Canon VS. Nikon

[icfireball]

I'm mainly looking at Canon VS. Nikon -- but add your opinion about other manufacturers if you want.

1) Which manufacturer's cameras do you like better?
2) Which manufacturer's cameras have better durability?
3) Which manufacturer has better lenses?
4) Overall, do you like Canon or Nikon better?

The cameras that I am looking at buying are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 -- MAYBE the 30D, but probably not.

I tend to prefer Canon cameras, and really like the 5D -- except two things.
1) No built-in flash. I want to use this camera for my non-professional work too, and I won't want to haul around a external flash with the camera just to have a flash.
2) It is getting to be an older and older model. About how often does Canon refresh/update their camera model (i.e. when will the 5D's predecessor be out). On the 5D's predecessor what would most expect to see? Do you think we will see an internal flash? Will it keep the full-frame sensor? Will it have increased resolution? Faster burst mode? etc.

The only qualms I have about the Nikon D200 is that it has a slightly lower resolution than the 5D, and that fact that it is a Nikon -- I haven't had much experience with Nikon dSLRs.

[e1618978]

I am a huge Canon fan. I used to photograph dance, and until recently Canon had two innovations that made it the only dance camera that you could use: USM lenses (so that you can't hear autofocus motors) and IS lenses (with built in gyroscope, so that you can hand-hold the camera instead of using a tripod).

I know that Nikon has copied these two things, but I trust Canon a lot more - even the first generation of these two technologies were wonderful, and I am sure that they are even better now.

Nikon is slightly cheaper, I know, but I would still go with Canon. I have a severe case of camera lust when I look at the 70-200 L IS lens from Canon - Nikon lenses just don't inspire the same feelings.

The Canon 5D is the way to go - you get a full frame sensor, not even the most expensive Nikon has that. If you buy a SLR with less than a full frame sensor, you will end up with a lens collection biased towards wide angles, which will be less useful when you trade up to a full frame later.

If you want built in flash, then don't get a pro camera like the 5D. All pro cameras use external flash. The 5D was only released a few months ago, I wouldn't start worrying about it going obsolete or anything.

[icfireball]

Originally posted by e1618978
The Canon 5D is the way to go - you get a full frame sensor, not even the most expensive Nikon has that.

By the same token, the most expensive Canon camrea doesn't have a full-frame sensor either

Here is the complication tho:

I have a whole bunch of expensive Nikkor lenses that went with my F-series film camera.

BUT, I also have a Canon to Nikkor F-Series Adapter ring.

Anyways, the D200 is very tempting...

In general though I think Canon is the company pushing evolution in cameras and lenses.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by icfireball
By the same token, the most expensive Canon camrea doesn't have a full-frame sensor either

Yes it does. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has a 16.7 mp full frame sensor.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598

or did you mean some other camera? The EOS-1D is old, which is the only reason that it does not have a full frame sensor, and it is less expensive than the EOS-1Ds.

Anyway - I didn't answer your question about lens quality and duribility. Both canon and nikon are about the same, I think, in these two respects.

[icfireball]

Originally posted by e1618978
Yes it does. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has a 16.7 mp full frame sensor.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598

or did you mean some other camera? The EOS-1D is old, which is the only reason that it does not have a full frame sensor, and it is less expensive than the EOS-1Ds.


Sorry -- I actually WAS referring to the EOS-1Ds Mark II. I was looking at a camera table and I accidentally thought Nikons D2X column was Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark II collumn.

As far as professional cameras not having internal flashes, I know this is true, but in my opinion that only professional camera that canon makes that shouldn't have a flash is the EOS-1Ds Mark II. The 5D could easily add a internal flash without much extra weight or cost. I guess my point is that owners of a 5D might have occation for not needing a professional flash but needing a professional camera whereas with the EOS-1Ds Mark II, owners of the camera will be able to afford studio lighting.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by icfireball
Sorry -- I actually WAS referring to the EOS-1Ds Mark II. I was looking at a camera table and I accidentally thought Nikons D2X column was Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark II collumn.

