Canon - Nikon Observations

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:21:51 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:34:18 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

Print size isn't the only consideration, and there are things besides
the number of pixels that determines that. The D700 at 12 MP has
less noise, thererfore it produces cleaner images and it has a better
feature set overall than the 5DII.
Feature sets are somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Both bodies are
rich in them.

In terms of objective feature sets like autofocus, metering, and flash
capability, the Nikon is clearly better.

In your view.

In anyone's objective view. If you look at the specifications for
the above things, the D700 is simply more capable than the 5DII.

One of the "complaints" you hear from Canon users is that the 5DII
isn't really a significant improvement over the original 5D other than
resolution and some added high tech bells.

However, the 5DII shoots movies and has a better live view mode than
the D700.


But I'd like to examine the noise statement. Arguably, the 700 is better
at high ISO noise reduction- but by how much? Certainly, you'll not be
finding any reputable reviewer saying there's a significant difference
below some threshold, say ISO 400. Or will you?

Most dslrs will do quite well below ISO 400. One of the reasons for
buying a "full frame" camera is that they perform better at high ISO
than crop sensor bodies. Therefore, the place to compare FF cameras
with one another is at the high ISO end.

(The other main reason for buying a full-frame camera is that it gives
you better wide-angle performance and more control over DOF than a
crop body.)

At lower ISO and normal print sizes you won't find that much
difference in actual quality between a D300 and a D700, for example.
Both are excellent.

You've written sensibly, but not addressed the question.

What was the specific question I didn't address?

J. Clarke wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
[]
The XSi is nowhere in the same class as the D90, and you know
that!

In what respect. In look and feel and the way the controls
operate?
I agree. In terms of image quality? That depends on the lenses.
Some say they are about the same while others say differently.

One is an entry-level camera, the other a much higher-end camera.

Canon 450D GBP 379

Nikon D90 GBP 635

While this is true, what leads you to believe that there will be a
significant difference in image quality? They have roughly the same
pixel count, roughly the same noise levels, roughly the same dynamic
range, so where's this noticeable difference going to come from?

All I said was that the two cameras were not in the same class. In
stills, I wouldn't expect much difference in basic image quality, although
I've not compared test images.

You may need a significantly better camera than the 450D to see a
significant difference in the lenses (i.e. something which couldn't
be
corrected in software). If the lenses were really /that/ bad, why
would anyone buy them?

Very likely true. You'd also need a significantly better camera than
the d90.

Yes, I was thinking 20-25MP.

David

ray wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:20:21 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

measekite added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel
Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons
for quicker access to everyday controls.

That's what is so wonderful about freedom of choice. I feel exactly the
opposite as you do: I love the XSi's ergonmics and it's much smaller
size and weight than the Nikon. Others don't. That's what choice is all
about.

The jury is still out about the Canon 50D. Most of the reviews claim
that it is better than the D90 but after a quickie look the D90 seems
more comfortable.

How does beingg more comfortable add up to "better"? Are you considering
image quality as well as look and field? Sounds an awful lot like you're
making very subjecting statements and jumping to conclusions with
nothing more than unfounded assumptions. I don't really care as everyone
is entitled to their opinion.

I don't know that being more comfortable equates to better, but it's not
good to have a product you're going to curse at every time you pick it up
because it's NOT comfortable. IMHO - comfort and ease of use should be
big factors whenever you select someting like a camera.

But all these things are tradeoffs. I like to carry around my least
comfortable camera because it has more features and can take higher
quality photographs in a wider range of conditions. But while my wife
is prepared to tolerate the size and weight of my second best and more
comfortable camera for the quality of its images, she can't imagine
any amount of improved quality of image being worth the extra weight
and discomfort of my photographically best but least comfortable
camera.

--
Chris Malcolm

David J Taylor wrote:
SMS wrote:
[]
It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each
manufacturer. The Nikon got dinged for distortion much more than the
Canon, as well as being dinged for the zoom setting creeping (a
problem on many Nikon low end lenses). Yet the Nikon has a street
price of around $625, while the Canon goes for around $500. Neither
lens is anything to write home about, and both are "Recommended (with
reservations)" by dpreview, so what makes the Nikon worth a 25%
premium over the Canon?
[]

But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in even
making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early reports of
creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of these versatile
lenses.

It wouldn't surprise me that the reviewers were more familiar with the
distortion to be expected from an 18-200mm lens, and so commented less
when the Canon lens eventually appeared.

It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area where
the technology is developing rapidly, so there's a tendency for later
lenses to be better than earlier ones because the state of the art in
general has improved. I know nothing about these two specific zooms,
but it wouldn't be surprising if Canon's was better simply because it
was made a few years later. And it wouldn't surprise me if in a few
years Nikon produce one which is better than Canon's, or say a
15-300mm which is as good.

In areas where the technology is developing rapidly which maker is
best for what in which price range is just a game of leapfrog.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area where
the technology is developing rapidly, so there's a tendency for later
lenses to be better than earlier ones because the state of the art in
general has improved. I know nothing about these two specific zooms,
but it wouldn't be surprising if Canon's was better simply because it
was made a few years later. And it wouldn't surprise me if in a few
years Nikon produce one which is better than Canon's, or say a
15-300mm which is as good.

