Originally posted by: AndrewR
That comparison seemed Nikon biased to me. They pointed out some odd things:
-Overlooked a general comparison of Nikon vs. Canon lens selection in the review, only discussing the kit lenses (which don't interest me). I've read that Canon has a better overall selection of lenses, but even if Canon has only a wider selection, shouldn't that at least be mentioned? (I don't own a Canon camera)
-The review highlights the battery capacity of the Nikon but then doesn't mention the battery capacity of the Rebel XT with the bigger grip (honestly don't know what it is, might be nice to know though), especially since the larger grip remedies the small size of the Rebel I would imagine.
-Mentions "faster startup time" as a positive for the Nikon -- is .18 seconds that big of an advantage? I'm not sure I can operate a stopwatch that fast.
-BUT, biggest problem of all, there's no discussion of image quality whatsoever!!!!! WTF? Image quality of the XT is allegedly nearly the equal of the 20D, which also implies that the XT is excellent in low light situations where the new Canon sensors really shine at high ISO settings. While the higher (and lower) ISO of the Canon is mentioned, it's not highlighted at all, which is bizarre to me. Shouldn't image quality be a fairly prime consideration? Even in the kit lens comparison, there's no discussion of the image quality.
Nikon fanboys can tout the comparison all they want, but it seems sloppy to me as if it had been thrown together in an afternoon. I'd prefer to see something a little more thorough before trumpeting success.
