Nikon vs. Cannon

[djgarcia]

Completely agree. Doesn't mean I'm going to let you emasculate my hard-earned 4.19%   ...

[BJL]

The 1Ds followed closely on the heels of the D60. The difference in pixel density ... was politely ignored by owners of the 1Ds ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We agree of course.

However, that discrepancy of pixel density was soon rectified in the 16.7mp successor to the 1Ds, the 1Ds MkII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two and a half years after the D60; not so "soon".

... in the meantime, the pixel count of one of the cropped formats has increased to 10mp and the others to 8mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly my point: by the time the 1DsMkII arrived, 2 1/2 years after the D60, EF-S format already had the 20D with higher pixel density than the 1DsMkII. EF-S (and other sub-35mm formats) have always offered a higher maximum pixel density that 35mm offers at the same time, and I see no trend of this gap closing.

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that it would not be atypical for the next 1Ds model to do so. But a 22MP 1DsMkIII was not what you speculated about in your previous post, and nor is the current 8MP of the 30D what it would probably be competing with for pixel density available in high end EF-S models. The 30D still being at 8MP is an aberration given that everything around it is at 10MP and up, so 10MP or more in a high end EF-S format body seems likely soon. (Unless Canon shoots itself in its "EF-S" foot in an effort to prop up sales of entry-level 35mm format, accelerating Canon's recent decline in DSLR market share.)

Perhaps the successor to the 5D will be a mere 16.7mp, in which case it's unlikely I'll be getting one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah good; back to reality. The idea of jumping from 12.7MP in the 5D (it is not 12.8 you know!) to 22MP in a replacement only about two years later would be unprecedented, and to match a likely 10MP+ 30D successor would need 26MP, more than double the pixel count of the 5D. That would be a truly unprecedented increase in a single Canon upgrade step, or within two years.


For reference, here are some Canon models in chronological order of announcement date,with each new high of pixel density marked ***.
May 2000: D30 with 10.5 micron pixels
Sep. 2001: 1D with 11 micron pixels
Feb. 2002: D60 with 7.6 micron pixels ***
Sep. 2002: 1Ds with 9 micron pixels
Aug. 2004: 20D with 6.4 micron pixels ***
Sep. 2004: 1DsMkII with 7.2 micron pixels
Jan. 2004: 1DMkII with 8.2 micron pixels
Aug. 2005: 5D with 8.2 micron pixels
Aug. 2006: 400D with 5.7 micron pixels ***
Feb, 2007: 1DMkII with 7.2 micron pixels

In each case it takes two years or more from when a new smaller pixel spacing arrives in EF-S format before a 35mm format model matches or passes that pixel spacing, and by the time that happens, EF-S format already has a more recent sensor with smaller pixel spacing than that new 35mm model. And 1.3x lags behind 35mm. And "entry level 35mm" (5D) lags behind everything else.

[Ray]

In each case it takes two years or more from when a new smaller pixel spacing arrives in EF-S format before a 35mm format model matches or passes that pixel spacing, and by the time that happens, EF-S format already has a more recent sensor with smaller pixel spacing than that new 35mm model. And 1.3x lags behind 35mm. And "entry level 35mm" (5D) lags behind everything else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

Okay! Point taken. However, (there's always an however   ) trends do not necessarily continue forever. The big attraction of Canon's APS-C format is that it uses existing 35mm lenses. The fact that greater pixel densities have been able to capture more detail from the central part of the image is a clear indication, up till now, that good 35mm lenses still are not the weak point in the chain. But, I would suggest that from now on, they will increasingly become so.

If one were to check dpreview records, one would probably find that the 10mp 400D is capable of close to double the resolution of the 3mp D30, using a good prime. Is it conceivable that a 40mp cropped 35mm format would be capable of double the resolution of the 10mp 400D? Not even nearly, I would suggest.

At some point, Canon will have to decide if it's going to create a separate format for its APS-C cameras with high quality and expensive EF-S lenses that don't fit FF 35mm bodies, because increasing pixel densities of the smaller format will become increasingly irrelevant with current 35mm lenses.

