Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: hassiman on December 10, 2008, 05:18:14 pm
-
Hi,
I am about to get a DSLR... a few years ago the choice would have been easy... Canon owned the territory... but Nikon's D3 and D700 seem to be awsome bodies... but bodies don't an image make... with the Bodies and lenses now available from each maker which is the best choice?
I am unlikely to have need of long glass and a wide to moderate tele zoom would probably be best for my style of shooting. Looking at the 5D MII and the Nikon equivilant.. I think the D700.
I have always thought the Nikon glass felt more sturdy... but Canon L lenses are not too shabby.
I know that these bodies have superfast autofocus but I would really like a lens that I could quickly focus manually if desired... would the Canon or Nikon be best for this?
Thanks
-
It's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. As you say, a few years back the answer was easy. Not now though. In your place I would make a list of what I want now, and what I might need later. Then I would work out which manufacturer offered what I wanted, and at what price. Finally I would check reviews to see if any items are especially good/bad, and I would handle the cameras to see which I liked or disliked. Bear in mind that Zeiss lenses should be available in both brands in a year or two.
-
You cannot go wrong with either, the choice will depend on your priorities:
- 5dii: better low ISO detail and video, a tad more expensive
- D700: slightly better high ISO image quality, better AF and more robust build.
Lenswise, they are close but:
- Canon: better bright primes line up
- Nikon: better wide angle image image quality in zooms
System and strategy wise, it seems that Nikon is now focussing more on the very high end with premium prices, while Canon is trying to address the full width of the market.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What are you shooting? I think it matters to some degree.
-
Kirk,
I mostly do street / landscape / fine art work.... texture shots etc. Never long glass. Like to focus manually sometuimes. Print both B&W and color. Have been using Canon G9/G10 RAW for a while now but want the DR and sharpness when I need it. I musy admit that sometimes the huge P&S DOF is great. Will not get rid of the G10.
I have the opportunity to start from scratch with a DSLR... I think that the new Panny G1 is a lead others will follow... No mirror slap... ability to get rid of retrofocus lens designs so the wides will get MUCH better... but until then I need something a bit better than the G10
-
Those seem like overkill just to improve on a G10.
Have you considered a Canon 40D or 50D? Or a Nikon D200 or D300? If you like the idea of the G1 you might consider one of the Olympus cameras. An E3 (or likely the upcoming E30) with a 12-60 would be quite an improvement.
Anywho. As to the cameras you did ask about you really can't go wrong with any of them. You might want to find them in a store and give them a try. Buy the camera that your fingers best find their way around.
-
- D700: slightly better high ISO image quality, better AF and more robust build.
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.
-
Canon does not have any decent short lens
If you define decent like 99% of the photographers out there, I'd agree. But the last 1% are crazy, like me, and think f/1.4 and faster are the only decent focal ratios for a wide angle, such as 24mm. I would have switched to Nikon months ago if it weren't for the 24mm f/1.4.
-
Hi
Been a Canon user for 32 years now with the FD & now the EOS system. I have never used Nikon & they used to be the market leader before the EOS range came out. I think the 5DII is a bench mark in DSLR with motion included. Both are very good & I will stay with Canon. Also I do believe that the USB is the way to go in the future. When USB 3.0 comes out it will be 10x faster than the current version.
Thanks Denis
-
I think the best advice given here is to make sure you get what you need for your shooting style and situation. Cameras are now getting so good that it doesn't matter what you shoot, the image quality is there and the pixels are there, from the Canon 1D(s)3 series, which includes the new 5D2, and the Nikon D3 series forward, except that Nikon just now got with the pixel game. Given the cameras that have come out in the last year to year and a half, you're good as far as image quality and extra pixels to crop or pack together in A3 sized prints so that most any noise is not an issue when printed. I printed a few "noisy" images in shadow areas after some Lightroom and PS noise removal, and I mean some really quick hit the button move the slider stuff, and at 12x18, I couldn't see any noise, especially in portrait stuff. They do have a different look, but it's all good it seems these days. No one seems to be bitching about processed and printed images anyway.
Again, the best advice given here is to pick the camera that best suits your needs, and just go with it. If you can wait six months, it will be interesting to see what Canon will offer in spring, since I doubt lots of people are going to fork out 8K US for the 1DS3 when they can get 3 5DMKIIs for less money. I know first handed that pro photographers in Manhattan choose several 5Ds over the DsMKII when the 5D hit the market for quality vs price point. Point being, Canon MUST come out with something that will blow us away to get 8K for a camera ever again. Although tests I've sen recently put the general image quality of the 1DS3 ever so slightly above the 5D2, the price isn't justified anymore for the 1DS3 (unless you just have to have the best sealing).
As Bernard said, the 5D2 is a landmark camera in more ways than the 5D was because for one, you get 21MP and motion, quality motion. I really don't know where cameras in the 35mm format can go from here, except better and better dynamic range and lower, high ISO noise. But again, the leaps in quality are getting so close together now, it's beginning to be a non issue. Functionality, such as ergonomics, FPS, etc. are the thing that matter most now. Maybe they will put CAD and CGI programs embedded in the cameras so you can automatically change the model's, car's, etc. ligihting and shadow pattern and color?
Come to think of it, I haven't wet swabbed my 1DS3 since I bought it six months ago, and the images are clean. Just a point showing how good cameras are getting all around. It is the day of the digital for sure.
-
....and do not forget Nikon Capture NX2 as an amazing tool for rawfiles.
