Building a new system around the lens.

[Dinsmen]

I have decided to build a digital camera system from scratch – Canon 5D and Nikon D200 are the two bodies that are on the top of my list. While I’m still undecided on which one to choose, I could go either way, the bigger dilemma is which lens I should build my system around.

Canon has EF 24-70 f/2.8 L & EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and Nikon offers AF 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED & AF VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED. While MTF charts look better for Canon, I’ve heard from people who’ve had experience with both lenses that Nikon 28-70 is sharper compared to Canon 24-70 and I think 24/28-70 will be used more than 70-200 (I realize that with FOV crop they offer a different range). In the 70-200 range, I gather that Canon has the edge.

One important consideration, not that I’m leaning towards Nikon, is that sometime in the near future, ZEISS would have AF lens with ZF mount to further build on the Nikon system.

I would appreciate if you could share your experience and knowledge of the two sets of lens that will help me make the decision.

Just a little note about myself. I am not a professional photographer but consider myself as an enthusiast. I travel quite a bit and would like to capture good quality images of my memories of these places.

Rick Dinsmen.

[Peter Jon White]

Actually, where lenses are concerned, there's not a lot to discuss when comparing Nikon to Canon. Both companies make fine lenses. For my uses, Canon makes a couple of lenses that Nikon doesn't, the TS-E 24mm and 45mm. Nikon has shift lenses in wide angles, but nothing that tilts. And since Nikon only has cropped sensors, they have nothing that's as wide as the Canon 24mm TS-E.

But more important is the difference between the camera bodies. A digital camera's sensor is like film. Some film is better than other film. And some sensors are better than other sensors.

To get a good idea which camera has the better sensor, look at the test images on the dpreview.com website. They have tested the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200. Pay particular attention to the noise comparison images which show you what happens to the image quality as ISO is changed. Some people would like for you to only consider ISO 100 when making image quality comparisons between Nikon and Canon. In my opinion, since the cameras have higher ISO settings, and since it does sometimes get dark outside ;-) as well as inside, it's important to consider what image quality you can expect to get at ISOs above 100 when comparing cameras. Remember, the film is now the camera, not just something you put inside the camera every 36 exposures or so.

When you look at the Nikon D200 images, you'll see that as ISO increases, the images get softer, less detailed. This also happens with the Canon 5D images. At ISO 200, there is more noise and less detail in the images than at ISO 100, though it's extremely subtle in the 5D. At ISO 400, more detail is lost and there is more noise. That's true of both the 5D and the D200. But the degree of difference is quite staggering. While with each increase in ISO the 5D loses a little detail and gains a little noise, the detail in the D200 images degrades much more from ISO setting to ISO setting.

Open up two browser windows and set the two sets of images beside each other, one on the right, one on the left, and compare the two. And then, try very hard to come up with a reason to buy the D200. ;-)

Use this URL for the Canon 5D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

Use this URL for the Nikon D200.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp

Remember, open two browser windows, and set the two image strips side by side so you can scroll each one and line them up by ISO setting. You'll read all sorts of commentary about these two cameras, including commentary by the fellow who did the tests. I'd suggest that you ignore the commentary and just look at the test images. The images don't lie. They don't exagerate. They just show you what you'll get when you shoot with these two cameras at a variety of ISO settings.

There's a difference between the 5D and the D200. It's not a subtle difference. It's a huge difference. And it gets bigger the higher the ISO you're shooting with.

[BernardLanguillier]

A few comments:

- considering that the D200 is an APS sensor, the most suitable trans-standard zoom is the 17-55, not the 28-70,
- the 18-200 VR might also be a good point to start if you want to save some money, its performance is nothing short of breathtaking considering its price,
- it is true that the 5D does perform better at high ISO, but how often do you use ISO above 400? My personnal answer after checking more than 1000 images is less than 2%...

Regards,
Bernard

[Dinsmen]

I already did the comparison between 5D and D200 on dpreview. There is no doubt that 5D produces cleaner images at higher ISO and it also has the resolution advantage which is perpectible; but D200 is also quite acceptable up to ISO 800.

My point was that technological curve on the bodies, although increasing at a decsreasing rate, is still moving upward and hence the bodies will change much more frequently than the lens where the curve is almost flat. Therefore, I wanted to concentrate more on the lens and build the system around them.

Rick.

