Nikon N65 vs. Rebel 2000

[leonard_lee_walker]

One main point is the fact that Nikon uses a metal mount in

comparison to Canon's PolyCarbonate one. Now I know that Canon uses

it to save in weight, but ask yourself, metal or plastic? Also, both

cameras take good pictures, but if you are anything like me: I pick

cameras buy how they fit in my hand and the uses that I plan to make

with the camera. You can't go wrong with either camera, but in my

honest opinion, Nikon produces a better overall product.

[asem_akhtar]

I am in the same boat as Rajat, trying to decide between the Canon

Rebel 2000 and the N65. One thing I main difference I did find

between the 2 is the the Canon allows for Manual ISO override, the

NIkon N65 does not.

How much of a problem will that be? Is that, or should it be a big

consideration, as far as features are concerned?

[alexander_kalinin]

Asem Akhtar, together with Rajat we are three men in a boat, but the

dog. Till recently I was sure that for me Canon would be the best

choice, but I knew that its repair service in my country is not so

good, unlike Nikon's. Final decision I will make in the shop, having

felt how they both lie in my hands. Regarding handling with ISO I

would suggest to remember how often did you used non-DX films in the

past and to think whether you will need it in the nearest future. In

the shops all basic speed is available. For experiments prof. film

can be used.

[pascal_willemssen]

Just to respond on the DX manual override issue. If you want to use

manual override on the F65 for example it is easy to do. Just put a

piece of tape over the contacts on the side of the film container.

The camera will then ask the ISO value of the film :-) And then

you'll be able to push it without problem. So it is possible to set

different values than the real film.

[hung_james_wasson]

Pascal,

 

<p>

 

While your suggestions may be true with some cameras, it is not valid

for the F65. All non-DX coded film cartridges are defaulted to ISO

100.

 

<p>

 

This excerpt: Film speed setting· Automatically set to ISO film speed

of DX-coded film in use (manual not selectable) · Film speed range:

DX: ISO 25-5000, automatically set to ISO 100 with non-DX-coded film

 

<p>

 

from this official Nikon website:

http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/cameras/f65/specs.asp

 

<p>

 

So if you ever wish to push or pull film emultions, then the F65 is

not for you. A minor point against a great entry level camera.

 

<p>

 

Also, has anyone compared viewfinder brightness between the two

cameras? A glass pentaprism doesn't necessarily automatically make

for a brigher finder. Size & quality of the prism, focusing screen

design, percentage of light being deflected by the reflex mirror all

play a part too. I note a big difference in brightness between the

Rebel 2000 and its bigger (& more expensive) brother, the Elan7/7E.

[matej_hlavacek]

Hi guys in the States,

I solved this dilema by buing f65(n65) and I do not regret yet.

The most important fact for me was that you have choise of cheeper

lenses for nikon (Sigma,Tamron).When I find some money for f100

body,the f65 will be great reserv body.

But be carefull,at least here in Europe have some pieces blured

viewfinder information from angle.

Good luck

[kapil]

Has there been any change in opinion among people regarding Nikon N65

vs Canon Rebel 2000?

 

<p>

 

Also, I would like to know about how costly it is to get Nikon or

Canon camera being repaired if they go wrong, maintenance cost

between the two, on top of it which one will requires more

maintenance...

 

<p>

 

I just wish my this period of dilemma between the two end soon :-)..

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance for help...

 

<p>

 

Kapil

[msitaraman]

At the risk of being extremely flip-toss a coin and make a decision

(pardon the pun).

 

<p>

 

If you have this problem now, you are a lifetime candidate for

Camera/Feature/Equipment decisionitis.

 

<p>

 

The only cure is arbitrary action.

 

<p>

 

Remember, whatever it is, your choice will NOT, repeat NOT

 

<p>

 

1. cause you to lose your job

2. Fail to put dinner on table tonight or any other night

3. Alienate your loved ones and/or cause a bitter fight

4. Cause financial harm from which you will suffer the aftereffects

for a lifetime

5. Cause physical harm

6. Cause you to take worse pictures or be more unprepared than the

other choice would leave you.

 

<p>

 

Of all things in life, equipment decisionitis is the least worth

losing time or sleep over. As Dan Rather used to say, "courage"!

