If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
Chris Malcolm wrote:
David J Taylor wrote: measekite wrote: [] How can you say that? Canon has a 21mp full frame (Canon 5DMkii) for about $2,700 and Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price range. The more MP the larger you can print. .. providing you don't take hand-held photos and use a tripod all the time, perhaps? High MP sensors will of course require more care in avoiding camera shake because smaller amounts of camera shake will be visible in the image. If we assume camera shake to be specified as an amount of angular wobble along the major axis of shake (which it often is), then for maximum resolution the amount of wobble must be less than what is required to shift an image detail from one pixel to the next. If for example in a given situation a hand held shutter speed of 1/100th sec does that for a 7MP sensor, then 1/200th of a sec should do it for a 28MP sensor of the same size. In other words the shutter requirements of sharp hand held images increase in the expected proportions. They make it a bit harder to hand hold high resolution shots with high MP sensors, but by no means impossible. The old rule of thumb from 35mm film days was that shutter speed for sharp hand holding should be at least equal to the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. So a 100mm lens would need 1/100th sec. If you're using a smaller sensor such as a 1.5 crop DSLR sensor then you'd need 1/150th sec. And if you're exploiting the full large print pixel level resolution of a good modern 7MP sensor you'll need maybe twice that, 1/300th sec. So if you go up to a 28MP sensor of the same 1.5 crop size you'll need 1/600th sec to get sharp hand holding. Those are just examples to show how the arithmetic works out. Of course people vary very widely in their steady hand holding capabilities. But since our cameras are capable of fractions of a 1/1000th sec shutter speeds today's biggest MP sensors haven't yet got to the stage of making hand holding impossible, just more difficult in the usual proportional ways. Chris, no argument with your maths, but everything is more demanding at such high resolutions, not just camera shake. For example: how good is the auto-focus? Tolerances are less at high MP, so a better AF is required. What about aperture? You may need to stop down to maintain the same image quality from the lens, but then you may be nearer the diffraction limit and lose out on resolution. You may need a faster shutter speed to reduce camera shake or subject motion, and then you get less light, but unfortunately you have already lost speed in the sensor as the active pixel area is smaller. It makes me think that 10-12MP is more suitable for general use, and 20-25MP for more specialist situations such as studio use, but perhaps you disagree? Cheers, David |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:49:51 -0800, SMS
wrote in : Stephen Bishop wrote: For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon. Where is your evidence of that? Or are you just pulling a Navas and making it all up out of thin air? That would be you, Steven, as in the case of your original claim here. -- Best regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:44:17 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
measekite wrote: [] If something is that bad as has been widely reported than it would not be marginal to tell that it is soft being that it is supposed to be horrible which infers obvious. 24-120VR Perhaps some samples were worse than others? After all, if Nikon can make small improvements during a production run which result in fewer rejects or returns, I'm sure they will, and the average quality level may have improved over time. David I understand that but this is a widely report believe by many people so it just cannot be a few bad ones over a short period of time. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:05:44 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-01-10 11:32:26 -0800, measekite said: On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:10:51 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-01-09 19:37:11 -0800, measekite said: That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price that I am not happy about spending) and the Canon 50D that is known to be built better but the D90 build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands. Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which one and the reason. * AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800 * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620 * AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730 Optional * AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470 That will give you a good working bag. The NG critics and "Pro" glass heavy breathers will sigh, but you will be able to produce the images you want. My current set up is as follows: D70 D300 + MB-D10 18-70mm Nikkor DX (D70 kit) 12-24mm Nikkor 35mm f2.0 Nikkor 24-120mm VR Nikkor (which is my general use lens) 80-400mm VR Nikkor (Oh so slow! but does Ok long) 70-200mm VR SB-800 Read the Ken Rockwell review on your general use lens, the 24-120VR and let me know if he has a point or if it is just bull****. You use it all of the time and I would like to know what you see. Rockwell as we all know has varied and sometimes bizarre opinions, some which seem reliable and others questionable. Even though I find his site useful I would not depend on him or any other reviewer to drive the choices you will ultimately make. When I read his opinion condemning an item I have chosen to buy and found to be perfectly sound for my needs, I wonder about his motivation. I agree with that but when the general opinions of many others appear to support