Poll

Which System has the Best Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?

I prefer Canon
I prefer Nikon
I prefer Sony

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?  (Read 20603 times)

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2016, 07:51:22 pm »

Jack,

What you point out isn't an autoIso issue, it is a metering issue.

You can set up the camera with easy exposure compensation to apply an exposure correction by simply rotating the dial. This works also in M mode btw, which is pure genius!

Cheers,
Bernard

Thanks for the correction.

All things considered, I am going to be sending back my D810 to B&H.
(And credit to B&H for their impeccable service!)

I bought the D810 right before the D5 and D500 came out (seconds before, actually).

With the ergonomic issues I don't like in the D810, and with the advent of the new Nikon Flagship D5 ... not to mention the fact the D810 just dropped another $200 in price in the last 3 weeks since I've had it ... I am pretty sure a D900 is on the immediate horizon 8)

And I am also sure that the new D900 is going to have the more sensible ISO configuration of the D5 + D500, for the reasons articulated in this thread topic, not to mention the fact I expect the D900 to surpass the Sony A7R II in specs, plus have a multitude of ergonomic features that the A7R II does not have ;D

Therefore, as soon as my refund gets credited back to my account, I am going to get the Nikon D5 as my field camera ... and, when it comes out, I am going to get the D900 as my high-res camera, both of which will have the specs (and ergonomics) that I am looking for.

The Nikon D500 looks like a wonderful APS-C camera, but I want to move beyond an APS-C at this point.

Thanks for everyone's input,

Jack
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #61 on: February 13, 2016, 08:23:33 pm »

With the ergonomic issues I don't like in the D810, and with the advent of the new Nikon Flagship D5 ... not to mention the fact the D810 just dropped another $200 in price in the last 3 weeks since I've had it ... I am pretty sure a D900 is on the immediate horizon 8)

And I am also sure that the new D900 is going to have the more sensible ISO configuration of the D5 + D500, for the reasons articulated in this thread topic, not to mention the fact I expect the D900 to surpass the Sony A7R II in specs, plus have a multitude of ergonomic features that the A7R II does not have ;D

Therefore, as soon as my refund gets credited back to my account, I am going to get the Nikon D5 as my field camera ... and, when it comes out, I am going to get the D900 as my high-res camera, both of which will have the specs (and ergonomics) that I am looking for.

The Nikon D500 looks like a wonderful APS-C camera, but I want to move beyond an APS-C at this point.

Thanks for everyone's input,

Jack

I'm sure you will love the D5 - it looks like a great camera.  The relocation of the ISO button is an improvement for sure, but I don't think it will make the ergonomics that much superior to the D810, so I'm not sure I understand your problem there.  As discussed, you can make all exposure and focus adjustments with your right hand with the D810.  I imagine the followup to the D810 will be arriving sometime in 2017.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13970
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #62 on: February 14, 2016, 07:12:13 am »

A bit surprised to read this.

I have a D5 on order too, but I probably won't use it for the applications where my D810 has been excelling for 18 months, and I will most definitely keep my D810 after the D5 shows up (I am less sure about the D750).

Cheers,
Bernard

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #63 on: February 14, 2016, 11:41:29 am »

I'm sure you will love the D5 - it looks like a great camera.

It really does look beautiful 8)



The relocation of the ISO button is an improvement for sure, but I don't think it will make the ergonomics that much superior to the D810, so I'm not sure I understand your problem there.  As discussed, you can make all exposure and focus adjustments with your right hand with the D810.  I imagine the followup to the D810 will be arriving sometime in 2017.

It is most definitely an improvement and a superior, better-placed amendment.

It is not really necessary that you understand my decisions ;D

I will say that Nikon itself must have agreed with my point, and that enough other photographers/designers must have repeatedly-made the same point, by virtue of the fact Nikon took the time (and committed the expenses) to totally relocate the ISO button to its now-better position, which is exactly where it belongs (and is on the Canon).

You are used to your D810 so you probably "don't notice" the difference ... but, trust me when I tell you, those who are used to better ergonomics ... notice ... and must have similarly complained enough to precipitate the total Nikon revision.

Jack

PS: Credit to Nikon for listening to its consumers.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #64 on: February 14, 2016, 12:14:28 pm »

A bit surprised to read this.

Why?

The D5 has 4K video, has the exact ergonomics I like, is Nikon's latest flagship, and is more of a field camera anyway.



I have a D5 on order too, but I probably won't use it for the applications where my D810 has been excelling for 18 months, and I will most definitely keep my D810 after the D5 shows up (I am less sure about the D750).
Cheers,
Bernard

Congrats to you :D

If my D810 were 18 months old, I would keep it too.