[gary_dellesky]

As most other beginner photographers out there have done, I narrowed

my choices to the Canon 2000 vs. the Nikon N65. It was a very, very

difficult decision. After researching various websites and

soliciting feedback from several dealers, I still wasn't any further

along with my decision making process. I actually was leaning

towards the Nikon based upon my past experience with Nikon optics and

good feedback on the N65.

 

<p>

 

As a result, I originally went out last night intending to purchase

the Nikon ... BUT made a last minute decision to instead purchase the

Canon. The decision was purely spontaneous however I did like the

Canon sight picture slightly better than the N65 and couldn't argue

with all of the thousands of satisfied Canon users out there. As a

sidenote, the Nikon did seem sturdier although I'd hesitate to think

either of the cameras would survive consistently rought treatment or

bad drops. I also liked the Canon's digital readout better than the

Nikon, especially the ability to tell the user exactly which focus

points were locked on the target. After unboxing the camera and

loading the film, I'm sure I'll really enjoy this camera (probably as

much as I would have probably liked and looked forward to using the

Nikon if I chose to purchase it).

 

<p>

 

Gary

[jeff_nakayama]

i think it boils down to lenses, and there is no doubt in my mind

that canon wins this one. the L series lenses are, in the words of

mike tyson, "impetuous, [their] style is impregnable." The USM,

florite and UD features, and large fully electronic lens mount make

this the best 35mm system on the market. go with the canon and get

some quality glass.

[sandy_miller]

I'm trying to decide between the Canon Rebel and the Nikon N65 too.

After comparing the 2 in the store for quite a while, I finally

forced myself to put the cameras down and leave - which I'm sure the

store associate was glad to see. I'd appreciate opinions too.

 

<p>

 

Thanks - Sandy

[john_owlett1]

Sorry, Sandy, there is no easy answer. This thread has had such a

long life -- it's been 14 months since Rajat started it off -- largely

because, I believe, the decision is so difficult: over the months many

people have found it difficult to make.

<p>

After a few years of come and go, the marketplace has decided what

features and style are needed for a family 35mm SLR ... and both Nikon

and Canon makes good examples of that camera.

<p>

I stand by my initial response to Rajat. If you pick up the N65/F65

and think "How primitive!" buy a Canon. If you pick up the Rebel/300

and think "How plasticky!" buy a Nikon.

<p>

Sometimes you can crystallize your feelings by tossing a coin. If

your reaction to what chance decides for you is a feeling of relief,

then buy that. If your reaction is a feeling of disapppointment, then

buy the other.

<p>

Wasn't it Aesop who wrote a fable about a donkey starving to death

exactly half-way between two exactly equal piles of hay?

<p>

The choice is worse now, because Minolta has a new example of the

family 35mm SLR too -- the Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 5. Don't forget to take

that into account. :-)

<p>

Later

<p>

Dr Owl

[derrick1]

I had a very diffucult time deciding which one to choose. Cannon

Rebel EOS or Nikon 65. A friend of mine had the Nikon N60 and was

very pleased with the results. I read many articles and e-mails, and

it appears that Nikon users are far more vocal than the Canons, but

Canon users have almost no negatives to say about there choosen

product. As of yesterday I became a Canon user, and am very pleased.

The light weight camera suits me far more than the Nikon and the

Canons many focus points are a definete plus. I have much respect

for Nikon, but I had to give Canon its appluase.

[miguel_rilloraza]

hi, well in my meager opinion, i beleive both cameras are peices of

grade A crap. first off, both are built relatively the same, both

rely on a cheaper focusing method than the upper models, but both

still accept the high quality lenses of both manufacturers. i am

personally a manual camera enthusiast, and the nikon fm3a is my

choice, but if i were to buy an autofocus camera, i am somewhat

ashamed to say this, but the "canonians" have won me over with their

technology talk. because after all the reason i enjoy manual

photography is because of total control and complete trust in myself

and experience, but if im gonna buy an automatic slr, well i want it

to be the best money can buy, that means a fast, clear, and dedicated

focusing system, and impeccable light metering. and since the common

perspective is that canon seems to be ahead of the game and for a

cheaper price, id go with a higher eos 3 or elan , i dont even know

the damn names of them because i dont really care. i say have fun

with a manual camera. i find it alot more fun that simply pressing a

button.

[james_donnelly1]

If I can follow up on Dr Owl, and perhaps breath another few months of

discussion into this debate, anyone considering the Nikon N65 or the

Canon Rebel 2000, really should look at the Minolta Maxxum 5.

