Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon vs. Cannon  (Read 251784 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #180 on: April 21, 2007, 07:07:54 pm »

Quote
I've completely got over this reluctance to use high ISO. Some people haven't. It's probably a hangover from past experiences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good high ISO is great, but I will always keep trying to use low ISO if allowed by the image's type. That will remain the better option.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #181 on: April 21, 2007, 07:46:38 pm »

Quote
Good high ISO is great, but I will always keep trying to use low ISO if allowed by the image's type. That will remain the better option.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't some Nikon DSLRs have some sort of ISO bracketing, Bernard? This is a long overdue feature missing on Canon cameras. It is of course better to use the lowest ISO consistent with appropriate shutter speed for the scene but correct f/stop for desired DoF. Choosing the appropritae f stop is often easier than ensuring an adequate shutter speed. F stop is consistent in its effect on DoF. Shutter speed is not consistent in its effect on image sharpness. Take 6 handheld shots at 1/30th (with a 50mm lens, no IS), and some will be sharper than others. One out of the 6 might even be perfectly acceptable.

ISO/shutter speed bracketing would solve this problem, ie. 3 automatic shots at ISO100 and a 30th, ISO 200 and a 60th, and ISO 400 at a 125th would be a better option than 3 shots at a 30th.

Using a trpod doesn't always solve the problem when there is subject movement, but I understand that your shots, Bernard, seem to be mostly of static landscapes, which is why I guess you are not particularly interested in high ISO performance.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #182 on: April 24, 2007, 02:52:09 am »

Quote
Don't some Nikon DSLRs have some sort of ISO bracketing, Bernard? This is a long overdue feature missing on Canon cameras. It is of course better to use the lowest ISO consistent with appropriate shutter speed for the scene but correct f/stop for desired DoF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, they do and I use the function when I need to.

Quote
Using a trpod doesn't always solve the problem when there is subject movement, but I understand that your shots, Bernard, seem to be mostly of static landscapes, which is why I guess you are not particularly interested in high ISO performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true, most of my images are of static landscape where long exposure time are often not a problem, or can sometimes even be a desired feature.

It is true that excellent high ISO would help in some occasions though.

Regards,
Bernard

KnowBody

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #183 on: May 12, 2007, 02:37:07 pm »

This is really stupid, and I can't believe I'm actually posting to this.  However, I just can't resist.  

To say that generally one manufacturer is better makes no sense.  If you don't start with some pretty well defined parameters or requirements, then the entire discussion is meaningless.  I suppose someone could look at relative market shares between Canon and Nikon, and at any point in time, it will change.  If you look at comparable cameras for a given set of features and price, you could identify what camera is selling more.  Without some kind of framework, it means nothing.  

Next, take all the comments with skepticism.  You have "hacks" from both companies posting their hype.  Some people actually search for this kind of forum and try guerrilla-marketing techniques to spread their FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).  Others are trying to rationalize their decision to buy one over another.  

I have experience with both Canon and Nikon products.  They’re both excellent.  I switched from a Canon EOS 850 to a Nikon D70s and was very happy, even though it meant new lenses.  I recently added a Nikon D2Xs after trying several other products.  I have the resources to buy any product that offered a value, and I was prepared to spend over $8000 or $9000 for a camera body.  The D2Xs was well below my budget and met all my requirements better than anything else.  That analysis was only relevant for me.
Logged

KnowBody

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #184 on: May 12, 2007, 02:59:15 pm »

By the way, one of the highly respected experts in the field of photography is Ken Rockwell.  Before the guerilla marketers overwhelm the reader with their hype, you should read Ken’s piece here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

Tom
Logged

jjlphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 467
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #185 on: May 12, 2007, 08:26:47 pm »

Quote
My sister who is in the business says Nikon is industry standard.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nikon as the industry standard? Not on your life. Perhaps in the past it was the popular choice. I too was a Nikon user since 1976. F, F2, FE-2, F3, F100, etc., etc. My last set-up right before digital consisted of a Nikon kit, MamiyaRZ kit, and an Arca-Swiss 6x9/4x5 kit.

