I 've read over the following post.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=24265376.

If anyone can comment further, Id be grateful..

I have concerns about the Cannon reliability as I have seen a few posters complain that they've had to send their 350d in for repairs within the first year. Is this a know issue? If so, can anyone comment on the Nikon reliability?..

You wouldn't believe how often this question comes up.

Gbat wrote:.

And each sales person will tell you a different story.

And the same will happen with your question posed here, but with more vehemence, since many people are too willing to push "their" brand without any objectivity..

So I pose thedilema to you all to give me the straight goods. What are thedisadvantages of one over the other? One vendor told me that theNikon Lens line is so limited that he'd recommend the Cannon XT plusthere are more accessories (ie. battery grip). Then I went into theBlack's superstore and the manager told me that the Nikon Lens linehas ranges that no other company has (ie. 18-200 with VR)..

Canon has a larger range of lenses. That isn't to say that Nikon doesnt have some focal lengths better covered than Canon. To compare lens ranges, you would have to know which focal length ranges you are particularly interested in, given your shooting style. If it is your first dSLR, you are unlikely to know this. If you have been using a P&S digital camera, then looking at the EXIF information of your shots and converting the focal lengths may give you some idea..

The XT review on this site was Nov. 05- is the technology getting tooold to consider it viable today?.

No, but clearly the Xti would have been introduced without some improvements over the XT a larger LCD for example..

Is the 8 megapixel that big of anadvantage over the d40's 6?.

(8 6)/6 = 33% difference, the Canon has 1/3 more pixels than the Nikon, or(8 6)/8 = 25% difference, the Nikon has 25% fewer pixels than the Canon..

How are the lens prices and at what point.

Generally Nikon lens prices are more expensive than the equivalent Canon prices. But this is often an exercise in comparing apples and oranges..

Are they truly not worth the $$$? Is the # of focus points thatimportant?these are the types of questions that are keeping me from pulling thetrigerr on a purchase..

You wouldn't believe how often these questions come up. (Have I already said this?) There are plenty of satisfied users of both cameras and both systems, and some users who now with more experience, wish they had done it differently. If you had both cameras for several months, you, and you alone, could probably tell which one you should have bought initially..

Brian A...

They are both great cameras. Flip a coin, buy one of them, and start learning the basics of photography. Don't expect your initial photos to be keepersthere is a steep learning curve, and it will take you several months to really learn what you are doing. However, in the end you will be satisfied with your decision and your purchase..

Jerryhttp://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

Thanks for the replies. I figure that really there isn't a bad decision, just a decision. I was looking at the Nikon body with the 18-200 vr lens. One good lens with anti shake as opposed to two lenses covering the same range. Is this the best way to get the bang for the buck? or is there a better way to get the value in buying two lenses one 18-55 or 70 and then a second in the 75-?? range. Again, this arguement is for both cameras, I only mention the Nikon as it was the one I was leaning to in the onset...

Gbat wrote:.

Thanks for the replies. I figure that really there isn't a baddecision, just a decision. I was looking at the Nikon body with the18-200 vr lens. One good lens with anti shake as opposed to twolenses covering the same range. Is this the best way to get the bangfor the buck? or is there a better way to get the value in buyingtwo lenses one 18-55 or 70 and then a second in the 75-?? range..

18-200 gives you a good, but not great range. It is a good range for one lens, but not as good as you would get with a selection of lenses. and clearly there would be little point in getting a dSLR and one lens. You could get a fixed lens super zoom with more range for less money. Consider also the maximum apertures of lenses you are looking at, not just the focal length range IS and VR can help with camera shake, but they do nothing for subject movement..

At the wide end, neither Canon nor Nikon make anything equivalent to a 24mm to whatever for crop sensor cameras, so the 18 mm isn't too bad. However, at the tele end, a much better option would be a 70 (or 75) to 300 mm lens..

IMO the XT is a more advanced camera and worth the extra, but if the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR is the lens for you, then go for the Nikon; you can always upgrade to a better Nikon body at a later date..

Brian A...

Gbat wrote:.

One vendor told me that theNikon Lens line is so limited that he'd recommend the Cannon XT plusthere are more accessories (ie. battery grip)..

The Canon system has more lenses than the Nikon system, but they both have quite a lot (manufacturer lenses and third-party lenses)..

The retailer may have been referring to the D40 autofocus issue. Some autofocus lenses for the Nikon system have built-in motors. Others depend on help from one in the camera body. The D40 and D40X lack the in-body motor found in all of the other Nikon DSLRs. So when you use a lens like the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 on a D40 or D40X, the camera will not (cannot) adjust focus! You must adjust focus manually (perhaps with help from the camera)..

Some people consider that a good reason to upgrade to a D80, to look on the used market for a D50/D70/D70s in excellent condition, or to consider a Canon..

Is the 8 megapixel that big of an advantage over the d40's 6?.