[DarkPenguin]

Both sets of lenses are fine.  On the 5D the 24-70 will be the equivalent of a 24-70.  On the D200 the 28-70 will be the equivalent of a 36-105.  Which FOV do you want?

I think you should probably concentrate on whether you want a FF or a crop camera.

[Peter Jon White]

I already did the comparison between 5D and D200 on dpreview. There is no doubt that 5D produces cleaner images at higher ISO and it also has the resolution advantage which is perpectible; but D200 is also quite acceptable up to ISO 800.

My point was that technological curve on the bodies, although increasing at a decsreasing rate, is still moving upward and hence the bodies will change much more frequently than the lens where the curve is almost flat. Therefore, I wanted to concentrate more on the lens and build the system around them.

Rick.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Trouble is, Nikon's imaging doesn't seem to be improving. The D200 doesn't look much better than the D50, except for the higher pixel count. They seem to have hit a plateau. Canon seems to have hit one as well, but it's quite a ways further up the mountain. Unless Nikon adopts a full frame sensor, they aren't going to be able to increase their pixel count any further. And once they switch to a full frame, all those great DX lenses won't matter.

[John Camp]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter much, especially for an enthusiast (as I am) as opposed to a professional. The biggest difference in systems would come if you want to use tilt/shift lenses, in which case Canon has the better system. If you expect to shoot a lot in museums (and many do not allow flash; or you don't want to shoot a flash, because the object is inside a glass case) then a good high-ISO is important, and the Canon would be better. On the other hand, a Nikon image can be cleaned up with Noise Ninja to the point where the difference is essentially imperceptible.  

If money is relevant, you can build a more complete enthusiast's Nikon system for quite a bit less money. There's a very wide DX zoom that starts you out at 12mm, which is the equivalent of an 18 in a 35mm system, and it's pretty decent. As Bernard said in an earlier post, you can also get an 18-200 VR zoom that's very good for it's speed, reach and price; and a 200 in Nikon is a 300 in Canon. So when you're traveling, you can carry two quite good and fairly compact lenses with Nikon and cover the 35mm equivalent of 18-300mm, with VR at the long end. I believe the Nikon lens extender will work on the 18-200, which, with that one low-cost extra gadget, would carry you into the realm of extreme telephoto with almost no extra weight. Nikon also has a better flash system.

But, overall, I still don't think it makes too much difference, the money question aside. You could shoot a creditable Vogue or Vanity Fair double-truck with either one, if that is enough quality for you.

I have traveled a lot with cameras, but without the intention of producing high-end professional images (although I've had photos published in archaeological magazines, scholarly journals and newspapers.) For me, compactness and weight is more important than any slight difference in image quality. So much so that I'm usually leaving my D2x behind and I'm traveling with an Epson R-D1 and a shifting set of Leica lenses, the set depending on what I intend to do. The Epson/Leica set will fit in the bottom of a briefcase or small backpack, and weigh not much more, if any more at all, than a Canon body alone.

JC

[Peter Jon White]

On the other hand, a Nikon image can be cleaned up with Noise Ninja to the point where the difference is essentially imperceptible.

Are you sure about that? I haven't used the Nikon, so I can only go by what I've seen on the web. I know that noise can be effectively reduced by Noise Ninja and other software programs. But from what I've seen, those programs can't reduce noise while retaining detail. The more niose reduction they perform, the less detail remains in the image. Nikon's onboard noise reduction works the same way, as far as I can tell from seeing test images on screen.

I've read many claims that Nikon high ISO images can look as good as Canon high ISO images with the right post processing. But I've yet to see a side by side comparison demonstrating such to be the case. I've seen comparable low noise, but never without a drastic reduction in detail. So sure, you can get a smooth surface to look good. But once there's any texture, it's gone.

If you can show me a way to make Nikon high ISO images *with detail* look as good as Canon's, please do.

[Craig Arnold]

Are you sure about that?

If you can show me a way to make Nikon high ISO images *with detail* look as good as Canon's, please do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And of course Noise Ninja cancels itself out as a "Nikon" option unless there is some secret society that goes around preventing Canon users from using it too.  

If NN gives you two extra effective stops on the Nikon, it does the same for the Canon.

[macgyver]

- it is true that the 5D does perform better at high ISO, but how often do you use ISO above 400? My personnal answer after checking more than 1000 images is less than 2%...

