Nikon N65 vs. Rebel 2000

I'm trying to decide whether to purchase a Nikon N65 (newly released)

or a Rebel 2000 system. The Nikons seem to have a better grip and

feel (N60) as compared to the Canon Rebel series. The

other features seem roughly comparable. Also, the Nikon lens

(28 - 80 mm.) which comes with the kit seems to be nicer than the

Canon lens, except for the USM feature which is unique to Canon.

<p>

Also, from a price vs. performance perspective for the long run, which system, in your opinion would be more versatile ? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

<p>

Thanks very much.

-Rajat.

Hi Rajat,

<p>

Your question is a perfectly reasonable one, but you'll find it

difficult to get a clear-cut answer. To you it's a new question, but

to many of the participants in this forum it's an old -- and

unresolved -- debate.

<p>

There's a lot of material on Canon vs Nikon in the archives on this

forum and on photo.net. If you read it, and you probably should,

you'll discover how passionate Canon users and Nikon users can be

about the systems they use.

<p>

The only accepted rule -- and this is accepted only by the middle

ground in the debate -- is that both systems can provide you with all

you need to take the pictures you want, and that if YOU have any

reason for preferring one system, then buy that one. If YOU prefer

the feel of the N65, then don't worry -- it won't let you down.

<p>

In an attempt to add something new to the debate, I'd like to

summarize a discussion on the Nikon Mailing List earlier this year,

when someone asked an interesting question. Not "Why SHOULD you

choose Nikon?" but "Why DID you choose Nikon?" And, of all the many

good reasons for choosing Nikon, two came up again and again: Nikon's

commitment to build quality, and the high-eyepoint viewfinders.

<p>

I have teased the members of the Nikon Mailing List (including myself)

of suffering from "buildqualititis". If you suffer from it too -- if

you pick up a modern lightweight SLR and think "How plasticky!" --

then you are a Nikon user. Likewise, if you have severe short sight

and must wear glasses when using a camera, then Nikon's high-eyepoint

viewfinders will help.

<p>

As far as I know there has never been a similar survey of Canon users,

but I suspect that, if there were, it would be Canon's commitment to

technology that would be the leading reason ... from all the many good

reasons for choosing Canon. If you love technology too -- if you pick

up a basic camera and think "How primitive!" -- then you are a Canon

user.

<p>

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Canon's

cameras are flimsy or that Nikon's cameras are unsophisticated. What

I am trying to suggest is that a person's cast of mind can influence

his or her choice.

<p>

Later,

<p>

Owl

Hey,

<p>

you might want to get some feedback from the Nikon Email lists.

<p>

www.nikonusers.org

<p>

or check out some archived articles:

<p>

www.nikonlinks.com

<p>

good luck

John described the situation well, but there are some additional

points, from a Nikon user who has recommended Canon for some friends,

depending on their particular needs.

<p>

1. The N65 may not provide either the build quality nor the viewfinder

usually associated with Nikon. It is close to the weight of the Canon

Rebel 2000, and has a similar viewfinder design. If you wear glasses

while looking in the viewfinder, you may need to look at another

model of Nikon.

<p>

2. The technical advantages of Canon are associated largely with their

more expensive lenses. Canon has had image stabilization technology

for a longer time, and has a much wider selection of these lenses.

Nikon (which calls its version "vibration reduction") has just come

out with one such lens, an 80-400, which is quite expensive and may

not be your preferred focal length or weight. The USM feature is much

more widely available with Canon lenses than with Nikon.

<p>

In the past, Nikon autofocus cameras have generally not been as

user-friendly as Canons, but that has changed with the N65, 80 and

100.

I might point out three issues that lean in favor of the Nikon

N65..the N65 uses a pentaprism, the Canon Rebel 2000 a pentamirror.

The N65's AF system functions down to Minus 1 Ev (ISO 100) , the

Canon Rebel 2000 Plus 1.5 EV. The Nikon N65 has a 2.5 FPS motor, the

Canon Rebel 2000 a 1.5 FPS motor.