In 2003, I sold all of that and went with the Canon 1Ds. Never looked back.


Quote
By the way, one of the highly respected experts in the field of photography is Ken Rockwell. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Respected? Your'e being sarcastic I hope. Look here to see Ken using what he refers to as "left handed camera Nikon custom made for him". Yeah- right.
[a href=\"http://www.kenrockwell.com/]http://www.kenrockwell.com/[/url]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2007, 08:31:40 pm by jjlphoto »
Logged
Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #186 on: May 12, 2007, 08:52:33 pm »

Quote
If you don't start with some pretty well defined parameters or requirements, then the entire discussion is meaningless.  I suppose someone could look at relative market shares between Canon and [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We have started with some well defined parameters. We're talking about 35mm photography; not P&S, not MF or LF.

Of course Nikon produces high quality equipment. I'm sure you can find some Nikkor lenses that are better than Canon equivalents. Each manufacturer has it's strengths and weaknesses, but in my view Nikon has got itself into a bind for opting for the sub-35mm format.

You might have noticed there's a general principle running through all photography; the larger the format, the higher the quality.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #187 on: May 13, 2007, 04:58:40 pm »

Quote
By the way, one of the highly respected experts in the field of photography is Ken Rockwell. 

Nice use of irony.

That article is uninformed and useless.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #188 on: May 13, 2007, 05:01:10 pm »

Quote
You might have noticed there's a general principle running through all photography; the larger the format, the higher the quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That was the case in the days of film, when grain was obvious in A4 prints from 35mm film. But these days your statement is too simplistic to have much meaning.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #189 on: May 13, 2007, 06:51:28 pm »

Quote
That was the case in the days of film, when grain was obvious in A4 prints from 35mm film. But these days your statement is too simplistic to have much meaning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not at all. The principle is similar but the format differences across the spectrum of digital cameras are now often much smaller than was the case in the days of film. We now have a plethora of different digital formats varying in size to such a small degree that other factors, such as pixel density and noise handling, might be more significant than format size.

These other factors also used to minimise the differences between film formats. One would not see much differences in image quality between 35mm used with a fine grain, high resolving film and 6x4.5 format used with a lower resolving, coarser grain film.

The full frame 35mm format is 2.5x the area of the Nikon cropped format; great enough to make a difference. For Nikon to match the image quality of the 1Ds3, expected later this year and expected to have a 22mp sensor or thereabouts, it will either have to move to a larger format or pull some rabbits out of the hat.

Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
Logged

Paul Kay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #190 on: May 14, 2007, 04:40:40 am »

Quote
To say that generally one manufacturer is better makes no sense.  If you don't start with some pretty well defined parameters or requirements, then the entire discussion is meaningless.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that you will find that assumptions were made early on in the discussion that a student would be best advised to gain experience in the camera system most likely to be encountered when seeking work (perhaps as an assistant) after graduating. In my own experience (and other posters) this leads to the Canon 1D series, simply because these are the cameras most likely to be encountered in this situation. I'm not sure that many posts actually say the Canon are better than Nikon, most point out that there are differences and that there are more advantages in the circumstances in learning the Canon 1D series inside out rather than the Nikon system.

On the note about formats, the more I use my FF Canons, the more I am appreciating them as filling a niche midway between 35mm and 645 film - in my own rather simplistic and arbitrary way!
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #191 on: May 14, 2007, 10:05:16 am »

Quote
Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

M8 vs. D2x or 1DsII (only at low ISOs in the latter)?

JC
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #192 on: May 14, 2007, 11:15:42 am »

Quote
M8 vs. D2x or 1DsII (only at low ISOs in the latter)?

