nikon or canon for digital

[sergio]

Close your eyes and just do it. You won't regret it. I just received a 1Ds with a 16-35 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS and the 50 1.4. I have been using the 70-200 and it is VERY sharp. I have a closetfull of Nikon gear for sale. This camera is something else.

[sergio]

If you are unsure, the Fuji S2 is said to be very good. However if you do take the plunge, believe me, it is worth every cent. About the spot meter you can get a used Minolta or Pentax for a good price in Ebay. With the histogram option in digital cameras you dont have to rely as heavily on your meter.

[edumke]

I am sure that this topic could quickly degrade into a full on Canon vs. Nikon mud fest, but I'll add my two cents.

I have no experience with the Canons, which many photographers rave about, but I'm sure you can't go wrong there.

I do have experience with the Nikon D100. Last winter I took it along on over 50 days of Skiing/Mountaineering. Dozens of days below zero, in driving snow storms, in and out of yurts and tents  (resulting in condensation). I did not baby it one bit. Absolutely no malfunctions. I took thousands of great shots. The D100 feels indestructible, and yet compact enough to go everywhere with me. I couldn't be happier.

[David Mantripp]

Jonathan said

I have a 1Ds, and I find myself using the histogram display and highlight alert (pixels with clipped brightness blink) constantly, and the spot meter very rarely.

I haven't even gone Autofocus yet, but I use spot and multispot metering frequently.  So forgive if this is stupid, but, surely, the histogram is not related to the metering mode directly but to the entire image. It tells me if my global exposure is "wrong", but if I'm more concerned about a particular area - as I would be with spot metering - it tells me little.  Histograms are very useful but they're no replacement for metering modes. Or am I wrong ?


Actually, I'm amazed to hear that the 10D has no spot meter. With it's distant ancestor, the T90, I can use spot metering and then move the spot around to see how my metered reading compares with other areas in the image. I think it's things like this - intelligent features which somehow peaked in the early 90s - and other things like 100% viewfinders - which DSLRs have lost in the race to resolution etc.  Hopefully when the dust settles we'll get back to camera design as opposed to computers with lenses stuck out front.  Then maybe I'll change my mind.

Having said that, my Olympus C4040Z has got a pretty good spot metering mode  

[Dan Sroka]

David, I use a combination of the spot meter and the histogram on my Nikon D100. While they are similar functionally, their user interface is very different -- so for me, the histogram does not replaces the need for a spot meter.

The spot meter is perfect to use while your eye is to the view finder -- you can quickly meter-and-shoot. And the histogram is great  for a detailed follow-up analysis of the shot. I often shoot using the spot meter, then look down to the LCD display for a confirmation of the histogram (on the D100, you can set the LCD to automatically display the last photo, and switch between a normal, histogram, or blinking-blown-out-highlights mode. I'm sure the Canons have something similar).

Dan

[Jonathan Wienke]

When I decided to get a digital SLR, the D100 was the first one I seriously looked at. There are some things it does a little better than the equivalent Canon/Fuji offerings. I ended up getting the 1Ds because I was able to arrange the finances and I wanted the best image quality I could get. But in the 6 megapixel class, the D100 is nothing to be ashamed of.

[sergio]

I just returned from the most humid place of the world and the second with most rain : Choco tropical rainforest in Colombia. I took a 1Ds, a 70-200 IS 2.8, 16-35 2.8 and the 50 1.4 with an ibook. I had almost permanent rain, so I had the camera inside a bag while shooting. I was for a good part of the journey in a small boat at sea with huge waves splashing all around and my camera got moderately wet a couple of times. I am very happy with its performance. Not a single failure. The ibook did have several failures due to high humidity. It is a very expensive camera but worth every cent. We are not only talking about sensor performance, but everuthing else in it. Very reliable.

[glen gaffney]

I am thinking of going into digital. I have a whole array of nikon lenses and cameras. From the research I have done so far it appears canon is streets ahead of nikon in digital in terms of quality and price.  They also say that canon software is more user freindly than nikon. I am thinking of the d10 or the d30 any suggestions or input welcomed So i am faced with a dilema go into canon and get some canon lenses but then it wont be as cost effective any more. A photographer here in northern ontario dropped his  digital camera in the water. Canon told him it was finished they sent it back to him 3 months later. He tried it and its been working ever since. That really impressed me and speaks volumes

[Brad Hinkel]