I just went through this decision, started off thinking I would go for

the Rebel 2000, decided that the "plasticy" feel (especially the lens

mount) worried me. I obviously went straight for the Nikon with its

metal lens mount and Nikon's reputation as being sturdier. I finally

did more research and I found the Maxxum 5. It had a metal lens

mount, same or more features, definitely lighter than the Nikon and

about the same as the Canon, and equal in price. Problem solved

right?

Wrong, I went to a camera store ready to buy a Maxxum 5, picked it up

and simply wasn't comfortable with it. The Maxxum 5 is a very small

camera (for an SLR) and I just couldn't find a comfortable grip. I

ended up with a Nikon N65, its a little heavier than the other two but

I was the most comfortable with it.

Maybe the best suggestion would be to go to a camera shop line the 3

cameras up, put on a blindfold, spin around a couple times, and have

each camera place in your hands. Choose the one that feels right...

 

<p>

 

Good luck,

 

<p>

 

James

 

<p>

 

ps I wonder what Rajat ended up with?

[rajat_mathur]

Hi All,

 

<p>

 

I'm writing almost about a year and a half since I started this

thread, and its been a lot of fun reading the mails. I greatly

appreciate all those who've given people like me such great advice!!

My sincere thanks to you all!!

 

<p>

 

In response to James' question, about which one I ended up with,

well, it was finally the Rebel (though I finally wanted to buy the

Nikon, which wasn't available yet, hence ...). After a long and

arduous process, I figured I'd be happy with either. However, the

Nikon N60 (a precursor to the N65) felt a bit better to hold and I

thought the N65 would be identical in its form factor. At the time

when I absolutely had to buy it, the N65 wasn't out yet and I

couldn't wait a month or so for it to be available. So I got the

Canon and would say I'm reasonably satisfied. Also, as it turns out,

the N65 does not really feel like the N60 and feels almost identical

to the Rebel, so I finally think the Rebel would've been my choice

either way, blindfolded or not.

 

<p>

 

I've taken it on several trips and the light weight is a real boon.

However, I did have some transient shutter problems last September,

but the Canon people fixed it for free (warranty). Otherwise, I've

got some great shots with it and am quite happy.

 

<p>

 

Now, am planning to buy a nicer lens. I currently have the 28 - 90

(silver) which came with it which is also fine for a novice like me.

But then, I could go for a digital solution next too ... ;-) Aha,

food for another thread ?? :-)

 

<p>

 

Cheers

Rajat.

[sanet]

Hi Rajat! As so many other confused consumers out there I am now in

the predicament of choosing between the Nikon F65 and the Canon Eos300

(Rebel2000)Both are available and I have given up hope of getting any

sort of realistic comparison between the two.

Something I have noticed whith the Nikon is that it does'nt have

spotmetering. How important that is I dont know.

To this I must add that I suffer from "plastiphobia" and the Canon's

plastic look puts me off.

I suppose as a beginner I sould be switching to "Manual" and

controlling and learning everythinhg myself, and for that any camera

should do, right?

My concern, like you, is what system I'm buying into - then again,

will it matter when I get to pro level? I possibly wont even want to

use the lower quality lenses that comes standard with entry level

SLR's, and might as well then switch to a different system if I want

to.

Well, enjoy your camera! Hopefully I will decide which one I want

soon!

[sanjay_sinha]

hi all,

canon rebel 2000 is any time better than nikon N65. think about weigt

and thechnology. don't think about plastic or metal mount. we in the

plastic age, and you will find best kind of technology in rebel 2000.

it is better than earlier model rebel g, and must say taht nikon N60

was very inferior camera. so if you have any doubt about

plastik...please don,t think...go ahead. after using pentax k 1000,

nikon n65 and rebel 2000, i am confident taht if you are manual lover

pentax k 1000 is the best(althuogh now it's production is stopped),

and in automatic rebel 2000 is no.1.

[charlie2]

OK, I am lazy, since I have not done it. Or maybe it is just that I

am only now learning enough to think about doing it. What is it? A

comparison matrix - something like this:

 

<p>

 

CR2000 N65 Value

Lens Mount Plastic Metal 5

Weight Light Heavy 3

Spot Metering 7 points One point 6

DX Override Yes No

Warrenty

Mirror mirror prism

Viewfinder well iluminated poorly iluminated

etc....

 

<p>

 

I know nothing about cameras, and I am taking my first look.

