Nikon vs. Cannon

[jjj]

We both agree that the 5D has cleaner high ISO, that the 5D is overall a very good camera and that FF has some advantages over APS for some applications. With today's technology, my view is on the other hand clearly that APS sensors have advantages for landscape.

Not clear to me. As APS is restrictive in certain areas without doing anything a FF sensor cannot do.

All I am saying is that, at low ISO that I use 99% of the time, the D2x has best in class image quality and is in many ways an even better camera than the 5D.

I can take images you cannot with your camera, the converse is not true. So hardly a better camera. I've a D2x using friend who was struggling at a dingy event and was considering a 5D afterwards. As I got shots, where he couldn't. Though Nikon does have a better flash system it seems.

I am not sure how trying to use what I see as the best tool around for my type of shooting gets to be image quality fascism...  I understand that having different views on an issue can be felt as being disruptive, but "promoting diversity" and "facism" are concepts that are 180 degrees from each other.

Wanting the best tool for the job is fine, but I was generally referencing a certain trend on here towards ever finer pixel counting over simply taking pics, without worrying about the minutae of image quality. And sometimes the technically poorer quality picture is actually better. I used to use Recording film in Acuspeed, a recipe for grain, but it gave amazing images in the right conditions [dingy!]. A graining picture that actually catches the moment is often a lot better than a less graing but very blurred image. There are different types of sharpness!  

For me, high ISO quality is only next to strap color in the irrelevant features list, and that it because I don't use a strap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most people use a strap and shot at higher than 100ISO, so your needs are in the minority I'd say.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not clear to me. As APS is restrictive in certain areas without doing anything a FF sensor cannot do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I can tell you that I see a very clear difference in DoF when using my Mamiya ZD compared to the D2x. If the D2x had the same image quality as the Mamiya, the Mamiya would gone in seconds no questons asked.

But OK, I am not trying to convince anyone, great for you if you have found the perfect tool for your applications.

Most people use a strap and shot at higher than 100ISO, so your needs are in the minority I'd say.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's where I feel comfortable, never been much of a crowd follower.

This being said, most photographers with a speciality belong to one minority or another. Out of those many specialities, there is a very significant portion where high ISO is just not needed.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Sheehy]

Didn't realise there was such a big difference in noise levels between the two cameras, John.

Well, let's just understand this in context.  It is the *read* noise that is so much higher.  If you're not down in the shadow areas, read noise is not all that significant.  The difference is in pushability.  The 5D would seem slightly cleaner in a well-exposed 1600, but in a push to ISO 25000 on both cameras, the D2X is going to be much worse.

It's no wonder Bernard has taken so few high ISO shots with his D2X   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The old electric fence phenomenon, perhaps.  Or, he may just do landscapes, architecture, or studio work where high ISOs (and pushing them further) may not be necessary.

Personally, I have to shoot things that move in real light, hand-held, and must have high-ISO performance.

[mahleu]

Just out of curiousity, could the sensor be made any larger than 36*24 in dslr's without vignetting or lens redesign?

[juicy]

Hi,
Some interesting info on spectral response of a couple of dslrs can be found in http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...070213153138180. Especially D80 looks quite different from the majority. I believe the measurements were done from dng-files.

To be speculated,
J

[mrsukh]

I have been wading through this forum and am glad to read the many differing viewpoints from you peoples
I am also looking for my first prodidge.slr and if these questins haven't been covered yet ....I guess I'll find out soon
Budget matters, I take my camera into wild places, so weather and dust seals are important, I would also love to create fine art prints ,
including studio shots
Have heard that full frame sensor ican be  a challenge to a lens, and non ffs catch the sweet spot.
 plenty of you have said go for the 5D,  The dpreview users consistently call it a dust trap .
2DXs seems  attractive  on many counts incl image quality the only down seeming to be noise at and above 400 iso.
The Canon IDs mk2 seems affordable to me yet seems more for action and sport than fine quality poster sized images
Any Comments
p.s what does it mean to be trolled ?   sounds like some of you enjoy
regards   Sukh

[mrsukh]

Apology I meant that the Canon ID mk2 as being affordable Not the IDs Mk2
sukh

[John Sheehy]

Hi,
Some interesting info on spectral response of a couple of dslrs can be found in http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/...070213153138180. Especially D80 looks quite different from the majority. I believe the measurements were done from dng-files.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The chart for the 400D is TOTALLY wrong.  All DSLRs with RGB bayer CFAs and a hot cut mirror are least sensitive to red.  ALL.  This graph is totally backwards.

