Hello,

I hope you may be able to help me out here. I am looking to buy an SLR brand new, my choices are between the Nikon F65 and the Canon EOS300. They are exactly the same price, but how do they compare ?

The Canon has a 7 point auto focus, compared to the Nikons 5, and on the whole it appears to be better spec'd for the money. Is this maybe at the expense of picture quality though ?

I have no issues with buying a Canon over a Nikon, they are both excellent brands.

Thanks in advance, Andy

-- Andy Hull (andyhull@breathe.com), April 08, 2002

Answers

The camera has very little bearing on picture quality. Both are perfectly capable of correctly metering and exposing a scene.

If you mean picture quality such as sharpness, contrast, colour rendition, etc, then the camera body has no possible bearing on this. The image is formed by the lens.

Both Canon and Nikon produce cheap lenses. Both Canon and Nikon produce expensive lenses (although the Ģ80000 Canon 1200 F5.6L would have to take the biscuit there). Both Canon and Nikon produce lenses in between these two extremes. In general (although there are a great many exceptions), a more expensive lens will produce a sharper image, or one that is more magnified...basically expensive lenses offer more extreme performance and/or greater image quality.

Neither camera is a bad choice. Neither system is a bad choice, and most would agree that both are a better choice than other systems such as minolta and pentax (although these are perfectly capable also, the total system doesn't quite match Canon or Nikon).

Don't ask other people to decide for you. Go to a camera shop, handle both cameras with lenses you want to buy, and see which you prefer. Alternatively, choose your lenses first, and then if they're nikon, buy the F65, and if they're Canon, buy the EOS 300.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 08, 2002.

Isaac has excellent advice. Ask yourself whether you're buying just a camera (ie: you don't have any plans to get different lenses or whatever - you'll just use the camera with whatever lens it came with) or whether you're looking to buy into a system (ie: are you going to think in the future about expanding your lens selection, etc). Comparing individual cameras is important if you're doing the former. It's not as important if you're doing the latter.

http://www.teladesign.com/photo/why-canon.html

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), April 08, 2002.

In this price range the Minolta 5 is clearly the best buy. At least it would be if you were only intending on buying this one camera & a cheap lens to go with it. More features, better specs, etc. But as Isaac pointed out you are really buying into a camera system.

In my opinion, Canon has a better whole system, right now, that Nikon, Pentax or Minolta. More features and system innovations. More research & development money spent. More AF lenses than anyone. A flash system that has more options, features & controls than any other. Who knows what changes the digital revolution will bring us to in the end however.

If the choice was only the Nikon F/N65 or the Canon 300/Rebel 2000, the choice has to go to the Canon. It's by far the better caemra. You can't even change the ISO of the film on the 65. it's really crippled in my opinion. Nikon makes some great cameras, but not in the under $500 range.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), April 09, 2002.

Andy I would go for a Nikon F55. It can take a lot more of the older lenses and you will be able to get your lenses before you buy your second body.

Jeff

-- Jeffrey Alan Herrington (jeffreyherrington@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.

Thank you all for your excellent responses.

You have actually taught me quite a lot there, I was under the impression the body of the camera also had quite a lot to do with picture quality (due to the cost differences of high end bodies, but I guess that must be due to the difference in features ?), but I was mistaken.

As regards picture quality, yes all of the things Isaac mentions are what I am looking for. I have seen the difference between lenses in the past and must say that a comparison between a Sigma and a Canon proved interesting, the Canon being faster, quieter (in AF) and giving enhanced picture sharpness (the Sigma was a little hazy).

The F55 is an interesting idea; does the F65 not have the same lens backward compatibility though ? Is the F55 to replace the F65 ? As Jim says though I am quite convinced that the extra features of the Canon (especially the AF zone advantage) out weigh the Nikon for the same money. I will have to handle the two, look for ease of holding, weight and build quality, but on the whole I feel the EOS may be the best buy.

As for the Minolta 5, I will look into it more closely but can't really see any advantage over the Canon; the Nikon again has less AF zones than the Minolta. Are you sure the F65 doesn't have auto ISO settings ? As far as I know it ranges from DX:25-5000 ?

Thanks for that guys, any more info on the above would clear things up for me and be much appreciated !! Andy

-- Andy (andyhull@breathe.com), April 09, 2002.

why do you want to buy a camera. to shoot or to take snap shots. for the later even a point and shoot will do.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), April 09, 2002.

Sajeev,

I am looking towards the flexability of the SLR more than anything. I take all kinds of pictures from "snaps" to motor sport events, and I like the flexability of this. Should I want to try filters and slow shutter speeds I can do with these cameras, but with a point and shoot (as with 90+% of digital cameras) I can't do as I want, when I want.

Shame really because the SLR's can get a little clumbersome sometimes....