[BernardLanguillier]

If one were to check dpreview records, one would probably find that the 10mp 400D is capable of close to double the resolution of the 3mp D30, using a good prime. Is it conceivable that a 40mp cropped 35mm format would be capable of double the resolution of the 10mp 400D? Not even nearly, I would suggest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When we get to these levels of resolution, if we ever do, the main limiting factor is going to become the shooting environment, rather than the body-lens combo itself.

Shooting handheld will stop to be an option, and very sturdy tripods and heads will become mandatory. In the end, all the advantages of a small and light format will be lost... The bodies with few pixels but more DR/less noise will provide better images 95% of the time.

Regards,
Bernard

[Ray]

Shooting handheld will stop to be an option, and very sturdy tripods and heads will become mandatory. In the end, all the advantages of a small and light format will be lost... The bodies with few pixels but more DR/less noise will provide better images 95% of the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
As regards resolution there can be no disadvantage in having too many pixels. It may be the case that in order to realise the greater potential for sharper images, faster shutter speeds may be required for handheld shots, or use of a tripod, but under the same shooting conditions a 40mp camera cannot produce less sharp images than a 10mp camera, assuming everything else is the same, such as sensor size, RAW capability etc.

My concern would be that any increase in resolution flowing from such large pixel counts would be too slight with current 35mm lenses to justify the inconvenience of slower speeds in processing such large files.

Dynamic range and noise issues are less clear because they are dependent upon technological advances. Also, whilst the noise and DR of individual, small pixels might invariably be less than that of individual larger pixels, for any given size print the noise and DR might be the same.

We should not forget how good the Canon G7 is. A sensor the size of Canon's 20D, with the pixel density of the G7 would be around 88mp. For such a camera, we would need EF-S lenses significantly better than BJL's Zuiko lenses   .

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,
As regards resolution there can be no disadvantage in having too many pixels. It may be the case that in order to realise the greater potential for sharper images, faster shutter speeds may be required for handheld shots, or use of a tripod, but under the same shooting conditions a 40mp camera cannot produce less sharp images than a 10mp camera, assuming everything else is the same, such as sensor size, RAW capability etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

You are correct, but considering how many people judge cameras by looking at images 100% in PS, the 40MP will probably be perceived by many as being less sharp... even if the actual detail ends up being exactly the same or slightly better at a given print size.

Regards,
Bernard

[Rob C]

The problem with lenses and making comparisons with them in the sense of different format sizes is that this is nothing new or confined to digital.

I remember well that when I bought into the last Pentax 67 system I had high hopes for much more impressive transparencies than I was getting with Nikon 35mm; this was, in fact, despite knowing that 35mm lenses are so sharp because only a tiny image circle is being used.

Well, I should have saved my money. Though much more impressive transparencies resulted on 6x7, this was only because of tonality in the sense of smoothness; as I've said here before, the colour of Velvia through 35mm Nikon glass was, to me, far superior to the colour of Velvia through Pentax 6x7. Worse, the things were simply never as crisp, despite always being shot on a huge Gitzo tripod. There was no way, if you chose to cut out a 36mmx24mm piece from the 6x7 that it matched the straight 35mm frame from 35mm Nikkor lenses.

This was also borne out for me doing the same thing in the darkroom with Hasselblad lenses and Nikkors.

I think that we are in danger of asking for more than can  be delivered by the optical manufacturers.

Ciao - Rob C

[Paul Kay]

Lens designers will have to consider more than just the possibilities of optical design - the economics and quality control of lenses needed to provide sufficient data for higher Mega Pixel chips will, I'm sure, become a limiting factor very soon.