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well first of all, John, these 3 cameras are an example of the small differences in format which, from an image quality point of view, can be over-shadowed by  technological factors which blur the advantage of the larger format.

Whilst there's a significant difference in format size between the D2X and the 1Ds2, the M8 is about midway between the two formats. Nevertheless, it's understandable that the M8 might produce marginally higher image quality than the D2X, but I think any claims that the M8 produces better image quality than the 1Ds2 would be very contentious.

Can you point me to some reliable comparison images which illustrate the magnitude of such differences?  
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #193 on: May 14, 2007, 01:09:43 pm »

Quote
The full frame 35mm format is 2.5x the area of the Nikon cropped format; great enough to make a difference. For Nikon to match the image quality of the 1Ds3, expected later this year and expected to have a 22mp sensor or thereabouts, it will either have to move to a larger format or pull some rabbits out of the hat.

Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From a theoretical standpoint, it is possible for a smaller format camera to best a larger format camera if the smaller format has more resolution in terms of pixels/picture height than the larger format and the lens of the smaller format camera has sufficient resolution to match the sensor. Of course, to avoid diffraction limitations, you might have to shoot at a larger aperture with the smaller format camera.

[a href=\"http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html]Bjorn Rorslett[/url] did a shootout between the Nikon D2X and the Canon EOS 1Ds MII where he claimed that the Nikon came out on top even with less resolution, but this test is disputed by some. Since his web site does not support direct links, go to the D2X review and then to section 8, taking on the competition.

In practice, the larger sensor has an advantage in lower noise at high ISO. At base ISO, noise is not a problem with the D2X. However, I agree that if Nikon wants to match the resolution of the much anticipated Canon MIII, they will have to use a large sensor and improve its noise characteristics.

Bill
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #194 on: May 14, 2007, 01:20:51 pm »

Quote
Can you show me some examples of a current, latest model, digital camera that produces higher quality images than a current, latest model larger format digital camera?

The point I was making is that your statement was too simplistic, and hence not very meaningful. If it was meaningful, then no-one would buy the Nikon D2x and everyone would instead buy the Canon 5D.

In many respects the Nikon D2x can produce 'higher quality images' (whatever that means) than a Canon 5D. Clearly at high ISO the 5D wins hands down. If dynamic range is your requirement, then the Fuji S5 Pro can outdo both of them.  For many people the 'telephoto factor' of the smaller format provides higher quality images 'cos they can't get close to the subject.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #195 on: May 14, 2007, 01:27:18 pm »

Quote
Bjorn Rorslett did a shootout between the Nikon D2X and the Canon EOS 1Ds MII where he claimed that the Nikon came out on top even with less resolution, but this test is disputed by some. Since his web site does not support direct links, go to the D2X review and then to section 8, taking on the competition.

I would not along with his claims 100%, but he certainly makes a good argument that the two cameras are in many respects comparable. But at high ISO the Canon walks over the Nikon. Well, actually at moderate and high ISO.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 01:27:25 pm by Slough »
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #196 on: May 14, 2007, 03:04:27 pm »

Quote
Can you point me to some reliable comparison images which illustrate the magnitude of such differences? 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/16678-m8-1dsmarkii-comparison-test-studio.html]http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/...est-studio.html[/url]

I really don't think the M8 is better than the D2x or the 1DsII. I just think they're different. The M8 is 10mp compared to 12+ for the D2x and 16 for the 1DsII. You could make a very good argument that the 1DsII is at least a full stop better than the M8 at high ISOs; of course, you could make the agument that the top Leitz glass is at least a stop better than the top Canon.  

 JC
Logged

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #197 on: May 14, 2007, 04:28:24 pm »

Both Nikon and Canon are great, and its personal taste what you choose for a tool (I, for example, could never go with Canon, not even in digital video, I couldn't stand the XL-1, but that doesn't mean it is not good).

Pentax, a much smaller company, doesn't have the marketing punch, and so its new entry and midlevel SLRs do not get the attention they deserve in a Nikon-Canon bi-polar photography world.