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It all depends on the person, mine would be more along the lines of 40%-60%, depending on what is occupying my time at the moment.

[Jack Flesher]

IMO only, but the bottom line is this:

90% of the time, either of the camera/lens systems you mentioned is going to be able to produce better images than 90% of the photographers using them.  (And the 10% difference is what fuels photographic forums   )

Choose, buy and start shooting.

Cheers,

[Peter Jon White]

- it is true that the 5D does perform better at high ISO, but how often do you use ISO above 400? My personnal answer after checking more than 1000 images is less than 2%...

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I shot with a camera that had poor IQ at high ISO, I might shoot very little at high ISO as well. But when you have a camera that is capable of extremely high IQ at 800 ISO, it gives you the freedom to turn up the dial and use whatever speed you want for the shutter speed and aperture you need. It's nice to have the choice.

[bob mccarthy]

If I shot with a camera that had poor IQ at high ISO, I might shoot very little at high ISO as well. But when you have a camera that is capable of extremely high IQ at 800 ISO, it gives you the freedom to turn up the dial and use whatever speed you want for the shutter speed and aperture you need. It's nice to have the choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Noise is not the only impact of high ISO.

From what I observe all cameras suffer (yes Canon too) from color problems (saturation/gamut effects) and reduced dynamic range.

Low ISO is nearly always better. Except when you "must" have it to do the shot. Nikon guys "probably" have to use noise ninja vs Canon guys "may" have to.

This is a landscape forum. Not a theater forum. It's about maximizing IQ within the capability of the camera. Its about color and resolution, light against dark, sunrises, etc.....

Geezzz..... both of these camera are light years ahead of film 35mm.

I think the difference is in the lens factor. Who makes the reduced format Dx/APS-C lenses you want in wide angle. FF is the providence of the guy who prints on an Epson 9800. If you don't, then FF provides limited benefit (other than much higher cost).

Bob

[John Camp]

If you can show me a way to make Nikon high ISO images *with detail* look as good as Canon's, please do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess I wouldn't be interested in doing that; I'm tired of camera chauvinism. I'm satisfied by the fact that serious professionals, who aren't much interested in giving up practical quality to the competition, can be found using either system.

JC

[Peter Jon White]

I guess I wouldn't be interested in doing that; I'm tired of camera chauvinism. I'm satisfied by the fact that serious professionals, who aren't much interested in giving up practical quality to the competition, can be found using either system.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not chauvinism. It's about chosing the best tool for the job. If the bolt holding the wheel on your baby stroller is loose, and you can use the perfect tool, a 12mm box end wrench, or some channellocks which will chew up the head of the bolt making it hard to tighten next time, you'll be well advised to use the 12mm wrench.

Similarly, if you're shooting sunset landscapes at ISO 800, and you have the choice between two cameras, one that has poor detail and another with high detail, you'll be well advised to chose the camera with more detail.

Pointing out that one tool is better for a job than another shouldn't be characterized as chauvinism. It's just stating the facts.

[bob mccarthy]

Pointing out that one tool is better for a job than another shouldn't be characterized as chauvinism. It's just stating the facts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are not familiar with the Nikon sensor and its characteristics. Don't confuse fact with opinion.

I have a camera that has worse noise (by the presses opinion) than either camera we're discussing here. If I get the exposure where it needs to be, the focus where it need to be, (these are not camera brand dependent), the image at ISO 800 can be spectacular. Let the camera underexpose, it is noisy as hell. Even noise ninja is part of everybodys workflow.

Why would you want to shoot a sunset at ISO 800. Landscape photography favors the prepared which means a tripod. What does Michael call it, a postcard.

All sensor have tradeoffs. Canons are reputed the have odd colors, a plastic look. But, I've seen great photographers produce incredible output from a Canon. Same is true of Nikon.

Thats true of all cameras, BTW. Stop you sound like a fanboy of technology.

Bob

[Peter Jon White]

Why would you want to shoot a sunset at ISO 800.

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I rest my case.

[Let Biogons be Biogons]

Digital overstatement watch:

Geezzz..... both of these camera are light years ahead of film 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Dinsmen]

Thanks everyone for your response. I gather that both Nikon and Canon lens (24/28-70 and 70-200) and equally sharp.  It's now a decision between 5D (high ISO) and D200 (value).

Rick.