Objective comparison of Canon to Nikon

[mwgrice]

Can anybody out there point me to a reasonably objective comparison of the Canon and Nikon product lines? I've been searching, but I keep finding a lot of flame wars, or comparisons of specific models.

I have learned, however, that Nikon lens caps taste better, but Canon lens caps are more filling (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=232812&postcount=17). Also, a 10 year old with an instamatic can get a surfing shot (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620).*

Currently I have both a Canon (Powershot A95) and a Nikon (Coolpix 950). The Powershot is a decent camera for a point-and-shoot but I'm beginning to get frustrated by its limitations (noise, the built-in lens, it takes forever to start up, etc.). The Nikon is showing its age (and more importantly it's only capable of shooting infrared now).

I'm looking for a DSLR, something along the lines of Nikon's D200/D80, or Canon's 20D/30D/350D. But I'm not looking for advice on buying a camera--I'm trying to get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of each manufacturer, the glass as well as the bodies and the sensors.

I thank you in advance for your flames, and will happily admit now that my choice of cameras, whatever that may be, demonstrates me to be a person of low morals and poor character.
:D

[gus]

Canon is way way better.

[Osprey Whisperer]

Canon has much better accessories. :D

http://www.pbase.com/blindmustangpilot/image/59750720.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/blindmustangpilot/image/59740764.jpg

[pathfinder]

Canon and Nikon have been battling it out in the marketplace for over 50 years and they both are still successful. Obviously, both systems are capable of making fine images.

The Nikon versus Canon debate has been discussed extensively here and all over the web. Search for Nikon vs Canon and see what you find. But in the end, it always comes down to a personal choice.

Gus, Andy, and I all shoot Canon and each have our reasons for this. Harry shoots with black lenses from Nikon ( poor deluded fellow that he is:D ), but the truth is that I envy him his system from time to time also. The camera bodies have slightly different ergonomics, some prefer one of the other. The systems do have some differences, but none are a deal breaker to me.

Canons long teles may be just a smidge cheaper than Nikons ( Harry would say this is proof of their superiority of course)

Nikons ultra-wide angles may be slightly better than Canon - altho there are those who would disagree.

Some prefer Nikons electronic flash system, but I find the Canon system superb in its control it gives me over lighting.

I can go on and on, but this has been discussed endlessly, and each person has to ultimately decide for themselves after reading and studying, and finally flipping a coin perhaps.

Make your choice after really studying the lenses offered and the flash systems. Bodies will come and go, but glass lives a very long time.

For me the deciding factor, was the quality of the offerings of the long teles from Canon and the availablity of a full frame camera that offers 2 1/4 quality in a portable 35mm size system.

It will be interesting to read the advise others will chime in with.

Welcome to the deep end of the pool:D

I see Bird Man has given our secret away again.

Hey, Birdman, don't let the new guys see the girls until they've been shooting Canon for at least a little while!!

[Blurmore]

Don't have a array of lenses and system accesories yet?? Choose either. And don't worry be happy. Want a wide range of AF and Manual lenses that can be used without an adapter get a Nikon. Want smooth low noise images at iso 800 and above choose Canon. The D80 is shaping up to be a D200 in a D70 body, and a 20D/30D is a proven durable and refined design. I shoot Canon for a very simple reason (some people would say stupid) it was the best camera out for the money when I was looking to invest in a DSLR system, and Canon believes in putting a PC flash connector ON THE BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of it's advanced amatuer/lowpro cameras. I wanted to give that the emphasis it deserved but it came up short.
My first question for any camera is...does it have a PC connector, if the answer is no or 'its on the flash' my answer for the camera is no, NO PC NO GO.

[rjpat]

If you want to compare specific camera models from both lines, go to www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)

[pathfinder]

A very interesting highly specific but pertinent reason. A PC connector to trigger a studioflash system ( not to connec to a computer eh??:D )


I'll add another for me - I have had to use the repair facility at Canon Factory Service in New Jersey and was favorably impressed with the speed and quality of the work.

I feel good knowing that my investment in Canon equipment is backed up by real, available quality factory service and maintenance. I hope I never have to use it again, but I like knowing that I can get my expensive toys repaired to factory specifications if the need arises.

Perhaps one of he Nikonians can make a comment about Nikons servie facilities and quality also, as I know nothing about that aspect of the Nikon systems.