McRepsej
-
I'm going to confuse things a bit more and add the Sony/Minolta lineup into the mix(A900 being the best of course, but possibly too expensive). Mostly because there are a lot of older good prime lenses that will fit it. And I just don't like Canon at all. The few lenses that they have that are superb are a small fortune. The stuff that mere mortals can afford is hopelessly average by comparison.
-
I think for the first time in the digital age the two major players are par for par, there's no doubt in my mind that in the future (most likely next two years) Sony will also be entering the same complete field, or will be very close.
That said, Sony right now in the lower to entry pro levels do have some very competitive units too, plus they have those fantastic lenses.
My suggestion is of course, to try each one on the handling merits over most of the other stuff.
-
The Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras with full-frame sensors are all exceptional cameras, proof that competition is good for the consumer.
...but technical specs cannot be the sole deciding factor. You need to go to a well-sorted store, and then hold each of these cameras, and really get a sense for how they feel in your hand.
-
Whatever you decision you are unlikely to regret it. It's a reality that in your price range both Nikon and Canon have excellent offerings. Technical differences are likely to be nuanced rather than significant. At 300% on your computer screen, you are going to see small differences. Hung on a wall, mounted, mated, open or behind glass an A3 or A2 print is unlikely reveal whether it was taken with a Canon or a Nikon.
You are going to limited by your creativity and your ability to deploy it, rather than the ebb and flow of Canon and Nikon's product lines. Relative to your G10, a 5D Mk II or D700 and lenses is a considerable investment. With that in mind you need to make a thorough evaluation of how each camera will perform at 4am, when you are half way up a mountain trying to catch the fast moving morning light
Beyond how it feels in your hand - I'd argue that it's more important to ascertain how well it performs on a tripod for a fine art landscape photographer - dig deeper and consider the ergonomics of operation:
- is there a mirror lock-up feature, how does it function
- can I tweak the focus ring to achieve good manual focus or do I need to switch the lens to manual
- how easy is it to take a custom white balance measurement
- is auto ISO important, how does it work
- landscape cameras are nearly always used on a tripod. Is it easy to focus with the LCD screen using a live view mode
- is it easy to store and then access your favorite combinations of settings. Can they be assigned to a dedicated button or dial
- can I do all of the above with gloves on
- if I drop it on a rock, will it break, if it does how long will it take to be repaired.
The list isn't exhaustive, but hopefully you get the point. You might find it helpful to download the camera manuals. Check the relevant sections. Most people here will have had previous generation SLRs and will already know the 'logic' their camera maker likes to use. You don't.
Armed, not with the technical specifications but the features you need, and how they are operated you can go to a good camera store and make an objective decision about which model will suit YOU best. Only after that point will we castigate you for not buying the brand we have each chosen to use
-
Wait. In a few months there will be newer cameras announced and I would say probably much cheaper. I doubt Canon will ever get 8K out of a FF camera EVER again. I don't care if it comes out with noise levels the same as the 5D MKII and 32 MPs. The price difference just won't be worth it to most pros and virtually all simipros and prosumers. A testament to this is how fast the 5D killed the sales of the 1DSMKII.
Some will say to this advice that "You could wait forever to get a new and better camera" but this is wrong headed. The advances in IQ are slowing and the next generation cameras will be cheaper than those today and offer slightly better IQ, or MPs, ergonomics, etc. But the IQ/MP race is slowing down or reaching equilibrium. What I mean is that yes, you could wait for that 50MP FF camera, but it will be so slightly better than the 32MP or even the current 21-24 MPs that it just won't matter anymore, as far a image quality goes. That was not true 4 years ago, where each camera update actually did produce a better image. For example, from the 20D to the 5D. That sort of leap isn't happening anymore. IQ improvements will be more incremental and linear instead of geometrical and groundbreaking.
If I could wait and was in for a new camera, I'd definitely wait for spring announcements.
-
ADVANTAGES OF THE D700
(1) Interfaces with the best wide-angle zoom on the market, the Nikkor 14-24 F2.4.
(2) Autobrackets up to 9 frames with a 1 stop interval at 5 frames per second, or greater with battery pack. (Ideal for merge to HDR and better for sports action).
(3) Flexible ISO bracketing. You can wander around with camera in manual mode, aperture at F8 and shutter speed at 1/200th. The camera will adjust ISO for correct exposure. (I think I have this right. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
ADVANTAGES OF THE 5D2
(1) Built-in HD video mode.
(2) Higher resolution for big prints or severe cropping. Can double up as a cropped format camera, producing quality on a par with the 20D.
Tough decision .
-
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.
-
Everything is looking better and better.
True! With computer related products, everything gets better as time progresses. But that wasn't your original question. If you'd asked, 'should I buy now or should I wait?', the answer would be, if you want to use the product now, you have to buy now. If you don't need the product now, then wait, and you'll get a better deal.
-
Hi,
A fast lens is of course not the same as a sharp lens. A fast lens can be a sharp lens, when stopped down, but no fast lens is really sharp at maximum aperture, AFAIK.
Erik
If you define decent like 99% of the photographers out there, I'd agree. But the last 1% are crazy, like me, and think f/1.4 and faster are the only decent focal ratios for a wide angle, such as 24mm. I would have switched to Nikon months ago if it weren't for the 24mm f/1.4.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Which has the best long prime lenses for birds?
Best autofocus and VR?
Thanks,
Mitchell
-
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