difference in megapixels

[chad_goldman]

I'm in the process of reviewing cameras. Until recently I had been

set on the D70. Now with the canon rebel XT, I'm unsure which to go

after. I am on a budget, want to spend under 1000, (may even go

with the rebel for that matter. I have 2 Nikon currently, my first

camera, a N75. With that I have a 75-300 lens. My other camera is

a coolpix 5400, with no additional lenses. I have went over and

over details which seperate the two and one I cannot figure out

which to go for. One 'big' difference is the nikon is 6.1 mp and

the xt is 8 mp. how much of a difference is this going to be? I've

seen excellent photos taken with each. I'm at a loss and will take

any advice.

 

thanks

cg

[ellis_vener_photography]

It's about a 15% difference.

[bwcombs]

For about $1000 you can get the D70 with the kit lens

(18-70mm). You already have a 75-300mm Nikon lens that

would work with the D70. So that's a start.

 

The difference in megapixels, as Ellis said, is about 15%. But

seriously, don't get caught up in the megapixel space race. It

really does not matter much at this level. As you said, you've

seen excellent pics taken by each one. It's the guy or gal behind

the camera that makes the difference.

 

Get either one and you'll be happy. Get the Nikon and you'll have

an extra lens to use (your 75-300mm.)

 

Good luck.

[jcuknz]

You can easilly loose 15% with a simple crop. Using the smaller Mp imposes more discipline over your shooting ... shoot like you shoot slides ... what you see is what you want etc. Having the 75-300 which is 120<480 on the digital* could help in that direction.

 

The only trouble is that neither have image stabilisation to help with long focal length lens so you need a good tripod and the will to use it.

 

*I think, I'm not a DSLR owner.

[edverosky]

If you're a Nikon shooter, that's probably the way to go. To some, the difference in MPs might be significant, but that will depend on your usage. However, Canon's DIGIC II processor is likely better than the D70's because it's newer technology. The XT also has a wider ISO range and from what I understand is better image quality in the higher speeds (800 - 1600).

 

Because they'll both give you excellent results, it's going to be how comfortable you are holding and using the the camera that's going to make the difference. I'd go down to the photo retailer and try them both out. Think about how you'll be using your camera before you walk into the store, then see if it feels right.

 

The goal is to get something you'll be happy with. Something that puts less hassle between you and each subject you encounter. You'll get the best results out of the camera that feels right, and second nature.<div></div>

[chad_goldman]

I really appreciate your help. It does appear that I will be sticking to the D70.

 

Thanks!

cg

[jack_p1]

Don't go only on specs. go down to the store and get your hands on them. I did and found that the d70 felt much better to me, and was easier to use. The canon felt crappy, the lens on it had a lot of slop and was noisy to AF.

[bro]

The number of MP in itself isn't directly part of the "quality" of an image. It affects the maximum print size at best. It does affect quality when you look at the size of the image sensor and the density of the pixels for instance. That being said, we're talking about two very well constructed cameras, which is why we can probably rule out any MP related quality issues.

 

Both Ed and BW bring up very good points. The extra MPs do allow you more cropping freedom, though that point doesn't really relate to internet focused photography, as you generally use low resolution images compared to print focused photography.

In your case I'd seriously consider the D70, because your more familiar with the user interface, and you already own a Nikor lens. On top of that the kit lens that comes with the Nikon camera is by many considered to be superior to the Canon kit lens in terms of image quality.