However, mine is only 3 weeks old, where I hit the "buy" button (literally) like a day before the new Nikon announcements. Since I still have the option of a full-refund, I am going apply this to getting the D5, which is less than a month away from being released. It is perfect timing, actually.

Moreover, as mentioned, the D810 just dropped another $200 in price, right after Nikon's major announcement of the D5 and the D500. I am predicting that there will be a D900 by the mid-/end-year.

More importantly, since I am looking for 2 cameras to carry in the field, I don't want one set of ergonomics (the way I like it) on the D5, with another set of ergonomics (not how I like it) on the D810.

My bet is that the new D900 will share the same, superior ergonomics of the D5 and D500, and consequently will provide a much friendlier "switch between cameras" ... than will switching from the new D5 to the old D810.

Cheers back :)

Jack
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #65 on: February 14, 2016, 12:22:07 pm »

It really does look beautiful 8)You are used to your D810 so you probably "don't notice" the difference ... but, trust me when I tell you, those who are used to better ergonomics ... notice ... and must have similarly complained enough to precipitate the total Nikon revision.

Yes, I am one of those who complained about this - back when the D3 was introduced.  ;D  Nikon first responded with the re-programmable movie button, so the movement of the ISO button was a logical further enhancement.  As you know, UI redesign is slow and methodical on both Canon and Nikon.

I shoot extensively with Canon and their ISO implementation is less than perfect as well.  They have a nice option to combine the set button with the upper main command dial to manually change ISO, but there is no quick way to turn auto-ISO on/off.

Ideally the camera should permit the user to easily adjust the following with their gloved right hand without taking their eye away from the viewfinder (control of exposure and focus):

  • Exposure mode
  • Aperture
  • Shutter speed
  • ISO + auto-ISO toggle
  • EV adjustment
  • AF Focus (back focus btn)
  • AF Focus point selection
  • AF Focus area (number of points to use)
  • Focus method
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #66 on: February 14, 2016, 05:01:30 pm »

Yes, I am one of those who complained about this - back when the D3 was introduced.  ;D  Nikon first responded with the re-programmable movie button, so the movement of the ISO button was a logical further enhancement.  As you know, UI redesign is slow and methodical on both Canon and Nikon.

I shoot extensively with Canon and their ISO implementation is less than perfect as well.  They have a nice option to combine the set button with the upper main command dial to manually change ISO, but there is no quick way to turn auto-ISO on/off.

Ideally the camera should permit the user to easily adjust the following with their gloved right hand without taking their eye away from the viewfinder (control of exposure and focus):

  • Exposure mode
  • Aperture
  • Shutter speed
  • ISO + auto-ISO toggle
  • EV adjustment
  • AF Focus (back focus btn)
  • AF Focus point selection
  • AF Focus area (number of points to use)
  • Focus method

Good post.

I think we essentially agree.

Here is an article depicting the very ergonomic differences I suggested were upgrades in the newer Nikons. Relevant quote:

  • "First of all, the camera Mode button, which has always been on the right side of the top of the camera, has been moved to a button on the left dial it replaced the Bracketing button. In its place and a bit closer to the shutter release, Nikon has placed a brand new ISO button. Finally! This is something I have personally been waiting for no more need to reprogram the Video recording button to change ISO! Now you can easily change ISO with just your right hand, which is great. If you change your camera modes a lot and you are used to accessing the Mode button with your index finger, you might not like this change, as you will have to now engage your left hand to hold the Mode button while rotating the camera dial with your right hand. I personally fiddle with ISO a lot more than with the camera mode, so for me this ergonomic change makes a lot more sense. Interestingly, the Nikon D500 also went through a similar change, which means that Nikon will most likely be using this updated layout on all future high-end cameras."

Cheers,

Jack
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #67 on: February 14, 2016, 05:18:54 pm »

One thing I still do not like about Nikon is the white lettering in the buttons.  I wear it off on the AF-ON button I use it so much.  The commonly used buttons on the Canon (except the set btn) have the text beside the button.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2016, 05:24:02 pm »

Shooting identical bodies is the best.  Having shot the D300 for a long time, I never was comfortable shooting the D7100 (Dial interface) by itself, let alone in tandem with the D810.  Which is why I have a D500 on pre-order.

Between the D810 and D500 or D5 however, the movement of the ISO button is just not all that significant to me.  Not that it is not better to be on the right side in the first place, but we have 3 options (Rec button, Fn Button, Preview button) to get it there if we want it there on the D810. Not ideal and not identical, but similar enough not to be an issue.

To me there are just too many differences between a D5 and D810 to compare them as similar cameras.  Start with more than double the price and almost double the size and weight.  Add the significant difference between 20.8MP and 36MP and to me they are too different to be considered alternatives to each other.

