I've seen quite a few races end with fistfights. For all the time I've spent hanging out at my local camera store (and all the debates of A vs. I've never seen two photographers do that. Something in favor of photography I'd say.:):
Few fistfights might just be what the profession needs. Just imagine photographers labeled as "BadA$$es". May just get more respect
Greg "Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Apart from this banding issue (much too specific!) this is a fun thread. I'm just sitting here, on Mount Olympus, observing how the commons discuss which one of them is king of their hill.
Apart from this banding issue (much too specific!) this is a fun thread. I'm just sitting here, on Mount Olympus, observing how the commons discuss which one of them is king of their hill.
Hehe.
I might actually be joining you pretty soon (I'll keep both systems though). The more I research the Oly, the more I like it. Have you been on the cameraquest web site by the way? They have an adapter to put almost any lens on an Oly. I can continue doing lens conversions for Nikon f-mount and use them on the Oly for the increased DOF. Or I can custom machine or just use (possible) one of the t-mount adapters that have started showing up on Ebay to get a reproduction ratio not possible with what I am doing now. I really have to look at some of these high speed lenses I have sitting around and study the field curvature of them and see how advantageous that will be. The DOF will be regardless.
I've been following some comments on DPReview by a retired optical engineer concerning the advantages of the Oly 4/3 mount and register distances. For all our bickering on the subject of Canon vs. Nikon, the Oly system has some advantages that are certainly enticing.
No, I haven't been on the cameraquest site, but I'm well aware of their wide range of adapters. I came into the digital arena without legacy lenses (just the 50 1.7 MD that is still on my Minolta X-700), so I just bought the midrange Digital Zuikos.
With all this competition between Canon and Nikon, what about Olympus?
Olympus is the most underrated solution in digital SLR world right now.
C'mon Nikon and Canon, can't you figure out how to make a dust reduction system? How about live LCD preview? Adjustable LCD screen? How about quality lenses that will not force you to eat ramen for the rest of your life? My E-500 will compete with your 30D in image quality any day, except I can get 3 of them for the price of one of yours. Isn't that sensor in the D70 and D50 getting a little old?
We Olympus photographers are laughing because we've got compatible equipment, but we didn't have to take out a second mortgage.
Solution = Olympus
Met the Nikon Rep today at PMA
So while at PMA today, Ian and I stopped at the Nikon booth. There, we examined the D200, the D2X and some of Nikon's sweet, sweet glass. We got to talking about Canon vs. Nikon, and the subject got to high-ISO shooting rather quickly. Scott Frier, Nikon's Professional Markets Tech Rep, assured us that he could prove that ISO 1600 from Nikon was as good or better than ISO 1600 from Canon. Hmm I said.... and then proceeded to tell him about our forum, and the definitive Nikon-Canon Debate. He said he'd be glad to show us his examples.
For reference, Scott - here are some shots from the Great Nikon-Canon Debate Gallery:
Scott Frier, Nikon's Professional Markets Tech Rep, assured us that he could prove that ISO 1600 from Nikon was as good or better than ISO 1600 from Canon.
I normally do not trust people in sales. I hope that Mr Frier himself is more of a pro-photographer than a Rep. I can't wait for his post so that I don't have to sell my D200.
I would love to see his. I love my Nikon gear and rarely ever need higher than 800 but I don't know anyone who loves the higher iso's..
P.S. I am told the d200 is an improvement in the high iso dept ut still not great.
It's better, but from a close friend who just got his, the ISO100 is the more better part of having a D200. The files are so clean it's scary (and huge but that's another story).
I think it's often pointless to compare high ISO samples from various DSLR's unless everything is equalized. It's the same reason I think most reviews are of very limited worth. All that most reviews show is the jpg output a camera is able to achieve. Anyone that thinks they can't better the jpg output of their DSLR with numerous RAW converters is sadly mistaken. Whatever the engine is of your DSLR when you buy it will remain the same as long as you own it. Shoot RAW and you can take advantage of advancement in software developement down the road. About the only way you can take advantage of sensor developments is to buy a new DSLR.
About the only comparison that is useful is one that is done with the cameras under identical settings and then processed with identical parameters in the same converters.
As far as Nikon vs. Canon high ISO, all I know is that the last time I compared the two (a D70 and a 20D) I made the mistake of comparing jpg output. The D70 was clearly more monochromatic (film like) in noise. That settled it for me. I'm sure shot in Raw and processed by someone who knew what they were doing it would have been different.
I've yet to see one comparison that between Nikon and Canon that would be truly useful as far as telling which is the worst when it comes to noise.
If all a person wants is 1600ISO samples then I can show them all day long.
In the end I'll prove nothing other than how good or bad I am at processing the output of my D100.