And why do we need ever increasing MPixels? We seem to be expecting a 35mm type body to deliver an image that would have required a far larger format in the past (on film). Why? Are we now entering a similar phase to that of cars - most can exceed national speed limits and certainly existing road conditions, so why do we really need ever faster cars? Could we be in danger of falling into the same trap with digital cameras? How many users really need the 1DS MkII and really push its capabilities - and I mean in reality, actual output of images that is. I've said it before, and no doubt will again, I have never lost an image sale due to inadequacies in the image (either digital or film). This could of course be down to my abilities with inferior equipment (but no, I'm not THAT good!. Or is it because I taylor my images to meet my market (this is more like it). The same has to be true of MPixels, lenses, etc. If you really, truly need a better system (rather than just thinking that you do) then move to something bigger!

This has been a fascinating thread, but to my mind the gist is that both Canon and Nikon make exellent cameras each of which has its pros and cons. What the future will hold we can only guess, but I for one would prefer to believe that the final viewed image will still be more important than the technology behind it.

[Ray]

I for one would prefer to believe that the final viewed image will still be more important than the technology behind it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a very paradoxical statement, Paul. What do you mean by this? The final viewed image, which wouldn't exist without the technology behind it, is more important than the technology that made it all possible???  

[Ray]

I think that we are in danger of asking for more than can  be delivered by the optical manufacturers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lenses of similar quality to the Zuiko lenses designed for the Olympus 4/3rds system, with just a slightly bigger image circle, would be fine for the Canon 30D and 400D format. Unfortunately, EF-S lenses of that quality would result in the 400D producing images on a par with (and perhaps better than) the more expensive 5D with lesser quality 35mm lenses.

[Rob C]

Paul

I think you are quite correct suggesting that quality control might prove to be more of a problem for manufacturers. It seems that variations of quality within the same lens type can be very wide - naturfotograf.com's proprietor has made some startling statements about the number of lenses of the same type that he has tested prior to finding one worth keeping. That he has had the opportunity to go this route is great, for him, but don't we all wish we could just ask the local friendly dealer for a box of lenses so that we could try them all and select the one that worked!

I'm told that Leica lenses go through a greater, more severe set of tests prior to release for sale - I'd have thought that existing legislation on the theme of fitness for purpose would have forced them ALL to play fair, but then again, how do you fight Goliath? Don't mention slings - ths is 2007 and the lawyers are far more powerful than that!

You have a point with cars, but really, I think that that's more just a matter of male stupidity and the need to impress other, equally dumb males. If these guys have the money and are willing to blow it, then other than the fact that they are helping us die earlier, what's the harm? With photography, I think it's somewhat different. The quest for mega pixels is more to do with the fear of reaching a point when the available/affordable printers start to outstrip the ability of the camera to keep up with them. This, again, I think is probably more of a 'digital' mindset than it ever was with film; it's quite possible that with film, and the reality of the wet darkroom, one was quite happy to accept that a smaller film would print up to whatever size with accepted characteristics and that a larger film would do so in a different manner. Within those long-established norms, there wasn't such an anxiety or fear of inadequacy, of getting left behind, unlike in this digital medium where something newer and better is always expected 'next show'.

Frankly, I have long been of the belief that film and digital photographers are powered by different motives and inclinations. I, for one, doubt if I would ever have considered a career in photography if I'd been confronted from the start with the digital world. Yes, I've had to adapt, as far as it goes, but that's not to say that I believe the medium now holds the same fascination for me as it once did. Could just be age - but I don't really think it's as simple as that.

Ciao - Rob C

[Ray]

I think you are quite correct suggesting that quality control might prove to be more of a problem for manufacturers. It seems that variations of quality within the same lens type can be very wide - naturfotograf.com's proprietor has made some startling statements about the number of lenses of the same type that he has tested prior to finding one worth keeping. That he has had the opportunity to go this route is great, for him, but don't we all wish we could just ask the local friendly dealer for a box of lenses so that we could try them all and select the one that worked!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob,
I guess it all boils down to what the final cost of the lens is going to be and what the public perceives as good value. Before finally accepting an EF-S 10-22mm zoom for my 20D, I tested a copy of that lens in 3 different countries, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. The first lens I actually bought in Australia before thoroughly testing it; just a brief test in the shop. I later discovered it had an autofocussing problem at close distances; returned it but the store didn't have another copy of the lens available to offer me and I'd already arranged to travel overseas and couldn't wait for a replacement.