As far as professional cameras not having internal flashes, I know this is true, but in my opinion that only professional camera that canon makes that shouldn't have a flash is the EOS-1Ds Mark II. The 5D could easily add a internal flash without much extra weight or cost. I guess my point is that owners of a 5D might have occation for not needing a professional flash but needing a professional camera whereas with the EOS-1Ds Mark II, owners of the camera will be able to afford studio lighting.

I'm not a pro by any means, but the internal flash of most cameras really makes photos look bad. I mainly used very large F-stop lenses and no flash (particularly because I was trying to photgraph a performance that I did not want to interrupt) - to make a flash look good you need to be able to tilt the flash and get a bounce effect.

Some of the external Canon flash units can talk to each other wirelessly, so you can place a few and the flash sync with the main unit.

[icfireball]

Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not a pro by any means, but the internal flash of most cameras really makes photos look bad. I mainly used very large F-stop lenses and no flash (particularly because I was trying to photgraph a performance that I did not want to interrupt) - to make a flash look good you need to be able to tilt the flash and get a bounce effect.

Some of the external Canon flash units can talk to each other wirelessly, so you can place a few and the flash sync with the main unit.

I agree that straight on flashes will *not* get the perfect professional photo, but when the lighting is just too dark, I'd rather have an internal flash than no flash.

I had this idea a while ago to add a motorized flash rotator to internal flashes. A panel in the back of the internal flash would rotate the flash (not the popup flash part but rather the bulb and mirror that creates the flash within the popup flash unit) up to 80 degrees up and 80 degrees down.

[Bergermeister]

Though not in the same ballpark, I have a Canon IS2-IS and it has helbd up very well to a couple of accidental bumps and what-not, also starting up with the lens cover on (the lens then defaults to an error and scares the heck out of me).

It is a solid camera.

[icfireball]

As much as I like canons, I think for this I'm probably going to have to go with the Nikon D200. The only things the 5D is really better for is the brand, resolution, ISO performance, burst buffer, and full frame sensor + the Nikon is cheaper and newer.

[NielsD]

Both Canon and Nikon are of great quality, and I think its not possible to pick a winner. both D200 and 5D are wonderfull cameras.

I myself had to pick between Nikon and Canon (350D or D50) and went for the Nikon, only because it was much more comfotable to hold (350D was just to tiny for my rather big hands)

My advice would be, go to a reseller, spend some time with both cameras and pick your personal winner and go with that.

good luck making your decision.

[Powerdoc]

Ah ! the famous Canon/Nikon war.

Both are great camera companies, with fantastic lenses on both sides.

Nikon is great for :
metering
ergonomia
flash system

Canon is great for :
Image quality
high iso performance (especially for the 5D if you consider the ratio sharpness/noise)

This is a very silly resume.

Personally I am a Canon user. I bought my first canon , the EOS 650 when it was released in 1987. So I take the habit to use Canon EOS system. That's why 2 years ago, I bought an eos 10 D, and that's why, I use now an EOS 20 D and an EOS 5D.
If I use to be a Nikon owner, I am nearly sure, that I still will be on nikon gear.

My opinion, is Nikon and Canon make different cameras, but there is no bad choices here

[Placebo]

I love Nikon. The UI on their digital cameras is superior, and their lense selection is, last I checked, larger than Canon's by a lot.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by icfireball
The only things the 5D is really better for is the brand, resolution, ISO performance, burst buffer, and full frame sensor

That is some pretty important stuff... If the Canon is better on features, what advantage do you get from "the Nikon is newer"?

[Chucker]

Most seem to prefer Nikon UIs; I completely hate them, whereas I'm okay with Canon's.

Nikon often wins on build quality, whereas Canon wins on performance.

Etc.

Try before you buy.

[icfireball]

Originally posted by e1618978
That is some pretty important stuff... If the Canon is better on features, what advantage do you get from "the Nikon is newer"?

