Canon Rebel XT vs. Nikon D40?

Question

I want a camera with 'excelent' image quality. For reference, I think the Sony DSC-W80 takes horrible pictures.

I've narrowed my search down to the SLR category, but I'm trying to stay under $1500. I want a camera with that takes 'amazing' pictures in low-light conditions, and isn't ackward to hold. Would either of these cameras do the job?

If not, should I save up another $500 and get the Canon 30D?
I want this camera to last me a long time...

Thanks to everyone who answered!

I've already held both camera's, but neither of them are comfortable. They're both too small.

I'm considering the Canon 40D because it has a bigger grip, and feels much more durable. Also, it's a much higher quality camera (in my opinion.)

How would the Canon 40D compare to the aforementioned Canon and Nikon models?

Answer 1

I was choosing between the Canon 400D and the Nikon D40 (or D40X). I personally ended up going for the Nikon D40 somewhat because it's really cheap that and I liked the feel of it.
I think both perform well in low light. I know a lot of people complained about a lot of the kit lens for Canon. If you want a camera that will last a long time the D40X has more Megapixels and the ISO goes down to 100 compared the the D40 200. Nikon D300 does perform really well in low light though, just nowhere near my price range so I can't tell you that much about it.
All I'd say is that if you're getting a Canon you'll probably not want to go with the kit lens without reading a lot of reviews.

Answer 2

Here's a handy comparison chart showing all three cameras you've mentioned.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos40d%2Ccanon_eos400d%2Cnikon_d40&camuser=canon_eos40d&show=all

At the top of each of these columns, you can click the "In Depth Review" link to get oodles (that's a technical term) more information than you probably want.

The 40D has the primary advantages of being a faster shooter, and having live composition view through the LCD. It will take photos at higher ISO settings (which really means it has greater light amplification and/or less noise in low light.) It also includes an integrated dust cleaning system, and a magnesium body.

The comparison really isn't fair. The 40D is a far better camera, but it's also in a substantially higher price range.

Answer 3

All I know, is that the cameras you listed above are all excellent cameras. I've heard people go with both brands. I don't think one outperforms the other with a huge margin. I think it is mostly just personal preference. I think I like the Canon Cameras a little better. I think the picture looks a little clearer, and you have more lenses to work with. Plus, I am just more familiar with how to work Canon's. If you want to decide for yourself, go to a photo sharing website like flickr, and they will give you samples of different photos taken with different cameras. The link for that page is www.flickr.com/cameras/. I heard Canon is coming out with a new rebel camera early next year, so that might interest you. Also, I've heard that the Canon xt and xti models have problems with over- and underexposure, so you might want to look into that to. Hope any of the above information helps.

Answer 4

Yesterday I was looking at DSLR's and bought the Nikon D40. So I can tell you that the Nikon D40 is much more natural to hold than the Canon because of the excellent grip/hand cutout.

Answer 5

Visit a real camera store and handle the cameras. While there, check out the Sony A100 and A700.

The A100 is 10mp, has an improved Super Anti-Shake (improved from the Minolta Maxxum version) in the camera body, has dust removal for the sensor and you can use every Minolta Maxxum A-mount AF lens made since 1985.

The A700 is 12mp, has the same features as the A100 and too many improvements to list here. Read the review that's in the Jan. 2008 issue of Shutterbug Magazine or at shutterbug.com.

There is really no such thing as a camera that takes "amazing" (I would love to BAN the word "amazing") pictures in low-light conditions. Taking good pictures in low-light requires a knowledgeable photographer who knows what they are doing and how to use their equipment. Having the right equipment also helps. If your "fastest" lens is an f2.8 and mine is an f1.2, you'll have to shoot at ISO 3200 while I can shoot at ISO 800 (f1.2 @ 800 = f2 @ 1600 = f2.8 @ 3200 which is 2 stops). Care to guess which image will be better?

Its also useful to have a tool like the FotoSharp (fotosharp.com) Day & Night Exposure Guide as a reference.
Here is an example for a "City skyline in distance" after dark.

ISO 100

f2.8 @ 4 sec.
f4 @ 8 sec.
f5.6 @ 15 sec.
f8 @ 30 sec.
f11 @ 60 sec.

ISO 200

f2.8 @ 2 sec.
f4 @ 4 sec.
f5.6 @ 8 sec.
f8 @ 15 sec.
f11 @ 30 sec.

Obviously you'll be shooting in Manual Mode on a tripod. If your minimum shutter speed isn't at least 15 seconds your camera must have a "B" or "T" shutter speed setting and accept a cable release.