[OreoCookie]

Some DSLRs do have live preview, for instance Fuji's Finepix S3 Pro, Canons D20a (updated D20) and my Olympus E-20 can deal with it.

(The Olympus, like its predecessor, uses a split-beam prism so that the sensor is continuously fed with input. Nevertheless, it is a SLR.)

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by tooki

Overall, the only advantages of DSLRs right now are these: 1) being able to swap out lenses (which most amateurs won't do, they'll never go beyond the kit lens) and 2) superior image quality thanks to large image sensors.

tooki

if you need decent low light without flash capabilities, dSLRs are probably the only way to go. you may get a good shot from one of the high end Pana's and Sony's, but their ISO 400 shots really blow. dSLRs can go up to 1600/3200 and still be incredibly useful because of their bigger sensors.

[tooki]

Well, the Panasonic has superb optics, but a ton of noise -- no good for long exposures or high ISO.

The Sony does quite well, and the Nikon's not too bad.

But none of them can hold a candle to the low-noise shots from a DSLR. A low-end DSLR at ISO 1600 has the same amount of noise as many non-SLR digital cameras at ISO 200.

tooki

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Even that crappy Canon Lens isn't plastic. Plastic on the outside yes, but not on the inside. The Nikkor is more expensive than the Canon lens, just because it's a Nikkor.

If you are serious about photography then I don't recommend these kit lenses at all.

I'm not really that serious. In fact the D50 is overkill. But a salesperson mentioned the lens on the Canon, so I was just curious about the Nikon. My wife and I have nearly identical Olympus (C-2020 and 3000). But we printed up a couple of pictures and entered them into a local fair and won some ribbon. So now we're thinking about getting something to "grow" into. Lately it's been the Sony DSC V3, but I want to get an SLR.

I want to upgrade my Dual 867 too. It's a sickness I tell you.

[viperstrike]

Originally Posted by tooki

1. more solid feel -- the Canons feel "cheapy"
2. superior continuous shooting performance (esp. in raw mode)
3. vastly superior included lens in the kit

Other than that, I'd say they're neck and neck.

Once again, I hit 'submit' before i finished my thought. The Nikon D70 is a great camera, and the Canon Rebel XT and the D70 are great choices to chose from. The issue I have is that Nikon never sold the D70 at a discount, or at least nowhere i found. I originally got the 300D because I found the kit for $700 out the door, where the Nikon kit never sold any lower than $1k. Even now, I ordered the 350D (body only) on sale for 799 w/shipping and tax...and IT WAS WAITING AT MY DOOR STEP TODAY

Charging battery right now. First impression: "Damn, this thing is small! WHAT...this can't be the battery!"

So to conclude: The Nikon D70 is a great camera. The Canon D-Rebel XT is a great camera. I'm not rich, so the cost helped in my decision.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by viperstrike

Once again, I hit 'submit' before i finished my thought. The Nikon D70 is a great camera, and the Canon Rebel XT and the D70 are great choices to chose from. The issue I have is that Nikon never sold the D70 at a discount, or at least nowhere i found. I originally got the 300D because I found the kit for $700 out the door, where the Nikon kit never sold any lower than $1k. Even now, I ordered the 350D (body only) on sale for 799 w/shipping and tax...and IT WAS WAITING AT MY DOOR STEP TODAY

Charging battery right now. First impression: "Damn, this thing is small! WHAT...this can't be the battery!"

So to conclude: The Nikon D70 is a great camera. The Canon D-Rebel XT is a great camera. I'm not rich, so the cost helped in my decision.

The D70 is not positioned head-to-head with the Rebel (XT or non-XT), the D50 is.

But nevertheless, I think you made a great choice