[I Simonius]

Can anybody out there point me to a reasonably objective comparison of the Canon and Nikon product lines? :D

When I had this question Idecided there was only one solution - try them!

I took a CF card into the shop and filled em up with different cameras shots
The canon came out tops for me when I looked at them on my computer screen

[Osprey Whisperer]

I see Bird Man has given our secret away again.

Hey, Birdman, don't let the new guys see the girls until they've been shooting Canon for at least a little while!!

Really sorry about that Jim. I thought everyone new the ladies prefer the guys that wear white? :rofl

http://www.pbase.com/blindmustangpilot/image/57979773.jpg

[Harryb]

I can tell you why the Nikon system is the superor system for myself. Others can tell you why Canon is the superior system for themselves. None of us can tell you what the best system for you will be.

Try the offerings from each system and see which one you like working with best. That's the system for you.

I've used the Nikon repair service twice. Both times the repairs were done well and very quickly.

[Andy]

I have learned, however, that Nikon lens caps taste better, but Canon lens caps are more filling (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=232812&postcount=17). Also, a 10 year old with an instamatic can get a surfing shot (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620).*

Are you saying the outcome of The Great Debate wasn't clear to you? :scratch

[DavidTO]

Harry's right. Listen to Harry. It's whatever you like.

But asking questions is crucial, since part of your job now is to determine what you WILL like in the future. Going into a store and touching them, using them is important, but it's only part of the picture, and long-term satisfaction comes from understanding.

[Poseidon]

I knew this girl once........ her name was Pandora!

Really though, both systems are GREAT, just pick the one you can navigate the best. (Menu's and settings etc...)

[mwgrice]

Are you saying the outcome of The Great Debate wasn't clear to you? :scratch

The big thing I got out of it is that Canon tends to do better at high ISO. I admit I was hoping for something more along the lines of: the Canon lens line is strong here, weak there...

Oh, and the photographer seems to make a difference, too.:D

[bfjr]

Nikon is the be all end all in photo gear.

Ok now that that's cleared up :rofl

What's a Canon??? :dunno :lol4 :lol

[gus]

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

[bham]

If you truely want an objective comparison ask an owner of Olympus, KonicaMinolta, etc. Too many photographers have either a Canon or Nikon and I haven't found one that wouldn't recommend theirs over the other. So maybe if you can find someone here who owns neither they may could give you an more objective answer. Also maybe some Canon or Nikon users who switched from a previous system.

I am a Canon user and lover. I believe the main reason I switched to Canon, I had a Minolta film camera(actually still do), was that I knew a few sports photographers that had Minolta gear and they were selling it in favor of going to Canon. This was just bearly preDSLR.

I have been very happy. One other interesting bit of info. I got to know a sports photograher for the local paper who became a member of the AP. Once that happened he got a budget to buy equipment of his chosing. He chose Canon even though the newspaper had used Nikon exlusively for many years. I didn't really get into the why, due to time. This was after I had already gotten a Canon DSLR and lenses, so it didn't affect my decision but it somewhat reinforced it.

All this being said. Both are excellent and it comes down to a personal choice for you. Make it and don't look back.

[Seymore]

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.
And when that happens, I'll have all the QUALITY MF lenses I need, that Nikon made 20-30+ years prior. At that point, MF primes will be hard to come by, and worth a mint. As it stands now, the MF lenses I have are totally compatible with all the bodies I own. I expect that Nikon will keep it that way.

[gus]

And when that happens
Any idea when ? I mean lets face it, its no secret how to make a camera that can shoot at high ISO ?

Hmm....:scratch hang on...maybe it is. Seriously if this wasnt important then its a no brainer...either camera but this is a serious albatros around Nikons neck.

[mrmatt]

I'm a Canon 10D, 610, and Nikon 950 owner but I'm a pretty bad photographer and not very knowledgable. I think the best advice I read so far was to first check if you have any existing lens, if you don't, just pick one that appears to be strong in the area you prefer (or just flip a coin). My friend just recently got the new entry level Nikon DSLR (forgot model number) and I was a bit jealous since it seemed like a great price. I haven't bought anything for my 10D in a while and one thing that kind of bugs me is how my camera is not compatible with the EF-S lenses. I'm not sure if a similar situation exists for Nikon but if I were shopping that's one thing I'd look into.

I don't think you can go wrong with either really.