Just so that I don't kick myself in the ass for spending thousands of dollars when a new model comes out next week...lol

But again, Canon really ISN'T better on features -- just resolution, high ISO performance, and the full frame sensor. I mean those are very important, but they also come with a premium.

On a note about UI, I've heard the menus on the D200 is very good. But I'm not sure if I like the way the D200 does mode selection.


Another question:
Which two standard zoom lenses would you recomend for the Nikon D200 -- list one cheap/budget one and one with no price limit.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Ah ! the famous Canon/Nikon war.

Both are great camera companies, with fantastic lenses on both sides.

Nikon is great for :
metering
ergonomia
flash system

Canon is great for :
Image quality
high iso performance (especially for the 5D if you consider the ratio sharpness/noise)
Image quality is the sum of all these things, so to put that as a Canon advantage is stupid. At high ISOs, which even most hobbyist and pro photographers tend to avoid, Canons exhibit high chroma noise and Nikons have more luminance noise. Chroma noise reduction is what results in those splotchy blobs on Canon shots. Luminance noise looks just like film grain.

If you shoot exclusively in RAW, the "image quality" difference between Canon and Nikon is pretty much non-existent. Nikon's JPEG/TIFF processing uses very conservative sharpening.

If I snap a better looking image due to superior AF and metering, it doesn't matter how good Digic is.

[Splinemodel]

The way I see it, they're both pretty good. Some folks say Nikon optics are a notch above Canon, but I'm not at the level where I could tell you the difference. Canon has the better digital image sensors, for sure: at least based on the engineering of it all.

Although I'll admit that I've found AV people have a hard time accepting the laws of physics. I've had a hard time convincing some folks that for audio quality GSM is vastly inferior to CDMA-95 (and especially 2000), or that analog audio components end up delivering worse signal-to-noise ratio than does a good, digital setup.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
analog audio components end up delivering worse signal-to-noise ratio than does a good, digital setup.

High signal to noise ratios must lead to lousy sound then,
because analog systems sound better than digital 8)

[keot]

I've been reading up on the differences between the Nikon D70s and Canon 30D and there is no real difference other than price and lens compatibility.

I read that with an converter you can use Nikon lens on a Canon camera, but you cannot do the reverse.

Given that you already have a feel for Canon cameras over Nikon ones, I'd go for the former. The built-in flash on any camera is near-useless anyway.

(I may be biased, because I've already decided to save up for a Canon...)

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by e1618978
High signal to noise ratios must lead to lousy sound then,
because analog systems sound better than digital 8)

That's right, you're the primary offender. . . I'm going to leave it at "psycologically induced" and move on ... for now.

[dmz]

I have no experience with Nikon, but I can't say enough good things about my 20D.


http://static.flickr.com/49/155843980_d1f8bbcfc1.jpg

...now if I just knew how to operate lens cleaning paper, I'd be all set.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Eugene
Image quality is the sum of all these things, so to put that as a Canon advantage is stupid. At high ISOs, which even most hobbyist and pro photographers tend to avoid, Canons exhibit high chroma noise and Nikons have more luminance noise. Chroma noise reduction is what results in those splotchy blobs on Canon shots. Luminance noise looks just like film grain.

If you shoot exclusively in RAW, the "image quality" difference between Canon and Nikon is pretty much non-existent. Nikon's JPEG/TIFF processing uses very conservative sharpening.

If I snap a better looking image due to superior AF and metering, it doesn't matter how good Digic is.

stupid ?

