# Canon 400D (Rebel XTi) vs Nikon 80D



## leokho (Feb 8, 2007)

So these new models from canon and Nikon. I have to money to buy either one of them, but what would you recommend?
I mean would it compensate paying the higher price for the nikon 80D?

Also, how about the lenses?
The Canon 400D (Rebel XTi) has 2 kits:
1 - EF-S 18-55 mm
2 - EF-S 18-55 mm + EF 55-200  mm + Grip (BG-E3)

The Nikon 80D:
1 - 18-70 IF-ED
2 - 18-135 IF-ED (this one is slightly cheaper then the first one from where I'm going to buy)

The 2nd kit of the canon is slightly cheaper then any kit of the Nikon, or would you recommend buying the lens apart? (if so, which one?)

I'm going to use the camera for macro, portrait and a lot of general use and events (concerts, conference, dinners, ...).

Thanks in advanced!


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 8, 2007)

They are both very good cameras.  You might as well compare Coke vs Pepsi.

I suggest going into a store and holding them both in your hands.  Get the one that feels best to you.

With the options you have listed, the Canon EF-S 18-55 lens is not as good a lens as the Nikon 18-70.  The Canon lens isn't terrible...but the build quality leaves a bit to be desired.

Maybe have a look at coupling the Canon camera with a better lens like the EF-S 17-85mm IS...or a Sigma/Tamron.


----------



## leokho (Feb 8, 2007)

And how about the EF-S 18-55 mm + EF 55-200  mm + Grip (BG-E3) kit ?


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 8, 2007)

I guess it depends on the type of shooting you do, and your expectations of a lens.  Both those lenses are OK...but not great.  I would much prefer a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and a sigma or Canon 70-200mm F2.8...but those will cost a bit more.

The BG-E3 is a great addition to that camera, IMO.  The Rebels are rather small and I have big hands.  The grip adds some girth to the body, as well as additional controls for shooting in portrait orientation.  The extra batter capacity in nice too.

If you get a good deal on all those 'as a kit'...then it might be worth it.  But you should realize that you may find yourself wanting to upgrade those lenses in the future.


----------



## bisdakr (Feb 11, 2007)

I have the 400D, with 10-22 3.5-5.6 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS and the famous 50mm 1.8. with BG-E3 grip and 430EX speelite. This is a killer combination for me, I haven't payed too much with 10-22 becuse of weather issues but the reviews on this lense is very positive. The 28-135 with IS has more reach over the 17-85,I've shot with 17-85 for a couple days and its a great lens wide end has some distortion, however I was in need of a bit more reach and went with 28-135, which is a very good walk around lens. I got the 400D becuase it's a cannon and I felt safer that way and also becuase the d80 was sold out when I made bought it. It's smaller and lighter than the d80, the d80 feels more bulky and the grip is nice but with the bg-e3 on my 400 it feels much better than the d80 with grip. I have small hands and the 400 d without grip was still a bit small, however with the grip it feels perfect in my hands. I hope this helps with your purchase as I too were in the same situation as you are now. this hoby is expensive, however someone told me that fishing can also be expensive 25K boat plus 30K truck to pull it. i've got some pictures with 400D and 17-85, 28-135, 70-200 4L in this site. www.flickr.com/photos/bisdakr good luck and think through it very well.


----------



## theusher (Feb 11, 2007)

I think the best advice is to see both of them, and feel which fits better in your hands. I liked the way the D80 fit me better than the Canon, but that just might be me. If you care for reviews, quite a few magazines i read favored the D80 over the Canon for varying reason. (Sorry I can't be more helpful with exacts, I can't find the magazines off had)


----------



## Don Simon (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm not sure they're directly comparable; The 400D is the cheapest model in the company's dSLR line, the "entry-level" model if we must call it that, while the D80 is not. Megapixel count aside, the D80 is better built and more fully featured. I personally would not doubt that it is "better" than the D80...

*BUT*... as I said they are not directly comparable, so which of the two is better should not be the deciding factor in choosing a dSLR system - Even if the D80 is better, Canon has other models too which are also well worth considering. Plus the 400D may still be perfect for you even if it is technically the lesser camera. Basically I would consider the D80, the 400D *and* whichever other models of both companies are also in your price range. Discover which features are present on some models and not on others, and ask yourself whether those features would or could be important to you. And as Mike said in the words of our official forum mantra, go a store and hold them.


As for lenses, I notice you said you want to do macro work. None of the lenses you mentioned will let you do proper macro photography. Consider buying a dedicated macro lens - the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or a comparable Sigma would both be very good value for this. Since you also mentioned wanting to shoot concerts and other indoor events, I'm just going to suggest you avoid all the lenses you listed in your first post and put the money into faster glass. For low-light work I would consider a fast prime essential; a 50mm f/1.8 is not much of an investment and will quickly pay for itself. Then as Mike advised a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be very well suited to your kind of work. Not everyone will agree with this but if you're shooting events indoors I would not consider any lens slower than f/2.8. Other than that, definitely consider buying a flash if you think you will be allowed to use it at the events.


----------



## JIP (Feb 14, 2007)

Hold them and get what feels best to you.


----------