[Seefutlung]

I've used both Nikon (professionally) and now Canon (hobby). In terms of Image Quality (IQ) there really isn't any difference to speak of. The differences are slight, a Nikon may feel better to one while the Canon to another. Canon has better noise control at 1600 and 3200 ISO, but the difference is slight.

It has been my personal experience (former photo journalist) that similar level (pro, prosumer, consumer) equipment will deliver similar results. A professional will get the same shot with a Nikon D200 as he/she would with a Canon 30D, a D70 with a XT, a $250 Nikon P&S with a $250 Canon P&S, et cetera.

Same for lenses. A pro level Nikkor has similar resolution (sharpness) as a pro level Canon or pro level Sigma, Tokina, Tamron.

Remember that it takes about 50% more MPs to make a visual difference in an image. Even then one has to enlarge the image greater than a 8x10 to actually see a difference.

Presently, Canon has more lenses which are designed for digital cameras ... but Nikon will soon catch up. And the only other major area where Canon beats the rest it that it has a far greater line-up of dSLRs, on the top end, Canon's 1Ds and 5D are superior cameras to Nikon.

Equipment is great to talk about and hype what you have over the competition ... but it is all .. pretty much the same. What makes a difference in photography is the eye and mind behind the equipment.

In a nutshell, you cannot go wrong purchasing a Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, et al. They all perform pretty much the same within their respected class.

Gary

PS- My statements all refer to general photography ... if you shoot something in particular (say ... astro) ... then some brands may be superior to others. If I was starting out in digital photography ... here and now ... I would probably get the D200 (but I have too many lenses to switch now).
G

[Blurmore]

Any idea when ? I mean lets face it, its no secret how to make a camera that can shoot at high ISO ?

Hmm....:scratch hang on...maybe it is. Seriously if this wasnt important then its a no brainer...either camera but this is a serious albatros around Nikons neck.

Heh...Nikon HAS a CMOS camera but its most popular model is a CCD body with guts built by papa Sony (who has no qualms about using that same sensor in ITS OWN cameras and thereby diluting Nikon's market power). Simple statement Canon and Fuji are the ONLY DSLR manufacturers who don't outsource their most important component in the body, the sensor. So Nikon has pinned their success on and exploited the hopes of a legion of loyal photographers made more loyal by at one time purchasing good glass from Nikon. On another note, from what I have seen Nikon has been screwing their bricks and mortar stores by not fullfilling their orders in favor of keeping online retailers stocked. So when Nikon opts to put it's best technology in cameras that the common person can afford, then they come to the table playing straight with their (sometimes blindly) loyal legions of Nikkor lens owners. Untill then the 'whip' you spoke of will always be a call to post your iso 800 images. I'm not denying that Nikon glass is good, no I'll come right out and say it is frickin great, Fuji realized it, Kodak tried to get a piece of it, but both of those cameras were hamstringed by their own problems.

[Seefutlung]

Heh...Nikon HAS a CMOS camera but its most popular model is a CCD body with guts built by papa Sony (who has no qualms about using that same sensor in ITS OWN cameras and thereby diluting Nikon's market power). Simple statement Canon and Fuji are the ONLY DSLR manufacturers who don't outsource their most important component in the body, the sensor. So Nikon has pinned their success on and exploited the hopes of a legion of loyal photographers made more loyal by at one time purchasing good glass from Nikon. On another note, from what I have seen Nikon has been screwing their bricks and mortar stores by not fullfilling their orders in favor of keeping online retailers stocked. So when Nikon opts to put it's best technology in cameras that the common person can afford, then they come to the table playing straight with their (sometimes blindly) loyal legions of Nikkor lens owners. Untill then the 'whip' you spoke of will always be a call to post your iso 800 images. I'm not denying that Nikon glass is good, no I'll come right out and say it is frickin great, Fuji realized it, Kodak tried to get a piece of it, but both of those cameras were hamstringed by their own problems.

I really doesn't matter who makes the sensor, as long as Nikon specs are met and Nikon quality control are met. (IMO, this goes for any component or equipment. As long as the maker hits the specs of the designer, including quality control, then it doesn't matter who makes the equipment.)