Not really .
Metering is not IQ

In DSLR camera, film have been replaced by a sensor. A particular film, with a particular lenses give the same results on a F6 or a F3, but nobody will dispute the fact that the F6 is a better camera, with better metering, flash system, shutter .... allowing to take shots technically OK, most of the time. Compared to a 24-36, a 4 by 5 chamber will give much better IQ, but nobody will dispute that this camera is way more difficult to use, and that futhermore, in many case, you can simply use it (baseball shots with a chamber ? )

So I will say that depending on the subjects (crop factor issues here), the 1dsmark 2 is slighty better than the 5D, wich is better than the D2X, wich is better than the D200. The D200 is almost on par with the 30D : both these cameras are better than the 6mpixels generation (the S3 is a different camera, so I won't mention it)

For high iso performance, the 5D rule. Even if this camera have slighty more chroma noise it has :
- less luminoise (by a great margin)
- more shaprness at 1600 and 3200 isos (my 5D is way sharper at 1600 and 3200 iso than my 20 D : I have many DxO tests backing this)
Shooting in RAW will do some goods on NIkon camera (and on Canon camera two) but will never allow to make a D2X as good as a 5D at 1600 (or worse at 3200 isos)

The FF camera introduce a lot of cons, especially with UWA lens wide open in the corners, compared to APS camera and their custom UWA lenses, but it also have some advantages, and one of the greatest one is high iso performance.

Last point, many photographers will tend to avoid iso, if they have the choice, but impressive high iso performance open the door on an entire new world of pics. I will never shoot a landscape at 1600 isos on a tripod, but for concert shooting, it's the only way to go. It's almost the same for indoor sports.

Here is a sample taken at 3200 isos at F2 (noise removed by noise ninja) :
http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/image/58801439/large.jpg

[icfireball]

What is your opinion of this lens?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/255112138.htm

[e1618978]

dmz - nice! you get up early.

powerdoc - That is what I am talking about! No flash, just fast lens and fast film speed. This is the kind of look I was trying for with my dance photography.

Originally posted by icfireball
What is your opinion of this lens?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/255112138.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/18200.htm

It is OK, evidently - but if you ever move to a full frame camera you will have to sell it.

[Splinemodel]

Wow. . . NoiseNinja. . .

I'm not much of photography guy, but I hate noise. At times I have used a hacked-up neural net in Matlab to remove image noise, but it takes forever. I wouldn't have thought wavelets would be dynamic enough to use for effective noise removal, but I guess they get around this by using device profiles and their "revolutionary technique." . . . I think I have to get it.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
Wow. . . NoiseNinja. . .
I have agree -- I just went over to their site. Wow -- and they're not asking a fortune for it.

[Res]

Originally posted by icfireball
I'm mainly looking at Canon VS. Nikon -- but add your opinion about other manufacturers if you want.

1) Which manufacturer's cameras do you like better?
2) Which manufacturer's cameras have better durability?
3) Which manufacturer has better lenses?
4) Overall, do you like Canon or Nikon better?

The cameras that I am looking at buying are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 -- MAYBE the 30D, but probably not.
-snip-


Make sure you check out http://www.dpreview.com/, it is the best website for information on digital cameras.

Personally, I've always liked Nikon lenses and cameras, so that is what I used to use back when I was into photography (I loved my Nikon N90s and FM2). Nowadays I just carry a Canon PowerShot SD300

You can't go wrong with any of the cameras you listed, but I would probably go with the Nikon D200 over Canon 5D. The quality is about the same, and the Nikon D200 costs a lot less (and you can use the savings to get the needed accessories).

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Here is a sample taken at 3200 isos at F2 (noise removed by noise ninja) :
http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/image/58801439/large.jpg
Could you repost a version of the image that doesn't suffer from massive JPEG compression? As well this photo is clearly resized. I'd like to scrutinize a more pristine version.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Eugene
The patches of solid color are clearly visible on the boys face despite your image being resized (I know it is).

It's most disturbing around his upper lip, chin and the left side of his face.
It's most disturbing that you're calling her a boy.

she's not, right?