what he is stating then it is time to take a pause and attempt to prove or disprove what was said. All of the reviews and opinions cannot be totally wrong. I have found the 24-120mm VR to be very versatile, and if used at f7.1-f14 it produces reasonably sharp results. I know there have been That is about 3 stops. It seems that the remainder of the stops and the areas out of the center are not very good. Yet this range of this lens (too bad there is not a great 24-135VR at a good price that great) is one of the more versatile in the FX line. I do not think there is an FX designation on lenses but to separate them from DX I use the term. divided opinions on this lens, but I think some of those reviewers are blinded by the promise of the more expensive, higher spec lenses. This gives me a reasonable working lens which produces acceptable images, with VR at a reasonable cost. Here are some shots straight from Lightroom with NEF to jpg conversion only, see what you think. They are large files, but they demonstrate what the lens can do. Here is one with a D70 http://snipr.com/9rorc-et15rk and one from a D300 http://snipr.com/9rosw-rgrgax Then make up your own mind. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:20:30 GMT, measekite
wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:06:42 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:17 GMT, measekite wrote: Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? 1. More rugged, better construction quality 2. No movie gimmicks 3. Much better autofocus 4. Quicker and more responsive 5. Better image quality 6. Better metering 7. Ability to fine-tune the AF of individual lenses I guess those are the main reasons. Coming from a D200, the D300 is also very familiar to me. Also I bought a factory refurbished model with a 3 year warranty at a great price, so the difference in price between it and a new D90 wasn't as big. But the D90 is certainly a great camera compared to others in its class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics" compared to the competition. It appears from reading your posts that you would choose a Nikon D90 over a Canon 50D and spend less money on the body. Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)? Personally, I prefer the Nikons over the Canons. But what it comes down to is what you feel most comfortable with. You'll generally get better results with a camera that is more enjoyable to use and doesn't put any roadblocks in your path. For some people, that may be the less expensive body. For some, the additional features in the more expensive body are more important. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:34:25 GMT, measekite
wrote: So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr I can't honestly say, I've never used it. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:37:58 GMT, measekite
wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:49:54 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote: On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:13 -0800, John Navas wrote: On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:39:39 -0800, SMS wrote in : Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low end film Rebel SLRs, and which I don't think are even available any more. Many of the Canon mid-range lenses have L quality optics, but lack the professional build quality of the L lenses. For mid-range lenses, the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body. It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses. Most of the remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans for full frame bodies. Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the lenses I need." Utter nonsense. For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon. It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up they are once again the game to beat. How can you say that? Canon has a 21mp full frame (Canon 5DMkii) for about $2,700 and Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price range. The more MP the larger you can print. I have heard rumors about a D700X for over $4,000 expected price but that will not compete either. 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. But if you are looking solely at resolution, megapixels and ultimate sharpness, the Sony A900 beats both the Nikons and the Canons at the moment. If you buy a camera on the basis of megapixels, you will always be disappointed a few months later when the next camera comes out. This is just one data point, but I've heard similar comments: About a year ago, I personally asked one pro why he chose his D2 over the Canon 1D. His answer, without hesitating, was, "I want a camera that I know will still work if I drop it." |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:22:29 GMT, measekite
wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:56:31 -0800, nospam wrote: In article , measekite wrote: It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up they are once again the game to beat. How can you say that? Canon has a 21mp full frame (Canon 5DMkii) for about $2,700 and Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price range. The more MP the larger you can print. nikon has the d700 in that price range, and it has a different mix of I said "Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price range". The D700 is included in the nothing to compete in. Not that is may not be a fine camera but we are talking about large images on print where one is interested in more MP and the 5D mark II has about double. Doubling the megapixels only gives you about 40% more resolution. It does NOT mean you can print twice the size. The more MP the larger you can print. Nikon offers a D3X with 24MP for about 2.5 times the price; better but overpriced. How