Gary

[bfjr]

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

Oh please stop with the whip and No I don't dread these threads. I say bring it :rofl
http://MachineGun.smugmug.com/photos/79617389-L.jpg

http://MachineGun.smugmug.com/photos/73945614-L.jpg

[Blurmore]

Oh please stop with the whip and No I don't dread these threads. I say bring it :rofl


*cough* JFET (CMOS like) Sensor *cough*

lets see 800iso's from a D200

[Harryb]

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

I have to talk to all those pros whose workshops I have taken who told me to always use the lowest ISO possible. What's wrong with them anyhow?:scratch
Lets all buy Canons and set the ISO to 1600 permanently and snap away. :lol4

I've been shooting for a while now and I can count on one hand the number of times I needed to go to an ISO higher than 800. I'm amazed that I did so well in the Alligator Farm's photo contest using such an inferior camera at such low ISOs.

Sure its easier to shoot at higher ISOs. Just like its easier to not worry about your WB settings. Just because you won't get the maximum quality shot shouldn't deter you.

Sorry but the high ISO stuff just isn't a selling point to me.

[TomaS]

*cough* JFET (CMOS like) Sensor *cough*

lets see 800iso's from a D200

http://tomsprophoto.smugmug.com/photos/89676573-L.jpg

ISO=800 NikonD200 Nikkor 300mm f4
This is about 50% crop of original. Some sharpening applied.

It was overcast, train was less than smooth riding....

[Blurmore]

http://JKnauer.smugmug.com/photos/89116028-L-1.jpg

OOPS edited becuase it was the 30, I was shooting with both that day.
30D 1600 iso in deep shade straight out the camera.

[pathfinder]

I think the objectivity of this thread is rapidly disintigrating.............:wxwax:scratch

They're all good.:clap

[colourbox]

The thing is, the Canon users should not imply that Nikon is bad in low light. Clearly, Nikon is good in low light. The point the Canon people are making is that Canon can be better in low light, but the Nikon people may think the difference isn't important. And that's all fine.

I like the Canon high-ISO performance because I often find myself shooting handheld in low light and I can't afford the fastest lenses. If I used a tripod and had expensive, fast lenses maybe a Nikon would be adequate because I wouldn't be fighting for that last stop or two. That may be where some of the debate is coming from...people with different styles and lens budgets.

I have a Nikon film SLR and went to a Canon digital SLR because Canon had the better body/sensor at my price point at the time I bought, and I only have 2 Nikon lenses. But Nikon has been catching up. If I was buying my first digital SLR today, I would consider Nikon and Canon digital SLRs about equal and I might have never switched. I do love my Canon, however, no regrets there. As it stands, I'm glad I now have a few Nikon and Canon lenses because if either company comes out with a revolutionary digital body I don't have to think twice about buying it.

[Blurmore]

I had opportunity to shoot with a pro event photographer that uses both, yes thats right both (with their respective logo neck straps attached) hanging around his neck at the same time. Makes sense really. He uses the Nikon for flash photography because he likes the accurate WB/matrix metering/good color, he uses the Canon for low light ambient and telephoto work. Interesting thing is I don't think he uses any OEM lenses opting mostly for fast pro Tamron standard and Sigma telephoto glass. Strange guy, great photographer, no hang ups about being a brand trader.

[Seefutlung]

Canon at ISO 3200
14446
No Noise Reduction of any Kind.

[Seefutlung]

Canon at ISO 800
14447
No Noise Reduction applied.

[Seefutlung]

Canon at ISO 1600
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/photos/36640792-L.jpg
No Noise Reduction Applied

[mrmatt]

I had opportunity to shoot with a pro event photographer that uses both, yes thats right both (with their respective logo neck straps attached) hanging around his neck at the same time. Makes sense really. He uses the Nikon for flash photography because he likes the accurate WB/matrix metering/good color, he uses the Canon for low light ambient and telephoto work. Interesting thing is I don't think he uses any OEM lenses opting mostly for fast pro Tamron standard and Sigma telephoto glass. Strange guy, great photographer, no hang ups about being a brand trader.

I think the real problem is that there isn't enough people like that or more testers who are willing to do similar testing. To be fair, it'd require a ton of time and money to compare everything. Ideally I'd love to see more "small" tests where the same photographers shoots the same scene with similar equipment. With enough small tests it would be easy for someone to make a decision that suited their needs.

[gus]

Lets all buy Canons and set the ISO to 1600 permanently and snap away.
Hey ..now we are gettin' somewhere harry.