Rory, by the time I would wear the lettering off a button, I pretty much know what the button does already to the point of not needing it. 
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2016, 05:29:13 pm »

I think we essentially agree.

Here is an article depicting the very ergonomic differences I suggested were upgrades in the newer Nikons.

BTW, I have to chuckle at your source.  See comment #19 series.   ;)
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #70 on: February 14, 2016, 05:30:35 pm »

Rory, by the time I would wear the lettering off a button, I pretty much know what the button does already to the point of not needing it.

Tougher to sell though.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #71 on: February 14, 2016, 05:44:13 pm »

Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #72 on: February 14, 2016, 06:11:17 pm »

Tougher to sell though.
Had 157,000 shutter actuations on the D300 and sold it for $700 a couple years ago.  White letters still on it though.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13970
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #73 on: February 14, 2016, 06:11:35 pm »

2 other key differences btw the D810 and D5 are the presence of ISO64 and the lack of AA filter on the D810.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 10:01:08 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #74 on: February 15, 2016, 11:55:40 am »

2 other key differences btw the D810 and D5 are the presence of ISO64 and the lack of AA filter on the D810.
Cheers,
Bernard


I need to reel myself in. Been saving for awhile and want to make some good long-term decisions that will last me for the next 5 years (at least).
Since pulling the trigger, and getting the D810, it was somewhat disappointing to actually use it ... hence the thread ... but it has grown on me.

As I hovered over the "Buy" button, the D5 is too expensive for what it offers IMO ($6500, low-budget 4K).
I think the Canon 1Dx II is the better buy ($5,900, FAR better 4K, probably comparable low-light performance).

Still, neither one has the absolute image quality of the D810, so you're right to point these things out.
Plus, the idea of sending the D810 back, and spending another $3,200-$3,700 isn't all that appealing to me.
Keeping the D810 will allow me to use the extra $$$ and apply it to a 300mm Nikon lens, which has Otus-like specs.

I don't shoot birds, so I don't need a super-long telephotos lens; whereas many people have told me using a 300mm makes a better field lens than any macro.
In actually comparing the stats on LenScore, it is easy to see why, and for mere "close-ups," not needing 1:1, a 300mm is better in every way than any macro.
So I will stick with the D810 for now (B&H honored the new lower price, and credited me back another $200, so basically I have a D810 for $700 more than the APS-C D500.)

I am more of a "single-image" shooter anyway, than a rapid-fire shooter, so it makes more sense to wait for the D900 (or D850, whatever they are going to call it) as my second camera.

In the meantime, I will just deal with the minor inconveniences of button placement, incorporating some of the tips mentioned here to bridge them.

I believe the ergonomic changes to the D5/D500 are going to be applied to the D900 as well (might have articulating screen also), so that will ultimately be my wildlife camera, while I will use the D810 with a wide lens for habitat shots.

Jack
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2016, 12:25:10 pm »

Keeping the D810 will allow me to use the extra $$$ and apply it to a 300mm Nikon lens, which has Otus-like specs.

I don't shoot birds, so I don't need a super-long telephotos lens; whereas many people have told me using a 300mm makes a better field lens than any macro.
In actually comparing the stats on LenScore, it is easy to see why, and for mere "close-ups," not needing 1:1, a 300mm is better in every way than any macro.
So I will stick with the D810 for now (B&H honored the new lower price, and credited me back another $200, so basically I have a D810 for $700 more than the APS-C D500.)

I am more of a "single-image" shooter anyway, than a rapid-fire shooter, so it makes more sense to wait for the D900 (or D850, whatever they are going to call it) as my second camera.

In the meantime, I will just deal with the minor inconveniences of button placement, incorporating some of the tips mentioned here to bridge them.

I believe the ergonomic changes to the D5/D500 are going to be applied to the D900 as well (might have articulating screen also), so that will ultimately be my wildlife camera, while I will use the D810 with a wide lens for habitat shots.

Jack

Can you describe how you propose to use the 300?  I assume you mean the 300/2.8 VR.  Or are you referring to the new 300/4 PF?  Or the older 300/4?
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2016, 12:35:42 pm »


I need to reel myself in. Been saving for awhile and want to make some good long-term decisions that will last me for the next 5 years (at least).
Since pulling the trigger, and getting the D810, it was somewhat disappointing to actually use it ... hence the thread ... but it has grown on me.

As I hovered over the "Buy" button, the D5 is too expensive for what it offers IMO ($6500, low-budget 4K).
I think the Canon 1Dx II is the better buy ($5,900, FAR better 4K, probably comparable low-light performance).

