About to get a DSLR: Nikon or Canon?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think that EVIL is evil, but try to use an electronic viewfinder for night shots...

Erik

I think you are correct... now that there are a number of quality FF sensor players in the game the astronomical prices of the past will not be maintainable... not to mention the rancid state of the economy,  I also see that the Panasonic G1 design will have a profound effect on DSLR design as the mirror and prism can be done away with.  This also means that lens design will change for the better as finally an SLR will be able to have a WA design where the rear element 's distance from the plane of focus is = to the focal length of the lens.

Everything is looking better and better.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What Panopeeper says is also consistent with DxO mark. A quite impressive feat by Canon.

Erik

I am not writing in favour of Canon (who cares), but this is not correct.

The D700 has 1/4 EV to 1/3 EV advantage over the 5D2 @ ISO 100/200 on pixel level, but that vanishes @ ISO 1600.

In other words, the 5D2 noise does not need to be "compensated for" by downresing at higher ISO, i.e. the 5D2 is plainly better.

However, I see better lenses on the Nikon side, up to mid-range. Canon does not have any decent short lens, and the new Zeiss 21mm is a year away.

If I were to staret a new system now, I would buy the 5D2 with the Nikon 14.24mm f/2.8, or the new Zeiss 21mm with Nikon mount.

[Ray]

Hi,

What Panopeeper says is also consistent with DxO mark. A quite impressive feat by Canon.

Erik

Eh! There's something a bit puzzling here. At the pixel level, at ISO 1600, the D700 has a 3.7dB better SNR. That's more than a whole stop better. However, the dynamic range of the 5D2 seems to be almost as good as that of the D700 at ISO 1600.... 10.05EV as opposed to 10.21EV.

On the other hand, the DXO measured ISO for the D700 is closer to 1600 than the 5D2. We're comparing S/N and DR at ISO 1277 (for the D700) with ISO 1093 for the 5D2.

It's not clear to me how these two different relative values of S/N and DR interact in the image. The D700 has significantly lower noise at ISO 1600 but the 5D2 has almost equal dynamic range??

I am not writing in favour of Canon (who cares), but this is not correct.

The D700 has 1/4 EV to 1/3 EV advantage over the 5D2 @ ISO 100/200 on pixel level, but that vanishes @ ISO 1600.

In other words, the 5D2 noise does not need to be "compensated for" by downresing at higher ISO, i.e. the 5D2 is plainly better.

However, I see better lenses on the Nikon side, up to mid-range. Canon does not have any decent short lens, and the new Zeiss 21mm is a year away.

If I were to staret a new system now, I would buy the 5D2 with the Nikon 14.24mm f/2.8, or the new Zeiss 21mm with Nikon mount.

[Ray]

Correction: That should be the D700 has 2.3dB lower noise noise at ISO 1277 than the 5D2 has at ISO 1093. I had my cursor inadvertently on the 20D colored blob which indicates at ISO 1333, the 20D has an SNR of 27dB as opposed to the D700's 30.7 dB.

Nevertheless, the difference between 28.4dB at ISO 1093 (the 5D2), and 30.7dB at ISO 1277 (the D700), seems a bit at odds with the very close DR ratings for these 2 cameras.

If one were to have the 5D2 and D700 set to ISO 1600 and use a slightly longer FL lens on the 5D2 so that equal FoV crops would be comprised of the same number of pixels, the appropriate exposure differences would be of the order of 1/50th sec for the 5D2 and 1/60 sec for the D700.

Despite a slightly shorter exposure, the D700 would have about a 2/3rds to 3/4ths of a stop noise advantage. If it were possible to adjust both cameras to exactly the same ISO (as tested by DXOmark) and use the same shutter speed with both cameras for a full ETTR, then I believe the D700 would have close to a full stop S/N advantage over the 5D2 at the nominated ISO rating of 1600.

I'm having some difficulty in visualising an image comprised of relatively large pixels, with a one stop S/N advantage in relation to the same image comprised of smaller pixels, but having only a 1/4 to 1/3 DR advantage over that smaller-pixel image.

[Snook]

And While you all were discussing all this BS.. That once in a lifetime moment went by b/c instead of having a camera your in here talking BS about them..;+}
Get out and shoot!
Snook

[Ray]

And While you all were discussing all this BS.. That once in a lifetime moment went by b/c instead of having a camera your in here talking BS about them..;+}
Get out and shoot!
Snook

And whilst you are sitting in front of your computer processing that once-in-a-lifetime shot, taking a long time over it because, after all, it is a once-in-a-lifetime shot and needs a lot of work because there's a bit of disturbing noise in the lower mid-tones, two more once-in-a-lifetime shots go by. That's three once-in-a-lifetime shots you could have had. Er!... is there something wrong with the maths here?  

You have a point, though. I'm not entirely against the Ken Rockwell idea that the camera doesn't matter.

[dseelig]

First of all do you need wideangle f 1.4 primes if so nikon becomes history very fast. Second have you handled the cameras your are talking about the feel of a cmeera can be very important. How big do you want to print Want to just print to 11 by 14 or so 21 mp loses any importance. You really have to figure your needs then go to a camera store and pick up the cameras and get the feel of them. Me I shoot canon and leica but that is me. for my street work it is leica  and canon for sports strickly canon. Do you want to shoot low light or no light if so the canon 5d mk 11 with a 35mm or 24 mm 1.4 is incredible. I mean iso 6400 and 30 th a second at f1.4 an image like that could not be made 2 years ago. Good luck write down your needs and figure it out Quite frankly I know I could make either system work if not for the low fast wides nikon does not have yet. PS before any one says a word. I do not like 28 focal length so the 1.4 nikon discontinued does not intrest me and sigmas mechanically are crap. I do beat up equipment. Figure out again what will work for you.

[dkeyes]

And whilst you are sitting in front of your computer processing that once-in-a-lifetime shot, taking a long time over it because, after all, it is a once-in-a-lifetime shot and needs a lot of work because there's a bit of disturbing noise in the lower mid-tones, two more once-in-a-lifetime shots go by. That's three once-in-a-lifetime shots you could have had. Er!... is there something wrong with the maths here?  

You have a point, though. I'm not entirely against the Ken Rockwell idea that the camera doesn't matter.

Ken Rockwell idea?
List your favorite photographs/photographers. How many of those images are from digital cameras? Or the best camera available at that time?

For the O.P.,
Get the lens(es) you think you need and the camera will follow. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., all will work for 99% of the image makers out there.

[Mitchell Baum]

Which has the best long prime lenses for birds?

Best autofocus and VR?

Thanks,

Mitchell

[Dan Wells]

Probably Canon for long, fast IS (Canon's name for what Nikon calls VR) primes - theirs are perhaps better, and certainly more available used and for rental. Nikon has the only pro-grade zoom in that focal range, though (the 200-400 f4 VR). Nikon also has an advantage in AF right now, as their top-tier AF is in every body from the D300 on up, while Canon uses compromised AF in everything except the EOS-1 series. One possibility to consider for birds is the D300,  (great AF, cropped frame works great for telephotos, rugged body, comparatively cheap),which will actually give you more pixels in the APS-C area than anything except the 50D. If you need a lot of reach, and would be cropping if you had a full-frame camera anyway, the D300 is the best cropped-frame camera around.


                            -Dan