Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200

Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled
them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the
noise is more chromatic. The Nikon has more noise (this was a 1600
ISO) it is "monochromatic" and really gets bad with under exposure.
Shots underexposing human flesh should be avoided at all costs.
A noise program is going to have more trouble dealing with the Nikon
noise and will likely destroy more fine detail when removing it than
when removing noise from the Canon. The so-called "granular" or
film-like grainy noise is not desirable, owing to the difficulty of
removing it from images. The colourful blotchy noise is easy to deal
with. The noise differences between the cameras at correct exposure
are not radically different but the differences are there.

As for the cameras themselves, the D200 wins. One noticeable thing,
the shutter/mirror slap in the Canon is much harsher, a real clunk is
felt when it fires. Both are harsher than Olympus's E-1, which makes
sense probably because of the larger (heavier) mirrors/mechanisms.

In fact with high end glass, ( used L on the Canon) they are both
heavy cameras with basic "normal" (17-40 or so) zoom lenses attached.
This will actually help mitigate any vibration caused by Canon's rough
firing.

Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

Rich wrote:
Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled
them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the
noise is more chromatic. The Nikon has more noise (this was a 1600
ISO) it is "monochromatic" and really gets bad with under exposure.
Shots underexposing human flesh should be avoided at all costs.
A noise program is going to have more trouble dealing with the Nikon
noise and will likely destroy more fine detail when removing it than
when removing noise from the Canon. The so-called "granular" or
film-like grainy noise is not desirable, owing to the difficulty of
removing it from images. The colourful blotchy noise is easy to deal
with. The noise differences between the cameras at correct exposure
are not radically different but the differences are there.

As for the cameras themselves, the D200 wins. One noticeable thing,
the shutter/mirror slap in the Canon is much harsher, a real clunk is
felt when it fires. Both are harsher than Olympus's E-1, which makes
sense probably because of the larger (heavier) mirrors/mechanisms.

In fact with high end glass, ( used L on the Canon) they are both
heavy cameras with basic "normal" (17-40 or so) zoom lenses attached.
This will actually help mitigate any vibration caused by Canon's rough
firing.

Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

jb wrote:

Rich wrote:

Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled
them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the
noise is more chromatic. The Nikon has more noise (this was a 1600
ISO) it is "monochromatic" and really gets bad with under exposure.
Shots underexposing human flesh should be avoided at all costs.
A noise program is going to have more trouble dealing with the Nikon
noise and will likely destroy more fine detail when removing it than
when removing noise from the Canon. The so-called "granular" or
film-like grainy noise is not desirable, owing to the difficulty of
removing it from images. The colourful blotchy noise is easy to deal
with. The noise differences between the cameras at correct exposure
are not radically different but the differences are there.
As for the cameras themselves, the D200 wins. One noticeable thing,
the shutter/mirror slap in the Canon is much harsher, a real clunk is
felt when it fires. Both are harsher than Olympus's E-1, which makes
sense probably because of the larger (heavier) mirrors/mechanisms.

In fact with high end glass, ( used L on the Canon) they are both
heavy cameras with basic "normal" (17-40 or so) zoom lenses attached.
This will actually help mitigate any vibration caused by Canon's rough
firing.

Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694


Nikon lenses are more expensive.

You mean Canon has more selection of cheap lenses?

"jb" wrote in message
m...
snip

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.


Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.

Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results?

Nikon has some consumer lenses, Canon has more selection, much of that
selection is more consumer lenses. I think Matt's math is probably
right, in my Nikon bias, I'd say Nikon is more careful about what they
release, given fewer releases g. In any case, neither of them are
clueless so you do generally get what you pay for.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
t...
Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire
range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.


Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results?


No, I just remember having a similar grouse about Nikon's telephoto lenses.
Canon offered, and I assume still does, more for less. But then I looked at
the wide end of things, and the situation was reversed.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
t...
Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire
range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.


Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results?

Why, have you done the math?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Rich wrote:


Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

I'd like to see the guy in the doorway get one of these bags off the top
shelf!
--
www.photosbydouglas.com
www.weprint2canvas.com
If you really must write,use my
name at an above domain.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:44:22 GMT, "D-Mac" wrote:

Rich wrote:


Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

I'd like to see the guy in the doorway get one of these bags off the top
shelf!

Does seem like a stupid way to display something. Unless it is extra
stock.
-Rich