Cheers, Andy

-- Andy (andyhull@breathe.com), April 09, 2002.

others has pointed out the differences between f65 and eos300 very well. i just wanted to know what kind of photography are you interested in. well, in this case, a SLR is the best option. i too bought a nikon Zoomate 90. the results were not so bad, but i felt it to be too short for any kind of photography, though there are many award wining photos shot with a P&S. i got it replaced by eos300 (thanks to my dealer). that was what i could afford. i am now pretty happy with it.

going for canon would be a wise decision. there is a wide range of AF lenses which are fully compactible with any EOS body. many third party lenses are also compactible. with nikon you will be able to use older MF lenses. these lenses are simply great. but its upto you. buy the system which feels better to you. i have handled nikonīs f80 and eos30. i felt the f80 to be small and light weight compared to eos30. if i want to upgrade my equipment i will not think of nikon (or f80) at this stage. not because i have to get rid of my canon equipments but because the feel with eos30 was much better than that of f80.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), April 09, 2002.

The ISO control being mentioned is that the Nikon does not offer manual ISO override (in order to "push" film). This may be important to you, it may not (I have never used this feature).

Compatibility is a funny word. Nikon cameras are supposed to be compatible with old lenses. However, features start dropping off quickly (you loose metering modes, flash control, etc). The downside of this is that some of the latest lenses are not compatible with even surprisingly recent bodies. For example, the very recently discontinued Nikon F90X can NOT use Nikon's VR lens(es). By contrast, although EOS bodies can't use 40 year old lenses, within the EOS system and EF lenses, there is far BETTER compatibility than is found in the Nikon system.

This being a Canon forum, it is obvious what my choice has been. Knowing what I know now, I'd definately make the same choice again. However, if you find the Nikon 1000 times easier to use, then the Canon would seem a bad choice, and vice versa. The point is, take advice, but make the decision your own. You don't have to justify owning one over the other to anyone else.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.

Nikon N65 or Canon Rebel 2000?

The N65 has too significant weaknesses compared to the Rebel 2000. The first if the absence of film DX override. The second is the absence of partial/spot metering. The Rebel 2000 has both these important features.

The Rebel 2000 allows you to override the automatic film speed setting. Normally when you load film, the camera reads the DX code off the film canister and sets the film speed automatically. When you load ISO 400 speed film, the camera sets the film speed to ISO 400. However, there are many instances where you will want to override the automatic setting and enter in another ISO. For example, many photographers know that some films perform better at speeds other than what the manufacturer has indicated. For example, I regularly override the following films: Fuji NPH 400 (to ISO 320 or 250), Fuji NPZ (to ISO 640), Ilford XP2 Super 400 (to ISO 320 or 250), Fuji Velvia 50 (to ISO 40), etc. The advantages of doing this are finer grain, better shadow detail, better colors, depending on the film. As you can see, having film DX override is a very useful and convenient feature to have. That is why it is standard on most cameras. But the Nikon N65 does not have it.

The Rebel 2000 has 9.5% partial metering. This allows you to take a reading from the central 9.5% of the viewfinder, outline on the focus screen by a circle. With the selectivity of a partial meter, you can get a more precise and accurate meter reading. This is particularly useful in difficult lighting situations that would otherwise fool an evaluative/matrix meter. The Rebel 2000 does evaluative metering in AV and TV mode, and centerweighted metering in manual mode. However, you can activate partial metering at any time by pressing the (*) button. The Nikon N65 does evaluative metering in AV and TV mode, and centerweighted metering in manual mode, also. But the N65 does not have partial metering.

I personally would not get a camera that didn't have film DX override or partial/spot metering.

Another nice thing about the Rebel 2000 is that the film is wound *into* the film canister as each picture is taken. On the N65 (and most other cameras) the film is wound onto the take-up spool as each picture is taken. With the Rebel 2000, when you load the film the camera winds the entire film onto the take-up spool. Then as you take each picture, the picture is wound into the safety of the film canister. The advantage of this is that if you were to accidently open the camera back or drop the camera in a manner that would cause the camera back to pop open (it happens!), the pictures you've already taken won't be ruined because they have already been safely wound into the film canister. Only the unused film will be ruined. With other cameras, the pictures you've already taken would be ruined.

The long-term advantage of the Canon Rebel 2000 is that it would give you access to Canon's extensive UltraSonic Motor (USM) lenses, which are quiet and fast. Almost all of Canon's lenses are USM. It is Canon's standard lens motor. Only a handful of Nikon's offer a similar motor, the Silent Wave (AF-S) motor, and you pay extra for this Nikon "feature". Additionally, Canon also has an extensive collection of Image Stabilizer (IS) lenses. Nikon only has one, with one more on the way.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.

And yes, as Isaac mentioned, you can also use film DX override when 'pushing' film. For example, if you are shooting an ISO 100 film but you need something faster, you can override the film speed on the camera and set it to ISO 200. Then when you take it in for processing, as for 'Push 1' processing.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.

Thanks again for all your replies, weekend is approaching and it looks like the EOS 300/Rebel 2000 will be mine by Monday !!

-- Andy (andyhull@breathe.com), April 10, 2002.

Hi Andy! Did you buy the Canon? Please, let me know abou your impresions? Another thing I have to decide is - which 28-200 to buy? Is Tamron better than Canon or Nikon? Maybe somebody can help me?

Eugeny

-- Evgeny (evassilev@web.de), May 10, 2002.