big do you really want to print on a regular basis, and why? If you plan to make poster sized prints, then you'll find out that your lens and technique will make as much if not more difference than the number of pixels. The 5DII and D3X need the best optics available to make use of all of those pixels; and your technique must be near perfect. features. while the 5d ii has more pixels and video, the d700 has a faster frame rate and a more capable focusing system. the d700 is basically a mini-d3. it all depends what feature mix you want. not And you can say that the 5Dmkii is a mini 1DsMkii replacement due out soon. everyone wants to print super-large. I have heard rumors about a D700X for over $4,000 expected price but that will not compete either. i've heard all sorts of rumours, including a full frame d400. what matters is what they introduce, not what people speculate. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:49:51 -0800, SMS
wrote: Stephen Bishop wrote: For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon. Where is your evidence of that? Or are you just pulling a Navas and making it all up out of thin air? Just look at any sporting event (including the last Olympics). Canon gear used to completely dominate on the sidelines, now you're seeing more and more Nikon gear. Also pay attention at weddings, more and more wedding photographers are using Nikon gear, where Canon used to dominate because of their high ISO performance. If I was pulling a Navas I would have tried to tell you that more and more professionasl are using Panasonic P&S cameras. :-) What would be the motivation for a pro to sell all of his or her Canon lenses, flashes, grips, etc, to move to the D3 or D700 when Canon has bodies that are much better (more expensive bodies, but when you take into account the investment in lenses and flashes, the net cost is less). The same justification that pros used to when they sold off their Nikon glass and invested in a Canon system because it had better high ISO performance and more long lenses. Actually, it is very debatable if Canon has bodies that are better, let alone "much" better, regardless of cost. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:11:43 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
measekite wrote: On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:42:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:42:01 -0800, SMS wrote: measekite wrote: And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. Hold on there, I never really said that (or I didn't mean to say it that way). What I meant to say that in each price class for lenses, Canon _usually_ delivers equal or better results at equal or lower cost. If cost were not a consideration, you could probably match up Nikon and Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the professional "big white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete. Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose from, particularly at the very long end. If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing lenses, then it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for lenses of similar quality when choosing which system to buy into. But it's only one of many considerations. As David pointed out, Canon was very late to the game with their 18-200 IS lens, and if someone wanted that type of lens, up until recently that would have been a reason to not even consider Canon. As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different color. Nikkors also have a three year warranty vs. one year for the Canons. Just had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a pro photographer. He shoots with a Nikon F5, a Canon 5Dmlii, and an RB67. We had a discussion over lenses. Part of the discussion was over the Nikkor 24x120 that he has used for 8 years. I told him that is made the Terrible List of Ken Rockwells worst of the worst of Nikkor lenses and that Ken owns and tested this lens saying it is soft etc etc and the image quality is not good when compared against other Nikon Alternatives. My friend claimed that Ken was wrong. That the lens is "razor sharp". He further stated you can put this lens up against a $5,000 Nikkor lens and print 16x20 and not see any difference in image quality. There is no Nikkor lens that has a focal length between 24 and 120mm that costs $5000. The most expensive Nikkor listed in that range is The 24mm PC-E at $1899 and you're paying for the tilt and shift capability on that one. Going down a bit, in the 1500-1800 range you have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8--in both cases you're paying for aperture. So I don't understand what he's on about with "$5000 Nikkor". He did not say that the $5,000 lens has the same range of focal length. He is just speaking about image quality and this lens being soft and not as sharp as others. You might find http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml to be of interest. Not directly applicable but he did some blind testing comparing 13x19s from a Hasselblad with a Phase 1 back and a Canon G10 point and shoot and the people he showed them to couldn't tell the difference--he says that they were people with experience in photography, printing, etc and so knew what to look for. Shows that there isn't any direct relationship between cost of equipment and quality of the finished print. That is bull****. I have a Canon P&S, an S5 that is about the same in image quality as a G10 give or take. Now in a 4x6 and maybe an 5x7 you have to look a little fine but a DSLR printing a 13x19 cropped somewhat it is a no brainer. There is a difference. And that is at 100 ISO. Raise the ISO to 200 or 400 and the difference is dramatic. Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as harsh against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons best. Doesn't have to be one of the best to be good enough. So far few cameras have enough sensor resolution that the lens becomes the limiting value (take a look in the Canon section on http://www.photozone.de they test some of the same lenses on a 350d and a 50d so you can see how much difference sensor resolution makes in the test results), at least not on center. I looked at Photozone and quickly read about a slew of Canon and Nikon lenses. One think was the review of the 18-200 Nikkor was not that favorable and no review was available on the Canon counterpart. Based on a quick lookse of both Canon and Nikon lenses I distinctly got the impression that the overall reviews of the Canon lens line was more favorable over the Nikon lens line. This sort of surprised me as I thought they would be about equal. Ok so there were more stars after the Canon lenses than the Nikon counterpart but what does this actually mean. I do not know. Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers buy $5,000 Nikkor lenses if the $1,000 ones produced just as good a quality. His reply was they just wanted it and then saw stuff that really was not there to jusify what they did like the audiophile who pays $20,000 for a speaker system that does sound great but are the only ones who can here the difference between that and a system for $10,000. Uh, the only Nikkor lenses costing $5000 or more are the 400/2.8 and the 500s and higher. On those you're paying for aperture and focal length. In the 24-120 range you may go as high as 1800 or so but there again you're paying for aperture or special features (for example tilt and shift). The more expensive lenses generally also have more durable mounts--more metal, less plastic, possibly some weather sealing, all of which can mean the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to up to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera unless that is what i need to do what I just described. Is there anywhere in the area that you can rent photo equipment? Might be worth spending a few bucks on a day's rental and do some test shots and make sure. I own a Nikon F2A but the lenses are not autofocus so I may sell the system. I no longer want anything that is not autofocus and autometering. If you're shooting for 16x25 you're likely going to end up manual-focusing with a magnifier anyway. Autofocus is good but it's not necessarily _that_ good, especially if you don't have a body that allows you to fine-tune the focus for individual lenses. I wouldn't be too quick to toss the old lenses. So you can say I am starting from scratch. I bought the Nikon over Canon at the time because I liked the look and feel better and I thought at that time Nikon was better but that appears to be debatable. Both do fine. That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price that I am not happy about spending) and the Canon 50D that is known to be built better but the D90 build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands. One point to consider--the D300 and the 50D allow you to fine tune the autofocus for individual lenses (by type, not by serial number)--if you're printing 16x25 on a regular basis you may want that. I'm a Canon shooter so can't really make recommendations on the quality of the lenses below, but focal length and aperture is another story. Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which one and the reason. * AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800 Take a hard look at the 10-20 Sigma. Performance is comparable but you get another 2mm at the wide end, which has more effect than you might expect. I was surprised to find that the 10-22 Canon is my favorite lens. * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620 Note that to get that kind of zoom range they had to make compromises (not just Nikon--Canon, Sigma, etc all had to). If you break that range down into two lenses you may find that you're getting less distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting at the sacrifice of convenience. If you haven't checked out the tests at http://www.photozone.de you might want to--there's enough information there that you should be able to figure out whether the compromises are going to be a problem for you. Also, if you want maximum versatility in a single lens and are willing to accept the compromises, you might want to look at the 18-270 Tamron. Note that PTLens will autofix most of the distortion and chromatic aberration, but you'll lose a tiny increment of resolution in the process. * AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730 Can't go wrong with a 100 or so macro IMO. Optional * AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470 I don't know how the Nikkor in that range compares to the Canon, but the Canon is a very nice lens. Something you haven't mentioned is a fast portrait lens--you might want to look into a 50 or 85mm 1.8 or faster. It's very convenient to be able to cut down the depth of field when you need to. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My observations! | kombizz[_2_] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 2nd 08 07:27 AM |
[SI] My observations and ramblings | Cryptopix | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | January 26th 08 08:24 AM |
Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS observations | Paul Furman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 26 | June 24th 07 12:45 AM |
Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS observations | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 27 | June 24th 07 12:45 AM |
Leica C-Lux 2 - any first observations? Any other recommendation? | Philip Dygéus | Digital Photography | 2 | June 27th 06 05:07 AM |