus the ability to focus down to 1:1 (life-size). And speaking of fast macro lenses, a 90mm f/2.8 (equal to the classic 135mm tele for 35mm) is another good choice that will also get down to 1:1 and is also great for portraiture. As for the 18-200 or any other long-range zoom, do not be concerned that its focal-length range may overlap or duplicate your normal zoom—restricting your lens choices based on the fact that you already own a standard kit lens that cost you $100 or less is not a great idea. In fact, if you’re in the market for a new DSLR, buy the body only and make the 18-200 your “universal” zoom lens!

What about the wide-angle end of the spectrum? Well, if you want to go really wide, which is a good idea if you shoot a lot of landscapes and interiors, by all means consider an 11-18mm zoom lens, the equivalent of a 17-28mm lens in 35mm. While 11-18mm may not sound like a large range, it really is in terms of angular coverage as you will quickly see if you put it on your DSLR and zoom it while you look through the viewfinder. Such lenses are also usually of moderate f/4.5-5.6 aperture, so if you need something faster, and still pretty wide, take a look at a 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0, the 35mm equivalent of a 26-53mm zoom, or a 28-75mm with constant f/2.8 aperture, the equivalent of a 42-113mm. The latter zoom is not all that wide or long, but it’s a great general-purpose lens for low-light shooters that’s used by many pros.

The secret message here is that, while it helps to be technically savvy when choosing lenses for your DSLR, it should also be a fun, hands-on process. You wouldn’t buy a car without taking a test drive, and there’s really no substitute for getting down to your camera dealer and trying these lenses on your DSLR or looking through your buddy’s camera to see what really works best for you. And if you’ve always had a hankering for shooting birds on the wing, wolves in the wild, or baseball from the bleachers, just try putting a really long tele zoom like a 200-500mm zoom on that DSLR of yours, looking through the finder as you zoom, and imagining what the 35mm equivalent of a 300-750mm can do for your pictures. That’s what I did, and I was hooked. When you get right down to it, that’s true joy of owning a DSLR in the first place—it’s all in the lenses!

[noogie]

As a photo hobbyist, I have too many hobbies that must be why I am poor, I thank that both companies are just as strong as the other. If they were not than one would already be out of business. Nikon does put better glass in there smaller lenses, but they are still the uber expensive smaller lenses. They have a basic, i think D series, set of lenses that are comparable to Canons less expensive lenses. I am a Canon man myself and really enjoy the feeling of their cameras and the UI and such. Canon still seems to be leading the way in CMOS technology and onboard signal processing technology.

 

With all that said. At this class of camera I like the hand feel of the D50 a lot better. The Rebel feels like a toy.

 

As far as image quality, at this level you won't notice a big difference. Any DSLR will produce a nice image with the usual flaws inherent to digital.

 

And operation: I hate the way entry level SLRs function. No mater the brand, they all suck. That is the main reason more expensive cameras are more expensive; functionality.

 

It is almost sad to say, but with a little practice, patients and knowledge, even an old school pin-hole can produce an image that is superior to anything the most advanced lens cameras can produce.

 

It really is all in the technique and execution of the photo, not the equipment.

 

 

 

If the Rebel XT uses the same CMOS that is in the 20D Then it will most likely be one bad-ace camera. I haven’t paid attention to the spects, just played with the camera.

 

I own the 20D and it is beautiful. I do have to say that the pixel density on the APSc size CMOS causes some softening. Canon really needs a low-pass filter on these cameras. Neither company has it though.

[reefin300]

noogie, thanks for the post! Sounds like you know your cameras. I'm still baffled on which one to get.

 

Although the housing is plastic I need to see them up close and personal and compare the two so I can make a decision. I don't mind the plastic housing but for that kind of money you would think canon would step their game up a notch, especially being they were the first to bring dSLR's to the table.

[Perpetual98]

They did step their game up a notch. They came out with the dRebel and the 10D about the same time. I bet they sold a lot of 10Ds to people who were looking the dReb.

[noogie]

Canon doesn't put the metal in because, and I am assuming here, because they have had a good track record with it. It is a tough material and can really take a beating. But I think that people also like that it is light and easy to carry. That's the consumer market talking there. No one wants to lug an eight pound brick around Disney Land. The problem is that point and shoot people think that the bigger the camera the better. Anymore, a small point and shoot digi. will get the job done for vacation snap shoots and stuff. We, people more interested in macros, astro, simi-pro, etc. are left with what the average consumer wants but does not need.

 

That's my one rant for the day.

[reefin300]

and an agreeable rant at that

 

I think I'm going to make my decision and go with the rebel xt. What do you think?