Whilst in Singapore, I tested another EF-S 10-22mm in the shop, using my laptop to view the results. The store manager could clearly see that the lens was not nearly as sharp as my Sigma 15-30 at 22mm. I didn't buy it of course.

The third lens that I tested in Kuala Lumpur seemed reasonably okay. No focussing problems and the lens was almost as sharp as my Sigma, so I took it.

Who knows, if I'd continued testing lenses from different batches in different countries, I might have eventually found one that was decidedly sharper than my Sigma. But at what cost to myself in time and trouble?

[Rob C]

Ray -

Yes, testing many lenses in the wan hope of finding a good one is not on; also, it is almost criminal that one should know that it is the way things are but also feel powerless in the face of it all. I have no sympathy with any manufacturer who has the ability, but not the desire, to weed out the trash before going to market with his wares.

What do they call these things, class actions? Quentin?

By the way, doesn't it seem sort of strange that a thread started by a possible troll has turned out to be one of the longer ones?

Ciao - Rob C

[Ray]

By the way, doesn't it seem sort of strange that a thread started by a possible troll has turned out to be one of the longer ones?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

Just goes to show that we don't need much encouragement to express our views, eh?  

[Rob C]

Just goes to show that we don't need much encouragement to express our views, eh? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tooo trooo!

Rob C

[Lin Evans]

What's a "2Dxs"?

How could you comment on a camera which isn't yet released (1D Mark III)? Have you beta tested it, or just commenting based on specs?

Actually if you mean D2X, it compares very well with Canon's best depending on what you do with your camera. I have Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS and 1D Mark II along with Kodak DCS-760, Sigma SD10, Sigma SD14 and Nikon D2X.

The D2X is my first choice for wildlife because of the autofocus speed and accuracy, 1.5x crop, excellent buffer and versatility. My 1D used to be my favorite action camera - still very good. My 1Ds I like for some landscape work but it never goes in my bag for shooting widlife. My favorite dSLR for IQ is my Sigma SD14.

Different strokes for different folks and use the tool which works best for the task at hand.

The choice of tool among the best from Nikon and Canon pretty much boils down to ergonomics and personal preference. CMOS does better at high ISO but for many of us high ISO is not terribly important. Personally, if I have to shoot wildlife at over ISO 400 I don't waste my time. On the other hand when I was shooting action and sports my favorite tool was my Nikon based Kodak DCS-720X for low light high ISO work.  So for action sports in natural no-flash low light conditions, high ISO is very important. For the event or wedding photographer who shoots perhaps 50% of his work where flash isn't allowed then high ISO thus Canon would prevail. For a wildlife shooter who prints large high ISO is pretty much wasted as it is for a landscape or portrait photographer.  

There is no "right" answer to the OP's question - just choose what works for you because the skills as a photographer far outweigh the minor differential in equipment.

Lin

I really don't think it matters for a photography student whether they choose Nikon or Canon. They should try each and choose the one which feels right to them. Each has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages

Whether troll or not, I've loved reading everybody's opinions.  I teach college photography and I love that this fight exists even amongst those with no real photographic experience.  My Dad shot with Nikon.  I shoot with Canon.  I tell my students to buy a camera that they can afford, that feels good and that they can grow with.  I almost always suggest Canon or Nikon.  IF Canon releases an entirely new line this year I'll probably be saying "Nikon?  What's a Nikon?".  I like the d200, but the 5d is great.  I hate the XTi, but the D80 is good for beginners.  But please, don't try and compare the 2Dxs with the Ids Mark II, or now with the Id Mark III. And besides, any photographer who enjoys low light has got to go CMOS 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

Personally, if I have to shoot wildlife at over ISO 400 I don't waste my time. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is that? With the 5D there's a slight loss of resolution at ISO 1600. With the 1Ds2 there's vitually no loss of resolution but slightly more noise than the 5D at ISO 1600. I'm not sure about the 1D3 which has upped the ante to ISO 6400, but I'd be surprised if there's any objectionable noise or loss of resolution with that camera at ISO 1600.