Too many people shoot test charts instead what is out there (in the world) through what is in there (the vision in your mind).

What counts most is the photographer and his vision.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 04:41:32 pm by The View »
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #198 on: May 14, 2007, 04:34:45 pm »

Quote
We have started with some well defined parameters. We're talking about 35mm photography ...
You might have noticed there's a general principle running through all photography; the larger the format, the higher the quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
    since Nikon does not make 35mm format DSLR's, I dispute your first statement. We are talking about DSLR photography, and two companies that offer a total of four different formats of DSLR.

As to the "bigger is better" idea: surely, in choice of an SLR brand, bigger format size alone is not the decisive factor; there are many other factors beside format size. After all
1. If format size alone were decisive, neither Canon nor Nikon would be in the race, but only Hasselblad, Mamiya and maybe the new Rollei based systems.
2. Offering a choice of 35mm, 645 and 6x7 format in the film era did not make Pentax the first choice of professionals.
3. You at one point chose Canon DSLR's with 15.1x22.6mm sensors over Nikon DSLR's with somewhat larger sensors, and before I believe the announcement of Canon's first 35mm format DSLR.

You will probably be quick and correct to point to compensating advantages of the smaller format options from Canon (and perhaps even Nikon) over those larger format options in areas such as cost, lens selection, frame rate, shutter lag, portability and in particular telephoto reach, but a lot of those same factors also often weigh against 35mm format in favor of smaller DSLR formats.

P. S. Perhaps I should take it back about the telephoto reach disadvantage of DMF: current DMF backs with 6.8 micron pitch Kodak sensors offer higher resolution in l/mm than any Canon 35mm for 1.3x format DSLR, and new Dalsa sensors at least match Canon's, so DMF cameras can probably match or slightly outperform those Canon models for resolution by using the same focal length and cropping. But any of the D2Xs, 40D, D40x, D80, D200 or 30D is ahead on telephoto reach with a given focal length. (Not to mention the current DSLR l/mm resolution leader, the Olympus E-410.)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 04:44:58 pm by BJL »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon vs. Cannon
« Reply #199 on: May 14, 2007, 09:09:13 pm »

Quote
The point I was making is that your statement was too simplistic, and hence not very meaningful. If it was meaningful, then no-one would buy the Nikon D2x and everyone would instead buy the Canon 5D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you are wrong. My statement is simple but true. I'll repeat it. "There's a general principle running through photography; the larger the format the better the quality." The word general qualifies that it's not an immutable law without exception, but a tendency.

I've even seen comparisons between 35mm film and 4x5 format film where the 35mm image quality was virtually as good at the same enlargement, just a bit more obvious grain. How was that achieved?  By using a very sharp and expensive 35mm lens at f5.6 with the 35mm format, as opposed to a standard lens at f22 with the 4x5 format in order to get equal DoF for both shots, a reasonable requirement I think when comparing image quality from different formats. Different film was also used; T-Max 100 with 35mm and Tri-Ex 400 with the 4x5 format.

I think it is understood that there are many factors other than format size that influence image quality; lens quality being just one of them. You didn't think, Slough, that I was trying to say that format size is the only thing that matters, did you?  

My remark was directed only at raw image quality with which this site seems to be mostly concerned. When I first came across LL, Michael's contentious review of the Canon D30 was the main topic. How could a 3mp sub-35mm format produce 8x12 prints that actually looked better and sharper than 35mm film?

Since those days it seems that Michael and half the contributors to this site have moved up from sub-35mm to FF 35mm to sub 6x4.5 format, and the reason is, I would suggest, because the larger formats (tend to) offer better image quality.

You'll also notice that the great majority of cameras models out there, the very small format P&S, hardly get a mention on this site. Why is that? Because the format is too small to allow the standard of image quality that readers of this site are mainly concerned with.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Up