You really think so? The examples above were all taken with an ancient D100. According to all the reviews I've seen online a D100 shouldn't be capable of output even half that clean at 1600ISO. It wouldn't be if I shot only jpg. Of course if all I needed was clean jpg's then I would have bough a D50 by now. I've seen others that could do much better at high ISO with the D100. It's not because they've got a better D100 than I have but because they understand how to process the files alot better.
Andy knows the point I'm making. He's done poster size (possibly larger but memory fails me now) with a Sony 828. According to any review you can find online it's a camera that really shouldn't be capable of that type of output. Andy of course has mastered it along with the processing it needs.:):
Or, more pointedly, D200 with NR left, 20D in the middle, D200 without NR on the right:
With the in-camera noise reduction the D200 makes a pretty clean shot, certainly less color noise than the 20D, but without noise reduction the Canon beats it easily.
I haven't used a D200 personally to get a feel for it, but the 300D and 20D both easily beat out the D70 by ISO 800. But in my opinion this is largely rendered moot by excellent post-processing noise reduction tools.[/url]
MNS, let's see 100% crops
Jim - bleaaaaaachhh I don't care about those test sakmples
Real world!
Only way to get a fair comparison is a controlled experiment. That's about the best you're going to do, and it's been my experience that those tests map really well onto real world results.
All of which is kinda moot since I can push a few buttons and make the noise magically go away -- granted, with a little loss in clarity but hey have you seen the grain on ISO 1600+ film? I'll take de-noised digital any day.
Or, more pointedly, D200 with NR left, 20D in the middle, D200 without NR on the right:
With the in-camera noise reduction the D200 makes a pretty clean shot, certainly less color noise than the 20D, but without noise reduction the Canon beats it easily.
I haven't used a D200 personally to get a feel for it, but the 300D and 20D both easily beat out the D70 by ISO 800. But in my opinion this is largely rendered moot by excellent post-processing noise reduction tools.[/url]
Goes right to my point actually. In my own testing I found the noise of the 20D worse than the D70. In my own use I've found the noise of the D100 slightly worse than the D100 (inspite of what reviews might show.) I didn't even bother testing a 300D because I found the feel of it to close to the cheap film Rebels I had owned.
Did you also notice the at length discussion of the actual usefullness of DPReview's review of the D200 as it pertains to image issues? I think you'll find folks on both sides of the fence that don't care about jpg output and would love to see some better reviews and comparison with equalized output so we could really tell.
MNS, let's see 100% crops
Jim - bleaaaaaachhh I don't care about those test sakmples
Real world!
Mine are real world. What would 100% crops really prove other than I do or don't know how to process my output? Do you actually disagree with my assertion that comparison like this are pretty much useless except for showing who know's there camera better and/or how to process for noise? I'll give you both those points Andy. Your skills at post work and your skills as a photographer are well known by those that freguented the STF before it went down hill.
Also do you not agree with my point about the output of the 828 (see above)? Is it not you that finally put Halpren in his place by showing what output the 828 was capable of? Output clearly not indicated as possible by the reviews that Halpren so dearly loved throwing in our collective faces?
Goes right to my point actually. In my own testing I found the noise of the 20D worse than the D70. In my own use I've found the noise of the D100 slightly worse than the D100 (inspite of what reviews might show.) I didn't even bother testing a 300D because I found the feel of it to close to the cheap film Rebels I had owned.
Gotta admit, if the D70 had been out a few months earlier I would have rather stayed with Nikon rather than buying a 300D; the D70 is a much nicer body than the Rebel, and I like the feel of the D200 a *lot* more than the 20D. Nikon builds better bodies and has better controls IMO. But now I have too much invested in Canon glass to switch and, really, they are all good cameras.
FWIW you're one of very few people who think the pre-D200 Nikons have better high-ISO noise characteristics than Canon. I think they're clearer at low ISO, but the high-ISO differences, at least pre-D200, were pretty glaring. With the D200 I'd say it's pretty much a wash.
Did you also notice the at length discussion of the actual usefullness of DPReview's review of the D200 as it pertains to image issues?
I admit to not paying a whole lot of attention to what they're saying but rather looking carefully at the pretty pictures. What it looks like to me is more important than what they think.
I think you'll find folks on both sides of the fence that don't care about jpg output and would love to see some better reviews and comparison with equalized output so we could really tell.
I don't care about jpg output at all, I almost never shoot in it, but it does give you a sense of what you're going to be dealing with in RAW. Or it did until they started putting decent quality image processors on-board :-).
Gotta admit, if the D70 had been out a few months earlier I would have rather stayed with Nikon rather than buying a 300D; the D70 is a much nicer body than the Rebel, and I like the feel of the D200 a *lot* more than the 20D. Nikon builds better bodies and has better controls IMO. But now I have too much invested in Canon glass to switch and, really, they are all good cameras.
FWIW you're one of very few people who think the pre-D200 Nikons have better high-ISO noise characteristics than Canon. I think they're clearer at low ISO, but the high-ISO differences, at least pre-D200, were pretty glaring. With the D200 I'd say it's pretty much a wash.