I see nothing like this one to one comparison anywhere. Can

anyone with enough knowledge put one together??? Note - the

matrix I put together above is bogus. I do not have the correct

information. I think this sort of comparison would help a lot.

[charlie1]

I might as well put my 2 bits in on this deal. It all boils down to

one thing you get what you pay for. I have a budget of $400. That

blows the N80/F80 out as well as the higher end pentax. I debated

over this subject for more time than I care to. One can almost

research too much. It boils down to a matter of personal

preferrence. I played with the Pentaz ZX7 and the Nikon N65. I

ruled the Canon 2000 out right way. I like the metal mount for the

lens. If you have a limited budget tne Nikon is the way to go in my

humble opinion. If you want to gripe about its quality and compare

it to cameras cost 100's more you can do that. But I broke down and

bought a N65 in all black and it looks more expensive but isn't. And

if you are wondering I bought the Sigma lense.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

 

<p>

 

Charlie

[sanjay_sinha]

yes it is your choice. but if you are technology savy then you have

no choice...go for canon rebel2000 (not for rebel G). if u think

about metal mount...steel..iron...something like that then go for

nikon N65. but what about manual mode? in my opinion technology is

more important. no other chioce than canon rebel2000.

goo luck.

[jim_reddy]

I've read many 'Canon vs. Nikon' debates on the web and have to say

that you can make a great argument for buying either brand. these

are two excellent companies, each with a history of producing top-

notched cameras, whether plastic or metal, prism or mirror. The

important thing is to use whatever you end up buying and to have fun

using it. I bought a Rebel 2000 (my first camera) 18 months ago

after much researching and wrangling over which camera to buy to

begin my new photography hobby. I shot a few dozen rolls of film and

then put the camera away because my pictures weren't coming out

well. It turned out I was more interested in knowing what camera to

buy than in actually taking pictures. Meanwhile, my wife picked up a

$99 point-and-shoot and uses it often. Consequently, the point-and-

shoot is a much better camera in her hand than the Canon is in mine.

Recently, though, I've developed a genuine interest in photography

and I am now enjoying taking photos - good, bad, or so-so. My Canon

is alot of fun and I'm sure the Nikon would be also. I hope one day

to push this camera to it's max and then I'll worry about what to

move onto. In the meantime, the lesson I have learned is this: a $10

disposable camera in the hands of someone who enjoys using it is

better than an F100 in the hands of someone who dosn't. To anyone

who is wrangling over whether to buy an N65 or rebel 2000: If you're

looking at these cameras, you're probably a beginner and either

camera is more than capable of doing what you need it to do. Go to

the store, pick the one that makes you want to take pictures when

you hold it, and start shooting. Thanks for letting me put my two

cents in - Jim

[sergio_beristain]

I always used Canon equipment in the past, great cameras. A year ago

I bought the Nikon N65 and I am amazed, it is a GREAT camera, I

bought it with a 50mm lens and later I bought a wide 18-35 zoom and

a 70-300 zoom, I'm completely satisfied with it, I wouldnt buy a

more expensive camera this one is "user friendly" and just feels

good. My brother just bought a Rebel 2000 and we compared them in

many aspects; the results, he is selling his Rebel 2000, its silver

paint is peeling already, he is going for Nikon. I recommend to

anyone interested in any of these cameras to go for a "test drive",

side by side, good luck!

[shady_janzeir1]

I've had the pleasure (the word is a relative term...) of using both

cameras, sometimes to make a living, so I�ll throw in my two cents

(assuming I have two to rub together...;-), not for any other reason

than not being able to afford better!!

As for features both cameras have to offer, they are not much for

hardcore pro use, but still, a pro can and will be able to bring out

the best out of those two bodies.

To make things simpler for all of you, I�m going to list my likes and

dislikes of both cameras.

 

<p>

 

What I liked about both cameras:

- light weight (more so with the rebel)

- acceptably fast auto focus

- simplicity and ease of use (more so with the N65!!! Surprise,

isn�t it??)

- informative viewfinder readouts and LCD�s

- handy built in flashes

- most important: compatibility with all the lenses and flashes

of the respective systems

 

<p>

 

What I hated about both cameras:

- Center weighted metering only works in manual mode on both

cameras � NOT nice!!!

- one-dial user interface

- not so fast fps

- material quality could be better

- fit and finish leaves much to be desired

- I remember a few situations when I definitely could use

faster than 1/2000 shutter speed!!