Still, neither one has the absolute image quality of the D810, so you're right to point these things out.
Plus, the idea of sending the D810 back, and spending another $3,200-$3,700 isn't all that appealing to me.
Keeping the D810 will allow me to use the extra $$$ and apply it to a 300mm Nikon lens, which has Otus-like specs.

I don't shoot birds, so I don't need a super-long telephotos lens; whereas many people have told me using a 300mm makes a better field lens than any macro.
In actually comparing the stats on LenScore, it is easy to see why, and for mere "close-ups," not needing 1:1, a 300mm is better in every way than any macro.
So I will stick with the D810 for now (B&H honored the new lower price, and credited me back another $200, so basically I have a D810 for $700 more than the APS-C D500.)

I am more of a "single-image" shooter anyway, than a rapid-fire shooter, so it makes more sense to wait for the D900 (or D850, whatever they are going to call it) as my second camera.

In the meantime, I will just deal with the minor inconveniences of button placement, incorporating some of the tips mentioned here to bridge them.

I believe the ergonomic changes to the D5/D500 are going to be applied to the D900 as well (might have articulating screen also), so that will ultimately be my wildlife camera, while I will use the D810 with a wide lens for habitat shots.

Jack

Jack,

You need to decide DX versus FX or both.  I really am looking forward to going back to having both side by side and getting to choose a single based on the shooting situation.

DX Benefits
Longer Apparent Focal Length
More pixels on Target when going longer rather than cropping
More DOF
Less Perspective distortion
Cut's the center of an FX lens so get the best part. (Also much better than adding a TC which smears lens performance over larger area, slows AF and causes light losses.)

FX Benefits
Larger pixels at same MP count means better sensor performance.
Easier to control DOF
Easier to go wide.

Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2016, 12:44:48 pm »

Can you describe how you propose to use the 300?

I am pretty much a macro shooter, but most of my wildlife shots are "close-up," not true 1:1 macro.

Most of the true 1:1 (and beyond) shots I do are studio, or assisted, shots in some way, and not what I would call a legit nature shot.

There are exceptions, of course, as many slow-moving arthropods can be approached closely, especially those that don't move at all.

But if you want to take a photo of a fast, highly-alert jumping spider, the size of a grain of rice, you are probably going to have to manipulate the scene in some way, so it cannot properly be called a "nature" shot at that point.

On the other hand, I also shoot highly-alert lizards, snakes, and other reptiles that will not allow you very close proximity at all. In these cases, time of day (and species) will determine how close you can get to them. In the hot AZ and CA deserts, spiny lizards, collared lizards, etc. can be very tough to approach with a "macro" lens (even a 180 mm one). Racers, coachwhips, etc. are too.

Some of the species, like rattlesnakes, are easy to get close to, as they stand their ground.

In any event, I want a mid-range telephoto of exceptional quality. The 180 mm macro lengths served me well in that capacity, but sometimes very wary lizards (and even butterflies) will not allow that close of an approach.

I have seen many people use 300mm lenses as "macro" lenses for butterfly shots, that were outstanding as such. I also think they would work well for the reptiles I like to shoot, even better than a macro lens. LenScore shows that the Nikon (and Canon) 300 mm lenses are way above even the best macro lenses in quality, in every category, while offering the blazing IS/AF that made me like the Sigma 180 so much. I am thinking that purchasing a 300mm telephoto would be like having a 180 macro "on steroids": almost double the reach, equal build quality + weather sealing, with even better optics.



I assume you mean the 300/2.8 VR.  Or are you referring to the new 300/4 PF?  Or the older 300/4?

Yes to the former, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II; no to the latter.

This lens is "Otus-like" in quality (and in price), and based on its LenScore specs, will produce better field results than any macro lens on the list.

Jack
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 01:46:48 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2016, 01:05:26 pm »

Jack,
You need to decide DX versus FX or both.

At this point, I want FF (FX).

What I want is simple: the maximum image quality I can achieve, after taking the time/effort to drive/fly hundreds of miles to come into contact with a subject of interest.

I also want to enjoy ease-of-use, and simplicity-of-function, in the process to facilitate the effort.

Therefore, while the D500 looks like a fine camera, I think I will wait for the D900 instead.

Thanks for all your input.
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: Ergonomics: Canon, Nikon, or Sony?
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2016, 06:47:35 pm »

Yes to the former, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II; no to the latter.

This lens is "Otus-like" in quality (and in price), and based on its LenScore specs, will produce better field results than any macro lens on the list.

Jack

I have the previous VR version and it is a fantastic lens - heavy though ...  works great with the TC14 too.  The minimum focus distance is around 7.5 feet, but with the D810 you'll have lots of room to crop if you need to.  The image quality is very nice indeed.  But it is a heavy sucker.  Works great for compressed landscapes too.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up