I might add, the Nikon N65 has a metal lensmount unlike the poly one

on the Rebel 2000/EOS 300.

Two very interesting reports on the N65 (F65) can be found at

http://www.epinions.com

Popular Photography made that mistake. Call Nikon at 1-800-NIKON US

and they will confirm that the N65 has a PENTAPRISM and Not a

pentamirror that the Rebel 2000 has.

Another point, the Nikon N65 has a metal lensmount while the Rebel

2000 (EOS 300) has a polycarbonate one...if that's important to

anyone.

Nikon's N65 brouchure says the camera has a Pentamirror, not

pentaprism.

And here is the link to Nikon's own website with the spechs listing

the pentaprism. This was also confirmed by calling Nikon at 1-800-

NikonUS.

http://www.nikonusa.com/products/feature.cfm?id=294&feature=354

And here is a link to the Nikon Canadian website showing a pentaprism:

http://www.nikon.ca/camera/f65/index.html

I called Nikon US at 1-800-NikonUS and asked about the brochure on

the N65. He found one. Looked at it and told me that it lists a

pentaprism. So..... Feel free to call them...

I just bought the Nikon and i love it, my friend has a rebel and i find

teh Nikon supirior in all aspects

What is a USM feature available on some lenses. What does USM stand

for?

<p>

Tom

I can't really argue with the sound advice you have already had.

<p>

However, one question to Canon users. I seem to remember that

reversing the lens on a Canon requires an expensive ($500)

attachment. can anyone confirm this ? Can a Canon body be attached to

a microscope ?

<p>

(I hope this does not start one of those silly Canon/Nikon wars. Both

manufacturers produce excellent equipment.)

Leif,

<p>

Novoflex has an EOS reverse lens adapter. It can be purchased from

Calumet for $270.

<p>

It allow total signal communication from the lens to the body.

Wow! Are we completely overboard yet? Regarding the Nikon N65 verses

the Rebel 2000- can there be any doubt that these are both very fine

bargains for the amateur photographer? I've heard it said that

professionals are relatively conservative when it comes to equipment,

which is another way of saying "It's the nut behind the wheel" that

counts. No camera brand can compensate for one's lack of imagination

or creativity.

I agree that both are fine cameras, however, for some, the faster

motor, the 2 stops more sensitive AF system and the brighter

viewfinder because of the pentaprism (together with the important or

not..metal lensmount), make the N65 more capable, for a minor price

difference, than the Rebel 2000. Enjoy whichever one you buy!

I have the Rebel 2000 and love it. I did however buy the body and a

28-105mm USM lens instead of the 28-80mm lens that comes with the

kit. I like this set up a lot. I tried out the Nikon when trying to

decide what camera to decide and liked it a lot also. It was a tough

decision.. both cameras are great. It just came down to my previous

experience with Canon products. Good luck.

Nikon 65 great amateur cam , fixed eye level pentaprism, with built

in diopter. -1.5 to 0.8m. and of course the Nikon f mount. I think

that for the price you get a fairly decent camera.....coupled with

some good lenses and you will be all set for a while. The camera will

grow with you too. I also have canon t50 that camera has taken a

beating over the years and still works fine.

does anyone remember the question originally asked by rajat?

;-)

rajat, both are good, get the one you feel more comfy with, get out

and take pictures.

<p>

to all the others: i think it's amazing that consumers are virtually

prepared to go to war with each other over their favourite brands -

while the companies usually couldn't care less about their

consumers...

Also consider the following: You might get a Canon EOS ElanIIe (50E)

for nearabout the same price as a Nikon N65. In some cases I have

found the difference to be approx. $75 i.e. ElanII to be only $50

more "expensive" then the N65. I would believe a ElanIIe to be a

better camera than a N65. But it all boils down to the lens system

you wanna build.

The differences between the Canon and the Nikon are too minimal to

consider. Buy which camera feels best in your hand. Best of luck!