 

<p>

 

What I liked about the N65:

- Much better feel and sturdiness � a lot more solid than the

Rebel; the latter really feels like a toy!!!

- metal lens mount and tripod socket (naturally)

- brighter view finder than the Rebel�s, even when using the

depth of field preview

- more �confident� auto focus

- much smoother, much quieter shutter

- comfortable grip and MUCH better handling than the Rebel

- better �image� (for the ego-conscious)

- better reliability (my first Rebel 2000 couldn�t detect that

it had a lens mounted on it; had to be replaced)

- Separate on/off switch � no need to fiddle with selecting

modes every time you turn the camera on!!

- Main dial turns all the way around � no stops

 

<p>

 

What I liked about the Rebel 2000:

- light weight

- battery pack comes with its own shutter release (BP-200,

takes four AA�s instead of two expensive CR2�s)

- clearer, better-laid-out top LCD display

- high-speed flash sync capability

- bigger, easier to press buttons

 

<p>

 

What I hated about the N65:

- First and foremost: no high-speed flash sync!!!

- Seemingly flimsy AF/MF switch

- Self-timer and bracketing buttons are flush with the body

- Main dial too easy to turn

- Its noisy AF motor, which renders what I said about the N65�s

quiet shutter meaningless!!

- No exposure lock button

- No spot metering!!! Just why???

- Positioning of exposure compensation/aperture control (M)

button!

- Fitting a lens that has an aperture ring is quite a

cumbersome affair, especially for a beginner

- The N65 will not meter with an older, manual focus lens � so

much for Nikon�s retrofit designs!!

- No lockable shutter release on the battery pack (MB-17; takes

four AA�s instead of two expensive CR2�s)

 

<p>

 

What I hated about the Rebel 2000:

- Too lightweight � built like a toy!

- Plastic lens mount! Try mounting and dismounting a metal-

mount 75-300 a few times and see how the camera�s mount peels off

little by little! The same goes for the plastic tripod socket.

- Replacing the batteries in the BP-200 is a fiddle � you have

to dismount it off the body in order to get to the batteries! With

the N65, you just pull out the tray.

- You can�t use lithium AA batteries on the Rebel 2000 � only

alkaline, unlike the N65, where everything goes!

- Silver finish begins to peel off soon after purchase!

- The focusing screen in the Rebel 2000 I had used to move out

of place if I shake the bag the camera was in!!

- Shutter feels like it�s going to shatter the camera to pieces!

- The grip is way too small, and I sure have small hands! I

couldn�t even hold the camera without the BP-200 attached!

- Auto focus assist flash bursts on the Canon�s built-in flash

tend to startle people! The N65�s focus assist light is more sensible

 

<p>

 

All in all, I would take the N65 any day, and dump the Rebel 2000

without looking back. But that�s only my personal opinion. The final

decision is yours.

[sandeep_chiluveru]

hahahahahaha ....

i am now in the same boat as rajat. for the past quite some time i have been pondering over this question "should i go in for a nikon f65 or a canon 2000". thought to my self that probably i was a bit crazy thinking so much in detail about buying a camera ...but now i am real glad to know that i am not alone.

 

i am must admit that though i found canon very good with the electronics stuff nikon has a more sturdier build and a reliable performance. atleast that's my perception. also the reason i will most likely go in for a nikon is that i like the way "nikon" is pronounced. not that i don't like canon but i just think that i will go in for a nikon. may be a manual one but it has to be a nikon.

 

but for the past quite some time some thing strange had happened.

i came across this upstart of a camera called minolta slr dynax 5.

now a hard core nikon fan like me wouldn't even have given these minoltas and olympuses a second look. but some thing in me drew me towards it. i read the specs but refused to believe it or it's tall claims. features like 1/4000th of shutter speed light shouldn't really mean any thing to me. nor will it's excellent light metering and superb auto focus features tempt me. who needs a film advance speed of 3fps or it's light weight. probably compromised on the build quality. it's probably a glorified point and shoot camera masquerading as an slr. and y have they priced it so less... i guess probably these minolta guys use pretty cheap stuff....

 

 

but what is happening to me is that for the few weeks i have been dreaming of a minolta slr dynax 5. i can't seem to get it out of my mind...

 

so somebody out there please help me before i cross over to the minolta camp. somebody stop me.............some body please tell me that nikon is the bestest camera .....

 

or may be i will wait till nikon comes up with a good matching model.. i can wait.....

 

Sandeep L. C.