I would definitely not push aggressively for just dumping your Nikon investment and moving to Canon - look carefully at your options since this type of change could cost lots of dollars.
First, the Canon 10D is a great camera for under $1500 - but it has one major limitation; no spot meter.  I have a couple students who purchased this camera and find it extremely frustrating that it doesn't have one.  (A Canon rep. responded that 'no professionals really use a spot meter any more' - since when?).  The bottomline is look carefully at the camera options - even try them out for a day to find out what works best for you.  And the Nikon D100 is definitely a solid competitor to the Canon 10D.  But evaluate it as well.
Second, the most durable cameras are the pro models - these are the Nikon F5/D1 models and the Canon Eos 1d models.  Both are built very solid.   I would expect both to take a beating or even swim and still work.
I would toss out another option for consideration.  Look at buying a used Nikon D1x camera.  I have seen them available for less that $3000.  Yes, this camera has only 5.5 mega pixels; but the best 5.5MP there are on the market today.  I (and others) have made thousands of great images with this camera.  I have prints up to 20" x 30" from this camera - very sharp if you process them carefully.  And yes it has survived some real abuse.  If you want to shoot wide angle, get a Sigma 14mm 2.8 lens for around $700.  Lastly, the Nikon software is fine.
  If I owned Canon lenses (very good lenses at that) - I would consider the Canon 1ds - I have shot this camera and it is a wonderful product, in a league of its own.  But with Nikon lenses (also great lenses), I'll stick with what I have.  I honestly do expect that Nikon will come out with a great camera in the next 12 months to compete with the 1ds - maybe then I'll take a look at it.
Save some money, get a good camera, and shoot, shoot, shoot.
Also, remember that the Canon 1ds is not the highest resolution camera available - the resolution debate is a slippery slope of increasing cost.

Brad Hinkel

[Jonathan Wienke]

I have a 1Ds, and I find myself using the histogram display and highlight alert (pixels with clipped brightness blink) constantly, and the spot meter very rarely. It is much faster for me to take a test shot and look at the histogram than to try to take several spot readings and figure out an optimum exposure. If there is a spike on the high end of the histogram, stop down or speed up the shutter. If the highest values in the image are nowhere near the right sde of the histogram, open up or slow down.

Regarding the camera software, neither Nikon or Canon has world-beating programs; for best results, use either Adobe Camera RAW, or Capture One (if you can afford it).

If your budget dictates something in the 5-6 megapixel class, Nikon, Fuji, and Canon all have excellent offerings, and selling your Nikon glass may not be your best option. But if you can afford the Canon 1Ds, and really want the best image quality you can get for under $20,000, then selling your Nikon glass and switching makes a lot of sense. The 1Ds is currently in a class by itself in overall image quality, and it doesn't appear that there will be a serious challenger to it within the next year or so. (Unless Kodak comes out with a drop-in low-noise sensor upgrade for the 14n, but I'm not going to hold my breath...)

[Tom Hill]

Really it comes down to your needs.  I figure it's two major differences between the camera line-ups--okay maybe three--with Canon leading; full framed sensor, IS technology throughout their lens lineup, and 8fps.

Now, if you aren't into buying a whole lot of new lenses, you aren't needing the full framed capability of the excellent 1Ds, or you're not looking to "machine gun" your subjects, staying Nikon will probably save you a lot of money and not give you any more headaches than moving to Canon.  

For producing images that meet normal home user needs--13x19 inches max for example--all of Nikon's SLR's are outstanding.  It's my experience the software isn't heads or tails better one way or the other.  

Cheers

[Jonathan Wienke]

The histogram shows you the distribution of shadows, midtones, and highlights within the image. With digital, all of the exposure latitude is in the shadows--blown highlights are not recoverable. So the best strategy is to shoot so that the highlights are close to the right edge of the histogram, but not quite touching it. If you see a spike on the right edge of the histogram, you overexposed and should probably retake the shot. Once you have your RAW image with no clipped highlights, you can brighten excessively dark areas of the image with levels, curves, or other adjustments, or even open the RAW file multiple times with exposure settings optimized for different areas of the image. (I use this technique a lot with Adobe Camera RAW.) If the dynamic range of the image is beyond RAW files, then bracket and blend.

Bottom Line: Highlights represent a hard limit which, if passed, the image is unsalvageable. So always expose for the highlights unless you are bracketing. The easiest way to check this is to look at the right edge of histogram after taking a test shot. In effect, you are using the histogram as a meter reading in a manner optimized for digital imaging instead of film.

[rokkitan]

If you want a pro Nikon dslr (D2x&D2h?) it will come this autumn.  Nikon has leaked to British Journal of Photography that they will launch a new pro dslr "in the course of this year".

All this according to www.fotografi.no  (website for a Norwegian photo magazine)

[John Floyd]

After spending much time on my favorite digital photo site (Luminous Landscape), I went ahead with my D100 purchase with some trepidation, considering the heavy Canon weighting this site seems to mantain.  However, the D100 works perfectly in all respects, and Nikon is now coming out with a series of lens for this receptor size, and that could improve my future situation further.  The technical quality of my images has jumped a magnitude.  Unfortunately, it's still the same photographer otherwise.

[Blake]

As Michael has said, most cameras are better than most photographers... I chose the D100 because I already had Nikon lenses (though I've since replaced them all but 1!) and it had the spotmeter and a 2 second self-timer (not just 10 seconds). And I have little doubt that Nikon has something up its sleeve to announce later this year... Don't get hung up on what camera to use, just get one and start shooting!