[e1618978]

Eugene - are you sure it is not your monitor? The whole picture looks natural to me. The right side (our left) of her face is out of focus because the depth of field is so small.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by e1618978
Eugene - are you sure it is not your monitor? The whole picture looks natural to me. The right side (our left) of her face is out of focus because the depth of field is so small.
DoF should produce smooth gradients, not stepped ones like you see there. However I realized the photo was only 32KB later so it's a moot point. It's impossible to judge a photo like this with such heavy compression along with it clearly being resized. If it's not a 100% crop, what's the point?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Eugene
DoF should produce smooth gradients, not stepped ones like you see there. However I realized the photo was only 32KB later so it's a moot point. It's impossible to judge a photo like this with such heavy compression along with it clearly being resized. If it's not a 100% crop, what's the point?

You kind of have to resize pictures for the internet - or else people start complaining. Also - 72dpi monitors means that you get pictures too big for your web browser window.

[icfireball]

Originally posted by Res
Make sure you check out http://www.dpreview.com/, it is the best website for information on digital cameras.


I'm already familiar with dpreview (and in fact posted a similar question on that forum also :-)

[Powerdoc]

Eugene : I will try later to put on my Pbase account the original version.

Here is the link to a bigger version :


Her seventh birthday (http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/image/58801439/original)


Here is a concert gallery taken at 1000 and 1600 iso (some shots are in raw others in JPEG : no noise ninja reduction here)


jazz (http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/doctors_in_jazz)

http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/image/57955497/large.jpg

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by e1618978


powerdoc - That is what I am talking about! No flash, just fast lens and fast film speed. This is the kind of look I was trying for with my dance photography.




Yes the 5D is wonderfull for concerts

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Res
Make sure you check out http://www.dpreview.com/, it is the best website for information on digital cameras.

Personally, I've always liked Nikon lenses and cameras, so that is what I used to use back when I was into photography (I loved my Nikon N90s and FM2). Nowadays I just carry a Canon PowerShot SD300

You can't go wrong with any of the cameras you listed, but I would probably go with the Nikon D200 over Canon 5D. The quality is about the same, and the Nikon D200 costs a lot less (and you can use the savings to get the needed accessories).

The 5D and the D200 are two differents cameras, who both winned the 2006 TIPA awards. The choose between the two cameras, depends on :
- the type of gear you allready own (lenses ...)
- the type of shots you love

The 5D is wonderfull for landscapes, but if you shots sports outdoors in rainy conditions, the weather sealed D200 is the way to go.
BTW the D200 and 18-200 VR is a very nice combo.

[O-Mac]

someone told me that the Nikon's were better and that Canon's were crap...that the Nikon's were a "real" camera...and this perso nwas a photography major in college...

I have the Canon Digital Rebel SLR...as far as I can see it takes great pics...

[Bergermeister]

Just spoke to a retired engineer for Minolta Camera... he said Canon was the way to go.

[Mac on a Mac]

Canon and Nikon both make wonderful cameras. I use Canon, but would not hesitate to look at Nikon if I were starting out again. Lens quality is one thing that people often neglect to consider when they are getting all excited about mega pixels and UIs and so on. Nikon and Canon both make great lenses. Consider buying a high quality lens rather than the cheap consumer zoom that is available in most kits. I know that an expensive lens is not as sexy as a high-tech gadget, but it is worth it. The lens is the eye of the camera and the camera can not be better than its lens.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by O-Mac
someone told me that the Nikon's were better and that Canon's were crap...that the Nikon's were a "real" camera...and this perso nwas a photography major in college...

I have the Canon Digital Rebel SLR...as far as I can see it takes great pics...
This is a byproduct of film days when it was clear a large number of elite PJs and artists favored Nikon. Ansel Adams, for example, used a Nikon FM when not shooting large-format. Canon was considered the brand for 'shooters' and not photographers.



As for what a Minolta engineer says...Nikon was its traditional rival so it's obvious that he would give Canon the nod. I'm surprised he's not jumping on the Sony-Alpha bandwagon.

[Relic]

Canon, hands down. I just recently bought a EOS-1D and a 350D as a backup. The Nikon D200 uses Sony's CCCD technogy which I'm not a great fan. I recomend the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503) lens it's a must have!