[Harryb]

Canon at ISO 1600
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/photos/36640792-L.jpg
No Noise Reduction Applied

Why was ISO 1600 needed for this shot?

[John Mueller]

Just a little story I thought I would share.
There is a guy that I deal with which carries Canon & Nikon.Most of my major Canon purchases have been through him.One day I told him I was interested in trying a Nikon.A kit type deal.I dont mind having 2 different systems.
He told me NO, you dont! I found this very odd.After all my money is green for whatever I want to purchase.
So,I ask,why not? He started to explain to me all this tech jargon that Im not really in to.:dunno:dunno:dunno:dunno
Funny thing though,I have watched him sell Nikons like it was the best thing going.

[Seefutlung]

Why was ISO 1600 needed for this shot?

It was dusk. Full EXIF=

22mm
F/4.5
1/60

I guess I could have lowered the ISO and shoot ISO 800 at 1/30 but that would put me right at the edge with Rule of Thumb handholdability. (22 x 1.6 = 35.2)

I was walking around the fair and 1600 gave me a greater shooting range at dusk.

Gary

[saurora]

Here's my 2 cents for whatever it's worth (which isn't much, I know!). I have the Canon 20D. I always coveted owning Nikon, but when I went to buy, the Nikon was just a little more awkward in my hands and I was already quite familiar with the Canon menus. Those were the only 2 reasons I bought Canon at the time. Since then I have purchased a 200mm f/2.8L lens, which is my longest lens. I do not have great strength or steadiness in my hands/arms. But I hate tripods and insist on hand-holding my lenses. The 200 for me is a nose-heavy lens with all that good L glass I guess. Add an extender and I have major shaking going on. I fought and fought to learn how to hold it steady, insisting on shooting at low ISO's because that's the way I learned years ago. Finally someone pointed out I should be shooting at a minimum of 400 and things have definitely improved since doing that. But I do a lot of shooting at dusk, in fact probably over half the shooting I do is late afternoon to early evening. So most of the time I am shooting at 800 and quite often 1600. I no longer "fear" the grain because Canon can handle those numbers. I would be happy to own a Nikon system, or a Fuji, or a Sony. I'm sure most of us would be. The differences are minimal at best, and I believe will not contribute to improving your shots. Unless I missed it, you haven't mentioned what you like to shoot and what types of lenses you wish to own. I think if you like to shoot in low light situations a large percentage of the time, you might lean towards Canon, otherwise they are all great.

[gluwater]

I thought this might be interesting to post here. I was at the Air and Water show on Sunday with FrankieAng. I was shooting a 20D with 300 f/4 IS + Tamron 1.4TC and Frank was shooting a D2H with 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. I was just looking at his images and noticed we both had the same shot taken miliseconds apart. Both shooting at ISO 400 me at f/8 him at f/5.6 both hand held. Besides the color and contrast difference that I am contributing to processing differences (he shot jpg I shot RAW) these shots are just about identical. I'll let you decide for yourself. Personally I think both systems worked wonderfully and would have been happy shooting either in this situation.

20D 300f/4 IS + Tamron 1.4TC (http://gluwater.smugmug.com/photos/89492616-L.jpg)

D2H 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 (http://www.pbase.com/eng45ine/image/65524783)

[DavidTO]

I thought this might be interesting to post here......[snip]


Hard to tell. The Nikon image has an overall cyan cast that I do not like, but as you said, could be in the post processing. Yours is more pleasing.

The one thing I did notice....smugmug loaded a lot quicker than pbase! :D

[pathfinder]

:agree :agree

[SuperJared]

How to find the camera you want:

1) Set your budget and find the cameras within that range.
2) Filter out which cameras won't fit your need feature-wise.
3) Go to your local dealer and give them a feel.
4) Look at sample photos from many (many) different photographers* -- does it give the quality you want?
5) Make the purchase and don't worry what anyone has to say about the brand you chose.

This worked for me in deciding which P&S to get.

*I've found that I can easily do this by searching for the camera name on flickr.

[Harryb]

It was dusk. Full EXIF=

22mm
F/4.5
1/60

I guess I could have lowered the ISO and shoot ISO 800 at 1/30 but that would put me right at the edge with Rule of Thumb handholdability. (22 x 1.6 = 35.2)

I was walking around the fair and 1600 gave me a greater shooting range at dusk.

Gary

About what I thought. If you had been using a tripod or monopod you could have used a much lower ISO.