It gives you about 15% more pixels on each axis (X, Y). Going from 6 to 10 MP is moderately useful (29% more pixels on each axis). 6 to 8, or 8 to 10, is not really that important..

How are the lens prices and at what point are they truly not worth the $$$?.

Lens prices vary wildly depending on focal length(s), speed, optical quality, IS / VR (or it's absence), manufacturer lens vs. third-party lens, and the phase of the Moon..

I've seen listings for Canon and Nikon lenses that cost many THOUSANDS of bucks; clearly made for pros, and clearly not going in my kit any time soon..

Lens reviews can help weed out the turkeys, but for the ones that are pretty decent, the "point at which they are truly not worth the $$$" depends on you. The budget of an advanced amateur who wants good photos but for whom a camera is just a money sink will differ from that of a National Geographic photographer who must have high-end equipment, but whose photos generate revenue to pay for it...

I have held both the d40 and the XT in my hands and I like the 'feel' of the XT so given that they are arguably on par, I am leaning toward the Cannon XT (XTi if the deal is good enough)... given my topics of interest, can you recommend a lens combo from Cannon that won't break the bank but still be decent? Something to keep in mind, I am going to Mt. St. Anne in a few weeks so there will be plenty of landscape shots, old villiage settings, and shots of my dog. I've been on the Cannon site and have been to the shops here in Toronto and find the range of lenses a bit overwhelming to understand. i'm looking for a decent lens, or lens combo, to take to dinner or family events and a lens for outdoor scenery - Quebec trip mentioned plus I have a cottage so plenty of water shots in bright light. This may be asking a lot but I am appreciating the feedback so far...

With the XT you get more resolution for less. If I had one complaint about my XT it would be I could use more resolution not less. I cropped a headshot out of some pics taken of a band with my 50mm 1.8 (couldn't get close) and I can barely print out an 8x10, it's below 200 pixels per inch. Course I really should have used a longer lens but I don't have one yet the 50 1.8 is all I have so far..

I only just got the XT, my first DSLR a couple of months ago. I'm pretty happy with it, it takes great pics and like I said if anything I'd go up in resolution to 10Mp of the 400D before I'd go down to 6Mp like the Nikon D40. It just gives you more room to crop. Yeah I know, I've got to get a longer lens. I got the XT because it was cheap, under $500 USD when I got it...

That's asking for way too much from just one lens. I'd recommend the 50 1.8 as a cheap yet very sharp and good aperture lens but for landscape it might be a bit too long on a 1.6 crop camera. The 17-55 2.8 IS is a nice one but very expensive. 17-85 IS is nice too but also expensive. If you're looking for cheap, like I was, the 50 1.8 is the one I went with, but it's really not suitable for everything..

Although you could try taking multiple pics of the landscape with a 50 1.8 and stitch them together into a panorama shot. Then you'd have the wide angle down and even have the resolution to print large as well. That's the next thing I want to try with my nifty fifty, a panorama landscape. You'll need a tripod though...

Thanks to all who shared their opinions. Futureshop is having their labour day sale so I took the plunge and dropped the $799 on the Rebel XTi. I also picked up the accessory kit from Henrys (Bag, filter, grip and battery) for $149. The next item is a decent but not too expensive zoom lens. I've not heard much good about the 70-200/300 lens so if anyone has suggestions or opinions on Cannon, Sigma, or Tamron zoom lenses please feel free to share...

Both the 70-200 and 70-300 have good reputations. The 75-300 is not as highly regarded. I have the 70-200mm f/4L and am extremely pleased with it. You can find numerous discussions about these lenses in the forums if you do a search (and if the search function is working)..

Jerryhttp://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

Did you get the kit with the 18-55? If so, the Canon 28-200 or 55-200 might be a good bet. The former would reduce the need to change lenses. The 28-135 IS gives you image stabilization, though you give up long telephoto. Don't forget the 1.6x crop factor...

Gbat wrote:.

The next item is a decent butnot too expensive zoom lens..

The kit comes with a zoom, the 18-55mm. I think you mean a telephoto zoom?.

I've not heard much good about the70-200/300 lens so if anyone has suggestions or opinions on Cannon,.

All four of the Canon 70-200 mm lenses are highly regarded. They are some of the best lenses made. The Canon 70-300 mm IS is also well regarded for it's price. It isn't in the same quality league as the 70-200 mm lenses, but it is a very good lens for the price..

Brian A...

I'm kinda the new kid on the block with this forum. But couldn't help responding. Be sure to check out the following link before you make any choices.http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm.

Both are excellent products having used both brands in my 50 years of pro photography, retired now so I can have fun with my cameras. You can't go wrong with either brand but be sure to check the link..

Regards, Bob..

Ken Rockwell, you have to be joking. Even diehard Nikonians on the Nikon forums have figured that Ken Rockwell is too biased to listen to: lenses, tripods, and printers maybe, but on Camera bodies no way. There are far too many unbiased reviewers out there (including this site, DPReview) to both with Rockwell's drivel..

Brian A...