[Fellowship]

I happen to love my Canon 20D

But my Canon is nothing next to my wife ;)

Photos taken with Canon 20D:


http://homepage.mac.com/fellowship/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2005-03-29%2007.34.57%20-0800/Image-739BCD92A06711D9.jpg


http://homepage.mac.com/fellowship/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2005-03-29%2007.34.57%20-0800/Image-739BA420A06711D9.jpg

Also see some of these Pictures (http://homepage.mac.com/fellowship/PhotoAlbum66.html) taken in Paris France.

I would say get a good quality camera and not worry so much about the camera make and "focus" ;) more on the subject matter of which you will be capturing with each shot.

Fellows

[dmz]

Fellowship: Have you unlocked the ISO 3200 option? -- it's under a custom menu. I wouldn't have thought the 20D went to 3200, but poked around after powerdoc posted the photo of his daughter.

[e1618978]

Nikon needs to expand the number of VR lenses if they want my business. I am saving up for a EOS 5D.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by e1618978
Nikon needs to expand the number of VR lenses if they want my business. I am saving up for a EOS 5D.
ROFL.

If image stabilization is what you desperately desire, go with Sony's new Alpha (Minolta rebadged) line. Sony has reportedly improved on Minolta's design by incorporating much of its own steadyshot technology.

Besides...Nikon pretty much has the same catalog of VR lenses as Canon *except* the high end fixed teles...around 7 each. And since you're "saving up" for a 5D, I'm guessing you can't afford a 600m telephoto. Lenses with that kind of throw aren't going to be handheld anyway.

Oh and since a few of those Canon IS lenses are in fact EF-S, a 5D wouldn't be able to use them.

Have a nice day.

[Matsu]

It's obvious that Canon has the best sensors right now. Or, I should say best overall combination of sensor and processing. But this is neither here nor there in many cases. In similarly priced cameras, D200 and 30D, there's little to give between competently exposed shots, at any ISO. When disecting image quality people should think about display size, whether that's electronic or print. Resized monitor viewing, will make many a camera just about equal anywhere from 6MP to 16MP -- even a 30" ACD doesn't have 6MP of resolution -- not that resolution and MP count are synonymous. The same goes for print sizes and resolution at various "speed" settings, or higher ISOs. 4x6 or 5x7, A D50 is as good as a D1sMkII. It all depends on what sort of output you're looking for.

You will find that a 30D or D200 will give pretty much the same print image at any size under high ISO: 30D a little cleaner (per pixel), the D200 a few more pixels. Print some 8X10, or 18x12 from ISO 800 or 1600, properly processed, and challenge anyone to pick them apart. At lower ISO's the 5D and D200 will print pretty even as well, though there's no denying the high ISO advantage of the 5D at larger print sizes, which is as it should be for a camera that costs nearly twice as much.

But what does all this mean? It means that too much is being made of sensor tech already. Also, the only thing we know for certain is that newer, sharper, better sensors will be coming out all the time, and that eventually these will be commoditized, and you'll be able to get pretty much the same performance from any brand. Therefore, let the lenses be your guide. If you already own some good ones, then that's the brand of camera that makes the most sense to buy. Don't spend your money for a body that allows huge prints from high ISO files unless, a, you're getting paid for it, and, b, you're doing it a lot. Look at powerdoc's pic above. It's downsized for screen display; shown that way, or printed that size, any number of DSLR's, old and new, could have produced the same result.

Any of Canon, Nikon, and Sony will remain well supported systems for both professional and hobbiest alike. Sony, by re-issuing a lot of Minolta lenses, will build off the small base of Minolta shooters, but when they add pro bodies, they will get more attention. They have done masterful work in video, and for a generation of image makers growing up without ever shooting film, they have huge potential to build off their brand equity into the realm of still imagery as well.

Certainly different professionals should consider different systems depending on their work environment, subject matter, support network, etc etc... Service and rental availability in your area and abroad can also be a major consideration depending on what you shoot, and for whom.