There's some bad reverse-engineering at image-engineering.

[juicy]

Hi,

The chart for the 400D is TOTALLY wrong. All DSLRs with RGB bayer CFAs and a hot cut mirror are least sensitive to red. ALL.

What's really interesting is that the graphs are basically very similar except for the D80. M8 shows less pronounced difference between the channels. Are the sensors so different or is the signal processing to the raw file different? If they all happened to be wrong, might they still be comparable between each other?

Cheers,
J

[BJL]

I have nothing slower than f2.8 and a big sensor, so not sure what your point is. Finding Fast apertures to go with smallers formats is quite hard, esp. at the w/a end.

IS has no effect on subject movement, so high ISO will still be essential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many do, for weight and/or cost reasons, with lenses like the 24-104/4 and 100-400/4-5.6. Like Ray, with whom I was originally discussing this. (And many situations call for stopping down to f/4, f/5.6 and beyond.)

IS has no effect on subject movement, so high ISO will still be essential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With (fast) moving subjects at wide to short telephoto in low light, yes, I see that is relevant to some people. But not to many others like me.

As I have said several time before, I am not dismissing all the advantages of larger formats over smaller ones (or I would be using 1/2.5"!), just some exaggerated and misplaced claims of advantages.

[John Sheehy]

Hi,
What's really interesting is that the graphs are basically very similar except for the D80. M8 shows less pronounced difference between the channels. Are the sensors so different or is the signal processing to the raw file different? If they all happened to be wrong, might they still be comparable between each other?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looking at them again, it would seem that they are using converted images, where the response is affected by white balance, because the area under the curves is basically similar, in the visible light range.  The narrower peaks go higher, and the wider responses don't go as high.

These figures are not very meaningful, then, as they don't reflect the sensitivities of the cameras, but the cameras after they are compensated for their sensitivity differences!

[BJL]

Ah! Now I see your point. It's purely an economics one. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, mostly economics, but sometimes of weight as well as cost: many of us would prefer not to carry a 400/2.8 (or even maybe a 400/4 or 300/2. even if someone else were paying. And at long enough focal lengths, f/2.8 (or even f/4) is not available at any price. So once each of us reaches the longest focal length at which about f/4 or faster is possible, I tend to think that increasing telephoto reach (angular resolution) might most often be best done by increasing sensor resolution (reducing pixel size). Maybe by cropping from a still large sensor, maybe with a smaller format body at least  for the telephoto end of things.

However, 12.8mp are better than 8.2mp ...
...If the EF-S 10-22mm lens was a sharper and faster lens, say f2.8 ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both very valid factors. I was thinking a bit before your post that 12.7MP vs 8.2MP (within the Canon options at least, or within the price level of the 5D) is probably more important overall to the desirability of the 5D than the much talked about high ISO and high DR. And to be slightly cynical, Canon's possible holding back of EF-S format a bit to maintain unique selling points for 35mmFF. Will there be a 10-12MP high end EF-S model to replace the 30D once there is a higher resolution replacement of the 5D? (maybe 16.5MP, using "1DMkIII pixels").

[BernardLanguillier]

And to be slightly cynical, Canon's possible holding back of EF-S format a bit to maintain unique selling points for 35mmFF. Will there be a 10-12MP high end EF-S model to replace the 30D once there is a higher resolution replacement of the 5D? (maybe 16.5MP, using "1DMkIII pixels").
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? And I bet that this 12 MP APS sensor will have high iso noise and DR very similar to those of the 5D today.

People will say that this is the result of improved sensor technology and processing.

Regards,
Bernard

[Ray]

Both very valid factors. I was thinking a bit before your post that 12.7MP vs 8.2MP (within the Canon options at least, or within the price level of the 5D) is probably more important overall to the desirability of the 5D than the much talked about high ISO and high DR. And to be slightly cynical, Canon's possible holding back of EF-S format a bit to maintain unique selling points for 35mmFF. Will there be a 10-12MP high end EF-S model to replace the 30D once there is a higher resolution replacement of the 5D? (maybe 16.5MP, using "1DMkIII pixels").
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think threads like this are useful in 'fleshing out' many of the factors that have a bearing on technical image quality, the pros and cons of particular formats with differing pixel densities and differing noise performance in relation to different camera/lens combinations, but the one unknown factor which tends to throw a spanner in the works, especially with regard to making the best personal economic decisions, is what's round the corner.

Many of us either cannot afford to buy (or cannot justify the purchase of) whatever system is currently on the market that best meets our requirements for the particular type of photography we may be interested in at a particular time, so we have to make some sort of assessment as to the significance of such pros and cons in relation to the general type of photography we think we'll be engaged in.