What is more objectionable than a slight trace of high ISO noise is loss of resolution due to a shutter speed that's too slow.

[Paul Kay]

I really don't think it matters for a photography student whether they choose Nikon or Canon. They should try each and choose the one which feels right to them. Each has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Earlier in this thread I tried to give some reasoning as to why Canon may be a more useful choice currently. These were not based on whether they were better or worse than Nikon, but on the potentiality of which it might be more useful to be fully conversant with if trying to get assisting positions after studying. I know of assistants who have specifically gone for Canon precisely to get work (which they have).

Whilst the thread has been very interesting and has shown just what a superb choice of equipment we have today, many of the choices we have to make are based on not merely our desires to own specific equipment (I'd love an M8 - despite all its apparent flaws - as I've owned several M Leicas, but am realistic enough to appreciate that it would be a substantially underused and expensive luxury which I have trouble justifying), but on factors over which we have less control. In an ideal world it would be nice to own one or even several of each cameras and lens systems, but I have enough trouble carrying all the equipment I want to use now, to say nothing of the workflow implications. In reality most of us are keyed into a single system for a very long time once we have made that initial, important decision.

On the ISO point - I have had substantial trouble changing my mindset on using low ISOs (a hangup which derives from film days I know!), and do find the low noise, high ISO settings to be surprisingly good when I actually steel myself to use them. I wonder how many others feel the same?

[Lin Evans]

Like my 1DS, neither the 5D nor the 1DS2 are suitable for my wildlife photography use but there is "objectionable" noise at even ISO 800 with both. As far as ISO 1600 or higher, it's fine for event photography where it's possible to use noise reduction in post and where print size requirements are not critical but useless when tight crops and enlargement are desired. ISO 6400 is rarely useful even with the finest low light cameras such as the Kodak DCS-620X. How the 1D3 will fare is yet to be seen, but judging from Canon's own released shots from this camera I sure hope it can do better.

Best regards,

Lin

Why is that? With the 5D there's a slight loss of resolution at ISO 1600. With the 1Ds2 there's vitually no loss of resolution but slightly more noise than the 5D at ISO 1600. I'm not sure about the 1D3 which has upped the ante to ISO 6400, but I'd be surprised if there's any objectionable noise or loss of resolution with that camera at ISO 1600.

What is more objectionable than a slight trace of high ISO noise is loss of resolution due to a shutter speed that's too slow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

Like my 1DS, neither the 5D nor the 1DS2 are suitable for my wildlife photography use but there is "objectionable" noise at even ISO 800 with both. As far as ISO 1600 or higher, it's fine for event photography where it's possible to use noise reduction in post and where print size requirements are not critical but useless when tight crops and enlargement are desired. ISO 6400 is rarely useful even with the finest low light cameras such as the Kodak DCS-620X. How the 1D3 will fare is yet to be seen, but judging from Canon's own released shots from this camera I sure hope it can do better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting perspective. It reminds me of the situation I was in when I first acquired a Canon D60. The ultimate resolution of a 6mp camera is less than fine grained 35mm film can offer, with a good scanner.

But the freedom from noise or grain that ISO 100 can offer, with a  mere 6MP DSLR, gives the impression that the digital image is somehow closer to MF.

I was very reluctant to use ISO 400 with my D60, not because it was bad compared with film, but because the noise at ISO 400 reminded me of the grain with even low ISO film.

When I jumped from the D60 to the 20D (I don't believe in intermediate upgrades), I was surprised that the 20D produced better images at ISO 1600 than the D60 at ISO 400. Better resolution and better color saturation.

I've completely got over this reluctance to use high ISO. Some people haven't. It's probably a hangover from past experiences.