[Harryb]

Here's my 2 cents for whatever it's worth (which isn't much, I know!). I have the Canon 20D. I always coveted owning Nikon, but when I went to buy, the Nikon was just a little more awkward in my hands and I was already quite familiar with the Canon menus. Those were the only 2 reasons I bought Canon at the time. Since then I have purchased a 200mm f/2.8L lens, which is my longest lens. I do not have great strength or steadiness in my hands/arms. But I hate tripods and insist on hand-holding my lenses. The 200 for me is a nose-heavy lens with all that good L glass I guess. Add an extender and I have major shaking going on. I fought and fought to learn how to hold it steady, insisting on shooting at low ISO's because that's the way I learned years ago. Finally someone pointed out I should be shooting at a minimum of 400 and things have definitely improved since doing that. But I do a lot of shooting at dusk, in fact probably over half the shooting I do is late afternoon to early evening. So most of the time I am shooting at 800 and quite often 1600. I no longer "fear" the grain because Canon can handle those numbers. I would be happy to own a Nikon system, or a Fuji, or a Sony. I'm sure most of us would be. The differences are minimal at best, and I believe will not contribute to improving your shots. Unless I missed it, you haven't mentioned what you like to shoot and what types of lenses you wish to own. I think if you like to shoot in low light situations a large percentage of the time, you might lean towards Canon, otherwise they are all great.

I'm not all that steady. That's why I use a tripod or monopod when I need one. I prefer using some form of support over the trade offs of using a higher ISO. There are many good reasons why using the lowest ISO possible is recommended.

When ever one of these useless threads get started Canon users start posting pictures of high ISO shots. The only thing interesting about most of these shots is that they were taken at high ISOs. When I view these shots my first thought is why was the high ISO necessary? The answr is usually that the shooter doesn't like using support (their preference but one I don't agree with) and/or they didn't have a decent flash available.

[Seefutlung]

About what I thought. If you had been using a tripod or monopod you could have used a much lower ISO.

Without prior consent tripods are not allowed and crimped my shooting style. Candids in an uncontrolled environment like a street or fair come at you quick (true the image in question was not a candid, but that was the intent of the fair shoot), no time for tripods or monopods.

Tri and Mono pods are wonderful tools but are very restrictive both in actual use and from venues.

In a perfect world I would tripod everything with ISO 1 at 1/100000 ... no camera shake ever. *sigh* but it isn't a perfect world.

So Harry, when you get well head out to your fair or downtown and try some candids ... your birds are beautiful. but variety is the spice of life.

Gary

[mwgrice]

When ever one of these useless threads get started Canon users start posting pictures of high ISO shots. The only thing interesting about most of these shots is that they were taken at high ISOs. When I view these shots my first thought is why was the high ISO necessary? The answr is usually that the shooter doesn't like using support (their preference but one I don't agree with) and/or they didn't have a decent flash available.

Well, I see their point. Some shots just aren't going to be there if you have to take the time to set up the tripod.

But I will admit that I am a bad, bad man for starting this thread.

[Harryb]

Without prior consent tripods are not allowed and crimped my shooting style. Candids in an uncontrolled environment like a street or fair come at you quick (true the image in question was not a candid, but that was the intent of the fair shoot), no time for tripods or monopods.

Tri and Mono pods are wonderful tools but are very restrictive both in actual use and from venues.

In a perfect world I would tripod everything with ISO 1 at 1/100000 ... no camera shake ever. *sigh* but it isn't a perfect world.

So Harry, when you get well head out to your fair or downtown and try some candids ... your birds are beautiful. but variety is the spice of life.

Gary

That's why I use a monpod too. Its not bulky or intrusive and allows me to get the shot I want w/o tthe trade-off of a higher ISO.

I took a fair number of candids in NYC.
http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/24902265.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/26109483.jpg

and other city stuff too
http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/15544248.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/17242193.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/9598517.jpg

I shoot wherever I go
http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/20620048.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/20695147.jpg

and even a few non bird shots in Florida
http://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/35662044.jpg

http://behret.smugmug.com/photos/18342063-O.jpg

I just haven't needed an ISO over 800 yet. I must be doing something wrong.

