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In DSLR camera, film have been replaced by a sensor.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) :
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 - 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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 lens it's a must have!
Comments
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.ritzcamera.com/product/255112138.htm
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 :-)
Here is the link to a bigger version :
Her seventh birthday
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
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
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.
I have the Canon Digital Rebel SLR...as far as I can see it takes great pics...
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.