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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
"Rich" wrote in message ... 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. It is a retail store, and their rent is charged per square foot! We do the same thing at our store, and it's not a big deal to lift the bags down with a pole. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
In article , 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. ALERT - ALERT!! Rich actually touched a camera! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
"Rich" wrote in message ... Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. Noise is well supressed. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 Let's see the same image shot with the Nikon. (I'm presuming you did do a proper comparison -- right???) Bob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
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. So we get the highly detailed 'explanation' when Canon has a better picture, but then you say, "the D200 wins" and that's it?? In what way did the D200 "win"? Come on Rich, can't you just let it go man!! I am amazed you even touched a Canon (If you truly did) so that is progress. However, please stop the insistent whining about how great Nikon is and how Canon sucks when we all know you're just the poster boy for Nikon and you can't really make any other argument. I mean a couple of days ago you start a thread about spending $300 more to get the D200 vs. the D30. Now it's the D200 wins? Talk about an unbiased opinion....NOT! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 1 | November 28th 05 07:44 PM |
Canon 350D versus Nikon D50 | Dave Addison | Digital Photography | 4 | November 19th 05 11:19 AM |
Lens - Canon vs. Nikon | Iraxl Enb | Digital Photography | 25 | November 10th 05 05:43 AM |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 7 | October 24th 05 11:27 PM |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter | Bill Hilton | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | October 24th 05 11:27 PM |