[claudermilk]

I'm going to be no help here. One of my major buying points with going Canon was the high ISO performance over Nikon. Except for that I initial leaned towards Nikon. For much of my shooting I have to be at ISO 3200 even with a tripod or monopod (theater lighting & no flash--whether I have one available or not). Really the two brands are so close to one another it's down to the little things that push you one way or the other.

BYW, Gary, small world. I know that dancer, imagine my surprise to see her looking at me in this thread. And of course the OC Fair scenes.

[Seefutlung]

...
I just haven't needed an ISO over 800 yet. I must be doing something wrong.

Nope, doing nothing wrong ... just limiting you photo opps.

Gary

[ziggy53]

...But I will admit that I am a bad, bad man for starting this thread.

As long as you admit your failing, you are halfway towards recovery.

Now you just need to buy a camera, and a lens, and memory cards, and more lenses, and a camera bag, and ..., well, you get the idea. :):

Just keep us posted and share your images.

ziggy53

[Harryb]

Nope, doing nothing wrong ... just limiting you photo opps.

Gary

Not at all. I haven't missed a shot yet that I wanted to take. I just haven't sacrificed quality. I rather take a shot on a monopod at ISO 800 than go handheld at 1600. That would be sacrificing quality for convenience.

I'm not saying that shooting at 1600 is bad just that its not necessary in most of the shots I've seen posted. Everytime I ask someone why did you use 1600 the answer almost always is that they wanted the ease of shooting handheld instead of using proper support for their camera. Sorry but to me that's not a big selling point.

[ziggy53]

Nope, doing nothing wrong ... just limiting you photo opps.

Gary

I don't know that Harry is limited, any more than we are limited by not having the beautiful long lenses he has. Harry has specialized, and he has acquired the equipment, and experience, necessary to produce gorgeous images, just not those that require ISO 3200 and some lowlight handheld situations.

Personally, I could be happy with the ISO 1600 of the D200, and possibly the D80 (from limited samples I've seen.) I think Nikon is closing the ISO gap with Canon. It is unfortunate to sacrifice the 1/500th flash sync, because I truly envied that of the D70(s) and D50.

I also think that Nikon did have a flash exposure advantage, but that E-TTL II and Digic II processing make that advantage much less now.

Other feature differences are less compelling to me, like the relative size differences and controls placement. I have discovered that I am trainable to almost any camera.

ziggy53

[ian408]

Greetings mw!

Harry and I met in Florida to discuss this very topic. You see Harry is a
heavy Nikon guy and I, a heavy Canon guy. At the time, we both had
cameras we each believed in. And we have the same set of glass.

In the end, I think we proved that between Nikon and Canon, it's your
choice. Best to find the one you like and not spend too much time worrying
about which is better. Because in the end it really is your choice.

Ian

[wxwax]

A tripod doesn't stop people from moving in low light situations. If you don't want the ugly look of flash, then you need high ISO.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/17165045-M.jpg

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/30382687-M.jpg

[Seefutlung]

Once again, you are limiting yourself to what you shoot. The limitation is in regards to the spectrum of photographic opportunities ... not limiting yourself within what you are already shooting. Many venues do not allow tripods or monopods and/or the subjects are moving.

Example:

ISO 3200 / Aperature 2.8 / Shutter Speed 1/100 / Focal Length 70mm

14480

[Harryb]

[quote=Seefutlung]Once again, you are limiting yourself to what you shoot. The limitation is in regards to the spectrum of photographic opportunities ... not limiting yourself within what you are already shooting. Many venues do not allow tripods or monopods and/or the subjects are moving.

Sorry but you aren't limited to high ISOs in dim lighting and moving subjects. example: ISO 200 1/4 sec exposure time handhledhttp://www.pbase.com/hpb/image/25688949.jpg

[Seefutlung]

Okay Harry, you're right. ISO 1600 -3200 is unwarranted. I'll let Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus, Pentax and Sony know.

Gary

[wxwax]

Sorry but you aren't limited to high ISOs in dim lighting and moving subjects. example: ISO 200 1/4 sec exposure time handhled


Nice shot. Silly argument.

[ChrisJ]

Sorry but you aren't limited to high ISOs in dim lighting and moving subjects. example: ISO 200 1/4 sec exposure time handhled
I think you need a little extra grain here to make it more interesting... have you tried a higher ISO? :wink

(Definitely a cool shot)

[Harryb]

Okay Harry, you're right. ISO 1600 -3200 is unwarranted. I'll let Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus, Pentax and Sony know.