[paradise]

A few things. First I suggest you try both out at the local store. Second you gotta figure out what you are going to use it for.

 

Neither one is a great DSLR for the money. The Rebel XT is Nowhere as good as 20D, for marginal difference in price. It's plastic and cheaply made at that, it's TOO SMALL for normal adult male's hands. Trust me, you want your DSLR to be BIG, if you dont, I suggest getting a P&S camera. I have a much bigger and bulkier 20D and I am not even a big guy, and I still thought it was too light. I bought the battery grip, to extend the handhold and give me a portrait shutter.

 

Nikon D50 is a much better buy, UNLESS you are planning to do aquatic photography. It's MUCH cheaper ($599 body only at b&h right now), it's a better camera in general, and the stock lens on it is Miles better than the stock Canon lens. On the other hand, if you want GOOD aquatic pics, you NEED commander mode, which is something D50 does not give you, and you will need to purchase the new Wireless Flash transmitter coming out in the next 2 months to control flashes wirelessly. Canon also does not have it built in, but Nikon does on every model EXCEPT D50.

 

If I were you, I would do one of the following. Either decide based on the two statements above, or wait, save, and get either 20D or the new Nikon 200d which BTW is making me thing about switching, that is how good it is.

 

Oh, and since I took the time, here is a plug, a site I run, the Aquatic Photography Forum, http://aquatic-photography.com. Trust me, if you have not been there, and if you are serious about it, it's THE place to be.

[reefin300]

Paradise I was hoping you'd see this thread! Your pictures are absolutely amazing, especially the seahorses!

 

My original intent in purchasing the camera is mainly for my tanks, however i also want the versatility of being able to utilize it in every day photos as I need to. parties, birthdays, special ocassions, ect.

 

I definitely need to research it more especially with the news that there is a new nikon coming out! What's the price going to be? I don't mind dropping the money on an awesome camera as long as I have the flexibility of being able to use it for everyday stuff too.

 

I poked around at your site earlier today-didn't get to read through it thoroughly but I will be there tonight!

[Nednai]

I found this article just as I seen this post and thought I woudl share to help others who may be interested...

 

I don’t have time to peruse the article; I only have time to give it a cursory glance. Unfortunately that article doesn’t mention anything about glass quality. Besides, people who are in the market for cheap digital SLR’s aren’t going to be spending the money required to purchase high quality Canon or Nikon lenses. In the end, it’s a poor craftsman that blames his tools. Do the best you can with what you’ve got.

[bobioden]

I have the Canon Rebel XT and am very pleased with it. I looked at both the Canon and the Nikon D50 before I chose the Rebel. Having small hands I personally liked the free of the Canon better. I also like that it uses Compact Flash as opposed to Secure Disk.

 

Try them both out and see which one feels best for you. Picture quality wise I think they are comparable, so which ever you feel the most comfortable with shoud be your choice.

 

JMO

 

Bob

[paradise]

Thx for the kind words.

 

Re: D200, it will be about $1600 body only. I would def. recommend it if you have the $$ to spend on it, but I would also recommend the GOOD OLD D70 which you can pick up on the cheap these days. It's definitely a step below, but it's a proven camera, and it Does have Commander Mode. I would never buy the D50 if I can buy D70 for almost the same. There is a reason D50 just got dropped to $599, it's not worth the higher price tag.

 

Bob, I totally respect your opinion, and yeah, if you have small hands it may be OK comfortable, BUT... and this is a big BUT. The reason for a bigger body is not just the comfortable grip, that is just a side issue for me. The reason is that DSLR lenses, specially GOOD ones, are all BIG, because of hte number of pieces of glass in them, and they are heavy. Like 100mm 2.8 macro, arguably the best aquatic lens ever, is VERY long and heavy. A lighter, plastic and small body does not do well with that, it is just too light and is unbalanced, when you shoot handheld you WILL have problems with shake.

 

I have my bigger 20d with a Grip, and a 100mm macro mounted on it, and I can shoot handheld with a hand strap (E1, look it up, love it) instead of the shoulder strap which I HATE!!! And I never get tired, holding it, because it's Balanced. And I walk around with it the whole day at Zoos, and other places.

[aenty04]

I have just recently finished a similar comparison for a Digital SLR. I don't know if you have seen the very new Evolt 500 from Olympus but it may be worth a look. i was very impressed with it and even though you can't use your old SLR lenses (if you have them), it might be worth getting the package with two lenses. Also they have a fairly decent priced macro lens out as well. As if your choice wasn't tough enough with two cameras here is a third that I thought I would add. Also I am waiting to see what the new Nikon looks like before I make my final decision.