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.

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.

Thanks very much. -Rajat.

-- Rajat Mathur (rmathur@ics.uci.edu), October 10, 2000

Answers

Hi Rajat,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Later,

Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), October 10, 2000.

Well said, John. I'm a techie and Canon's the one for me.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), October 10, 2000.

Hey,

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

www.nikonusers.org

or check out some archived articles:

www.nikonlinks.com

good luck

-- Pic (picshooter@juno.com), October 11, 2000.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-- Hector Javkin (h.javkin@ieee.org), October 14, 2000.

Good answers but Pentax cameras are great too.

-- Paula (pdavies@haskel.com), November 28, 2000.

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.

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 04, 2000.

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

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 05, 2000.

N65 uses a pentamirror, not a pentaprism.

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), December 05, 2000.

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.

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 05, 2000.

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

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), December 05, 2000.

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

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 05, 2000.

And here is a link to the Nikon Canadian website showing a pentaprism: http://www.nikon.ca/camera/f65/index.html

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 05, 2000.

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...

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 06, 2000.

I just bought the Nikon and i love it, my friend has a rebel and i find teh Nikon supirior in all aspects

-- Dan Ketner (racer521@yahoo.com), December 10, 2000.

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

Tom

-- Tom (trvennemann@aol.com), December 11, 2000.

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

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 ?

(I hope this does not start one of those silly Canon/Nikon wars. Both manufacturers produce excellent equipment.)

-- Leif Goodwin (lgoodwin@racalinst.co.uk), December 12, 2000.

Leif,

Novoflex has an EOS reverse lens adapter. It can be purchased from Calumet for $270.

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

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), December 12, 2000.

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.

-- Paul Marshall (podopm@inetsonic.com), December 18, 2000.

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!

-- jimr (jimr18@netzero.net), December 18, 2000.

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.

-- Charlie L. (clambert@purdue.edu), December 27, 2000.

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.

-- Tylee March (tylee2k@aol.com), April 25, 2001.

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.

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...

-- volker (plaschke@gmx.net), May 15, 2001.

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.

-- s malavia (smalavia@hotmail.com), May 31, 2001.

The differences between the Canon and the Nikon are too minimal to consider. Buy which camera feels best in your hand. Best of luck!

-- Steven Gorman (philemon_2@hotmail.com), June 05, 2001.

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.

-- Leonard Lee Walker (llwalw@yahoo.com), June 08, 2001.

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?

-- Asem Akhtar (asem111@hotmail.com), July 13, 2001.

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.

-- Alexander Kalinin (alkalinv@mail.ru), August 01, 2001.

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.

-- Pascal Willemssen (178045pw@student.eur.nl), August 10, 2001.

Pascal,

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.

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

from this official Nikon website: http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/cameras/f65/specs.asp

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.

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.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 14, 2001.

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

-- Matej Hlavacek (tomatej@yahoo.com), August 17, 2001.

Has there been any change in opinion among people regarding Nikon N65 vs Canon Rebel 2000?

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...

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

Thanks in advance for help...

Kapil

-- Kapil (kvgupta@usa.net), November 04, 2001.

At the risk of being extremely flip-toss a coin and make a decision (pardon the pun).

If you have this problem now, you are a lifetime candidate for Camera/Feature/Equipment decisionitis.

The only cure is arbitrary action.

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

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.

Of all things in life, equipment decisionitis is the least worth losing time or sleep over. As Dan Rather used to say, "courage"!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@Pacific.net.sg), November 06, 2001.

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.

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).

Gary

-- Gary Dellesky (GJDKC@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.

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.

-- jeff nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 13, 2001.

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.

Thanks - Sandy

-- Sandy Miller (sandy0371@yahoo.com), December 19, 2001.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wasn't it Aesop who wrote a fable about a donkey starving to death exactly half-way between two exactly equal piles of hay?

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. :-)

Later

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), December 19, 2001.

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.

-- Derrick (derrixrankins@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

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.

-- miguel luis jimenez rilloraza (migstbird@netzero.net), January 22, 2002.

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...

Good luck,

James

ps I wonder what Rajat ended up with?

-- James Donnelly (j_a_donnelly@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Hi All,

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!!

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.

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.

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 ?? :-)

Cheers Rajat.

-- Rajat Mathur (rmathur@ics.uci.edu), January 25, 2002.

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!

-- Sanet (sabrevan@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

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.

-- sanjay sinha (sanjayzee@rediffmail.com), February 26, 2002.

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:

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....

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.

-- Charlie (charlie@poczta.onet.pl), March 03, 2002.

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.

Good luck.

Charlie

-- Charlie (CCBEEFMASTERS2001@YAHOO.COM), March 06, 2002.

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.

-- sanjay sinha (sanjayzee@rediffmail.com), March 07, 2002.

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

-- Jim Reddy (jydder@yahoo.com), March 09, 2002.

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!

-- sergio beristain (tookeyringo@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

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.

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

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!!

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

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

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)

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

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.

-- Shady Janzeir (sixwheeler@link.net.jo), May 04, 2002.

Hi,

We must say that the Nikon N65/F65 have a dedicated Depth of Field preview button to the center right of the body. If that's important to somebody, it's a nice feature.

Regards.

-- Iván Valiente (ivanvaliente@yahoo.com), June 25, 2002.

Its around two months and i am just thinking what to do. I am not a photographer and will never be in near future. Basically a programmer in Computers. But still not yet decided to what to do. IF you talk to all the photographers they say buy nikon, if you go in stores, you find N65 is around 100 dollars more than Rebel 2000. Can anyone help me what i should do?

-- Ramesh Lende (ramesh.lende@gecapital.com), July 05, 2002.

I contributed to this thread in November 2001 when I made the choice to purchase the Canon. To make a long story short, I purchased the Canon Rebel 2000 but returned it due to several factors including: inability to focus quickly in dimly lit rooms and problems with indoor lighting while on full auto mode.

I brought the Canon back with intentions of buying a Nikon but instead a MINOLTA Maxxum 5 caught my eye and I purchased it. It's been the best decision I ever made. The Maxxum 5 exceeds ALL of my expectations and takes tremendous pictures in all scenarios I've experienced so far (including outdoors, scenery, auto/manual mode, action photos on snow covered landscape, etc.). To top it off, my wife (who's a complete novice) has also adapted well to the camera and has managed to take consistent quality photos (indoor, outdoor, and action) of our baby girl (who's now 14 months old).

BUY THE MINOLTA MAXXUM 5. YOU WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED.

-- G Dellesky (GJDKC@hotmail.com), August 21, 2002.