In areas where the technology is developing rapidly which maker is
best for what in which price range is just a game of leapfrog.

Agreed in general, but in the case of the 18-200mm VR/IS lens, Canon seem
to have been simply late in getting their lens to market. Both lenses are
compromises, and Nikon and Canon have made slight different design
compromises. Canon's lens is not, if I may paraphrase, "three years
better".

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

Cheers,
David

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009011305080991745-savageduck@savagenet...
On 2009-01-12 08:45:57 -0800, "whisky-dave"
said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009011205505119336-savageduck@savagenet...
On 2009-01-12 05:34:22 -0800, "whisky-dave"
said:


"Larry Thong" wrote in message
m...



Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors.

I thought the moon landing used Hasselblads .

Yep!
However Nikons including DSLR's have been used on most missions,
including the current series of Shuttle missions.
http://www.nikonweb.com/nasaf4/

Seems only the nikin website seems to see themselves are "exclusively"
being used ;-)

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/metadata/camera.htm


I wonder if they choose the camera depending on what they are offered.

You might have noticed, the link you provided is at the bottom of the
Nikon URL you responded to. That somewhat belies your implication.
Anyway, why wouldn't a Nikon site be self promoting?

There's nothing wroing with self promoting, I just doubt that a nikon site
would advertise canon and vica versa.


The cameras used (of all makes used) have for the most part been developed
from models tried & tested in the field and studio. Then some had special
adaptations made and some were used stock.

Also there were specialized lenses developed exclusively for NASA.

Which won;t appear on the consumer models much like the car racing industry.


If they were ever chosen on "what they offered" it was probably based on
the adapability to special purpose and durability. Though I have a hard
time thinking of a Linhof as durable!

What I meant ws does NASA say the a camera manufacture here's what we want..
now how much do we have to pay you, or whether NASA gets a serious
discount as an advertiser. I've heard that Aple don;t pay anyone for their
product placement.
(have you ever noticed the majority of the 'good guys' use Macs while the
baddies tend
to use PC's in TV series and dramas.

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:44:35 GMT, measekite
wrote:
One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me think
the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

Keep in mind that the 18-200 is considered to be a consumer grade
all-in-one lens, so don't expect it to be on the same level with more
specialized ones. If you are interested in ultimate image quality,
you shouldn't even be considering an 18-200 from anyone.

Even so, you should be looking at actual images made with that lens
rather than somone's test charts of a particular copy of it. You may
find that it is quite suitable for your purposes.


For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then read
many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will find their
final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

In some cases, the opposite is true. It depends on the lens and, in
some cases, who is reviewing it.

I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.

All in all, Nikon and Canon make very comparable products. Go with
the one that feels best to you - you'll be much happier in the long
run.

Amen.

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:21:51 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

But I'd like to examine the noise statement. Arguably, the 700 is better
at high ISO noise reduction- but by how much? Certainly, you'll not be
finding any reputable reviewer saying there's a significant difference
below some threshold, say ISO 400. Or will you?

Most dslrs will do quite well below ISO 400. One of the reasons for
buying a "full frame" camera is that they perform better at high ISO
than crop sensor bodies. Therefore, the place to compare FF cameras
with one another is at the high ISO end.

(The other main reason for buying a full-frame camera is that it gives
you better wide-angle performance and more control over DOF than a
crop body.)

At lower ISO and normal print sizes you won't find that much
difference in actual quality between a D300 and a D700, for example.
Both are excellent.
You've written sensibly, but not addressed the question.

What was the specific question I didn't address?

The part about high ISO/noise. You've not provided any cite or site to
underpin your contention about how much. I'd suspect it's pretty low.
Moreover, final final results would be dependent on post processing,
although I assume you'd want to compare out of camera JPEGs.

--
john mcwilliams

David J Taylor wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area
where
the technology is developing rapidly, so there's a tendency for
later
lenses to be better than earlier ones because the state of the art
in
general has improved. I know nothing about these two specific
zooms,
but it wouldn't be surprising if Canon's was better simply because
it
was made a few years later. And it wouldn't surprise me if in a few
years Nikon produce one which is better than Canon's, or say a
15-300mm which is as good.

In areas where the technology is developing rapidly which maker is
best for what in which price range is just a game of leapfrog.

Agreed in general, but in the case of the 18-200mm VR/IS lens, Canon
seem to have been simply late in getting their lens to market. Both
lenses are compromises, and Nikon and Canon have made slight
different design compromises. Canon's lens is not, if I may
paraphrase, "three years better".

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

Tamron's 18-270 comes awful close.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Stephen Bishop wrote:

Keep in mind that the D90 and 50D are not competing cameras. The D90
is Nikon's highest end consumer camera while the 50D is Canon's best
"prosumer" offering. Compare the 50D with the D300 and you'll find
the Nikon has the better metering and AF. The D90 should really be
compared to the best of Canon's Rebel line.

This is true. It's a common mistake because Nikon and Canon tend to not
have directly competing models, more like interleaving models. The D90
is closer to the XSi than the 50D. If only looking at bodies, and not
the big picture, then the D90 would certainly be the better choice.