Gary

That's not really the point. The only limitation on our photography doesn't come from our gear but comes from the limitations we place on ourselves. It doesn't matter what camera you use as long as you're happy with it and are willing to take the time to learn the camera's strengths and weakenesses. A good number of my "rebuttal" shots were from my ole Sony 717 which cost less than most of the lenses I now use.

A good photographer will get fine results weather he uses a Nikon, a Canon, A Sony, a Pentax, a Sigma, etc, etc, etc. There's no best camera out there just the camera that suits an individual's preferences the best.

[TomaS]

Isn't this getting a bit tiresome? Gary and Harry need to get out more.:D

While no eval is 'objective', at least this guy is familiar with the three Canon (D20, D30, D5) and Nikon D200 in the review. And it gets into a bit more than high ISO performance which is just one of many things to consider.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/20D_vs_30D_vs_5D_vs_D200

[ballentphoto]

Isn't this getting a bit tiresome? Gary and Harry need to get out more.:D

While no eval is 'objective', at least this guy is familiar with the three Canon (D20, D30, D5) and Nikon D200 in the review. And it gets into a bit more than high ISO performance which is just one of many things to consider.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/20D_vs_30D_vs_5D_vs_D200

Here is my Gallery of 640-800 ISO shots taken handheld with a 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon lens. All of them are handheld with a Nikon D200 :thumb One other advantage for Nikon is Auto-ISO Set your minimum ISO set the max and the min shutter that you want to use and the camera floats up and down as needed.

http://www.ballentphoto.com/gallery/1759033/1/87218802

Not too shabby IMO :):

[ian408]

One other advantage for Nikon is Auto-ISO Set your minimum ISO set the max and the min shutter that you want to use and the camera floats up and down as needed.

That's a nice feature.

[Seefutlung]

I agree ... arguing the need or lack thereof ... regarding high ISO is getting tedious. So Harry ... you shoot the way you deem appropriate and I will use a methodology that fits my needs and shooting style.

Gary

[CygnusX1]

No Photoshop here.

She just walked over and wanted a look at the Canon. :dunno

http://dcerutti.smugmug.com/photos/89283734-M.jpg

[gus]

No Photoshop here.

She just walked over and wanted a look at the Canon. :dunno


Dawin wrote about this sort of selection behavior :lol3

[saurora]

Thanks, Gus....this thread needed some levity!!! :rofl :rofl

[gus]

Thanks, Gus....this thread needed some levity!!! :rofl :rofl
Shhh...truth be know i couldnt care what someone uses as long as they use it.

Seriously though, i just like to get the pot boiling briskly so personal opinions come to the front & thus i think that helps with people making choices as to what gear to buy. Threads like this need objective opinions. People need to see others mention situations that they can relate to.

[ziggy53]

Dawin wrote about this sort of selection behavior :lol3

Well Freud wrote a little something that might relate here too! (But ladies might be present, so I defer.)

ziggy53

[Matthew Saville]

Can anybody out there point me to a reasonably objective comparison of the Canon and Nikon product lines?
:D
Right off the bat, I don't understand why you would want an objective comparison. You're going to be USING the camera on an every day basis, and which camera YOU prefer is going to be 100% subjective. If you force yourself to go with one system just because it is objectively better than the other, you could end up quite miserable...

My advice is to shoot with the cameras you're thinking about buying. Team up with some nearby photography aficionados (sp?) who have one of these systems, or rent them from a local store if they will let you put the money towards buying it if you decide to do so.

Just diving right in is not something I would do unless there were a very fantastic return policy offered to me. (meaning buy from Adorama, B&H, or KEH, and NOWHERE else!!)

I understand what you mean in your original post about an "objective" opinion, because you don't want some crazy fanboy pushing their brand on you, but I hope you understand what I mean, too. The decision must be a subjective, personal one.

Personally, I strongly prefer Nikon's camera body designs as opposed to Canon's. I like having two same-size dials, in similar fore and aft locations on the camera, to control my apeture and shutter speed, Canon's different sized dials just do NOT jive well with my brain. The front one is small and stiff, while the rear one is big and spins very freely. This throws me off. Some on the other hand are just head over heels for Canon's enormous rear wheel. Hey, whatever floats your boat!

So, go out and get your hands on the cameras. That's the best advice you can possibly get!

Take care and good luck,
-Matt-