For example, right at the moment, a good combination of cameras for a wide range of (effective) focal lengths from wide angle to telephoto, would be the 12.8mp 5D and the 10mp 400D. But how would one feel if in 6 month's time Canon released a 22mp upgrade to the 5D with ISO 6400 capability and no more noise than the 5D currently has at ISO 3200?

That one 22mp camera could do everything the other 2 could do, and some. There would be no need to mess around changing cameras with the 100-400 IS zoom in order to get a longer effective reach and possibly lose the photographic moment in the process, and the extra ISO performance would allow use of f8 in circumstances where f5.6 would previously have been used.

And of course, needless to say, at shorter focal lengths 22mp is always going to be better than 12.8mp for large prints. The difference in pixel count is great enough to be noticeable. It's unlikely we'd have the same confusion that sometimes existed when the 5D resolution was compared to that of the 1Ds2. 16mp versus 12.8 is subtle. 22mp versus 12.8mp is not, I would think.

[djgarcia]

You should probably make tha 16.7 MP vs 12.8 MP, if you're going to use decimals ...

[Ray]

You should probably make tha 16.7 MP vs 12.8 MP, if you're going to use decimals ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're right, but I can't always remember the differences between the total number of pixels and the effective number of pixels. I tend to forget things easily that I don't think are significant   .

[BJL]

For example, right at the moment, a good combination of cameras for a wide range of (effective) focal lengths from wide angle to telephoto, would be the 12.8mp 5D and the 10mp 400D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is more like it: choosing amongst actual options. (For my more modest print size goals, a good current choice would be a 10MP body, giving me an effective built-in 1.4x TC when cropped to the 5MP that I find quite adequate for many wild-life shots.)

But how would one feel if in 6 month's time Canon released a 22mp upgrade to the 5D ... That one 22mp camera could do everything the other 2 could do, and some.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But if we must speculate about future products, an equalization of pixel sizes available in Canon's EF-S and EF mount offerings seems very unlikely; there has been no sign of Canon moving in that direction, or of any format from "1.3x" up matching the pixel size of smaller formats. You are imagining a jump from the 5D/30D pixel count ratio of about 1.5 and pixel spacing ratio of 1.3 to roughly equal pixel size and pixel count ratio of around 2.5. And that with the 30D sensor being the older of the two, and so probably with more room for progress.

The actual pattern in pixel sizes and counts has a curious split at "1.3x" (EOS-1 D series, Leica R back and M8).
- From digicam formats like 1/1.8" up to 1.3x, roughly the same maximum pixel count, with larger formats putting the extra real estate almost entirely into larger photosites.
- From 1.3x upwards, a reversal to almost invariant pixel size, with larger formats offering higher pixel counts.

[djgarcia]

You're right, but I can't always remember the differences between the total number of pixels and the effective number of pixels. I tend to forget things easily that I don't think are significant   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since the ".8" in 12.8 is significant but the ".7" in 16.7 is not, I take it you own a 5D?    

[Ray]

But if we must speculate about future products, an equalization of pixel sizes available in Canon's EF-S and EF mount offerings seems very unlikely; there has been no sign of Canon moving in that direction, or of any format from "1.3x" up matching the pixel size of smaller formats. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see how you can justify such claims, BJL.

The 1Ds followed closely on the heels of the D60. The difference in pixel density (and the significance of that) was duly noted by owners of the D60 and politely ignored by owners of the 1Ds who simply didn't want to admit that a much cheaper Canon DSLR might in some circumstances produce a sharper or more detailed image than the flagship model.

However, that discrepancy of pixel density was soon rectified in the 16.7mp successor to the 1Ds, the 1Ds MkII. Of course, in the meantime, the pixel count of one of the cropped formats has increased to 10mp and the others to 8mp.

Whilst I don't think it likely that the pixel density of the 400D will be matched in the next upgrade to either the 5D or the 1Ds2, it will not be atypical if Canon matches the pixel density of the 20D with a 22mp full frame.

The interesting question is, will Canon produce two FF models with 22mp? Perhaps the successor to the 5D will be a mere 16.7mp, in which case it's unlikely I'll be getting one.

[Ray]

Since the ".8" in 12.8 is significant but the ".7" in 16.7 is not, I take it you own a 5D?   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Correct. However, from a purely objective point of view, the 0.8 in 12.8 really is more significant than the 0.7 in 16.7. We're looking at 6.25% for the 5D against  4.19% for the 1Ds2.