DSLRUsers.com

Subject says it all

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,16021581%5e15308%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html

Another pixel counter by the end of the review (6.1 versus eight), do these guys know anything about the quality of the sensor or are they just copying one review to another?
I'm not knocking Canon's sensor just that you must have a keen eye to spot the difference especially once you've printed it off from your $100/$300 printer.
Just my 2 cents.

Paul wrote:Another pixel counter by the end of the review (6.1 versus eight), do these guys know anything about the quality of the sensor or are they just copying one review to another?
:

I guess he had to find some "fault" with it . Bear in mind, to the average consumer, having an extra 2 megapixel translate to a better picture. Comes from the fast food industry, more is better, not.

Certainly, when I started looking at which camera to buy, when I asked the camera shop attendants, they all pointed to the fact that Canon has 8 megapixels, so much better. Nobody really pointed to me that the kit lens on the D70s was way better, hence more expensive.

In the end I picked the D70s for a number of reasons and the number of megapixels it had, did not come in the equation. I liked the fact that it had bulk, a negative in the reviewer's mind, etc etc. To each his own

Cheers,

André

Radar,
Agree with you completely. I much preferred the bulk of the D70s. To me the Canon 350 felt too light and build quality not as good. The lens also was the same. Essentially when i looked at it, to equip the Canon with a similar quality lens to the Nikon kit lens would have pushed the price above the Nikon package. But as you say each to his/her own.

strangedays wrote:Radar,
Agree with you completely. I much preferred the bulk of the D70s. To me the Canon 350 felt too light and build quality not as good. The lens also was the same. Essentially when i looked at it, to equip the Canon with a similar quality lens to the Nikon kit lens would have pushed the price above the Nikon package. But as you say each to his/her own.

Clearly somewhere on this board, the comparison is for:
D50 vs Canon 350 not D70s vs Canon 350

I stopped reading it here:

If you're stepping up from the point-and-shoot "compact" market, the D70s, like other cameras in the SLR class, will lack some features you may have become used to, such as powered zoom, using main screen as a viewfinder and shooting short videos.

pfffft!

I picked that too but too tired to work on what they said.

The author doesn't know what he's writting and what he's thinking about.

I gave up when glaring factual innacuracies were produced. I guess that is just another example of the poor standard of journalism in Australia these days:

The same phenomenon is also tempting more and more people to try photography as a hobby, giving rise to the affordable digital SLR market pioneered by Canon with the EOS 300D in 2003.

Arch-rival Nikon wasn't slow in responding, first with the D100, then the D70 and now the D70s, as well as the new, cheaper D50.

300D announced 20/8/03
D100 announced 21/2/02

Well done stupid, Nikon FOLLOWED Canon's lead by announcing the D100 18 months BEFORE the 300D

That article sucks! But, most people who buy digital dont look critically since Megapixels is the key factor!

I was at a wedding once where a guy asked for the megapixel count followed by whether if the D70 took movies!

Obviously, since the camera doesnt make movies must be an inferior model because his tiny little bitty weenny PS camera can do all that and more.