I wouldn't switch either if I had a heavy investment in either system.
Just for the record I don't think pre-D200 Nikons have better high ISO characteristics across the board. Specifically I think the D100, D70, and D50 are better at high ISO than the 20D when the incamera jpg engines are the basis of comparison. I don't shoot anything in jpg anymore so I wouldn't use that as a basis of comparison again though. As far as the 300D I never bothered to compare it.
I admit to not paying a whole lot of attention to what they're saying but rather looking carefully at the pretty pictures. What it looks like to me is more important than what they think.
Yes, many of the pictures that are posted there as examples of how good the D200 is at high ISO are indeed stunning. Especially considering the fact that folks are still learning the in and outs of a new body.
I don't care about jpg output at all, I almost never shoot in it, but it does give you a sense of what you're going to be dealing with in RAW. Or it did until they started putting decent quality image processors on-board :-).
I don't agree with that. Go look at the D100 review on DPReview then go back a few posts to the D100 samples I posted and tell me if those should even be possible at 1600ISO.:D
You'll never see a day where the in camera processors are not being beat by third party RAW converters. Even if you believe that do you really think you'll ever see a day where no new developements are being made in third party RAW converters? Conventional wisdom one day ends up failing real world tests the next because of this.
Crops vs. something useful...
Andy, just for you here is a shot I did tonite at 1600ISO with a D100 and an old Nikon 135mm 2.8 AIS I've been playing with.
And a few 100% crops...
This is strait out of RSP. Just to show I didn't blast the noise into oblivion, here is the actual paramaters I use for every 1600ISO shot I process...
Now tell me what that proves since I have no idea.
Do you want some at 3200ISO? Some at 6400ISO? The D100 does that you know.
Unless you take those exact same shots under the exact same conditions and process with the exact same parameters we've learned little to nothing.
Now will you address the actual points I made to you earlier in the thread?
I think the real world examples are best to judge in this particular instance.
As you know, Andy shoots a lot of street scenes of which many are in very
low light. Like the subway or train stations (check his galleries for some
examples).
I shot all day today at 1600 (the booths are lit like Christmas trees but
otherwise, the place is a dungeon). If we were able to take a Canon and a
Nikon of similar performance and shot similar shots, that would be a comparison
I could live with (and I would think most could as well).
Back to the point. I think, in general, that the high ISO performance of the
Canon line up tends to be better than that of equal Nikon products. So I agree
with Andy.
I do think Scott (from Nikon) was generally interested in proving us wrong. I
certainly look forward to his results.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Andy, just for you here is a shot I did tonite at 1600ISO with a D100 and an old Nikon 135mm 2.8 AIS I've been playing with.
.
.
Now will you address the actual points I made to you earlier in the thread?
Do you actually disagree with my assertion that comparison like this are pretty much useless
They're *totally* useless - this thread is 90% gag. Nikon has come a long way in the high ISO noise dept - and the truth is, (shhhh) Nikon's are just fine in my book! It's not the camera, it's who's behind it that count's. You've given some excellent examples, really.
I'd switch if it wasn't for two things:
1. I'm heavily invested in Canon gear
2. Canon is just better.
the truth is, (shhhh) Nikon's are just fine in my book!
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Flagrant personal foul
That'll be NO RED MEAT for a month (Yes that includes Ribs)!
Who knows what's next - you saying Harry can out gun you. Come on guy pull yourself together! Somebody call Snow White, I think his father has been drugged.
Greg "Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
They're *totally* useless - this thread is 90% gag. Nikon has come a long way in the high ISO noise dept - and the truth is, (shhhh) Nikon's are just fine in my book! It's not the camera, it's who's behind it that count's. You've given some excellent examples, really.
I'd switch if it wasn't for two things:
1. I'm heavily invested in Canon gear
2. Canon is just better.
I'll tell you, the only thing that will ever keep me from switching is the pile of Nikon glass I've got sitting around now. I see stunning examples of high ISO from either regularly. We're really getting to the point that the differences are almost insignificant.
I am planning to invest in a second system this year. I'm still debating whether it will be an Oly or a Pentax. Oly because it looks like you can adapt any lens to it. The high speed macro lenses I think used on an Oly body would gain much needed DOF while retaining speed. That new Pana body is also very enticing.
Pentax because I just like the fisheye zoom and it's the sort of oddball thing I don't see Nikon coming out with any time soon.
I'll tell you, the only thing that will ever keep me from switching is the pile of Nikon glass I've got sitting around now. I see stunning examples of high ISO from either regularly. We're really getting to the point that the differences are almost insignificant.
I give up - the spirt of this thread is SHOT-TO-H%LL. It's turning into a love fest :puke1
Maybe ya'll can hold hands and skip off into the sunset
Greg "Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Comments
Few fistfights might just be what the profession needs. Just imagine photographers labeled as "BadA$$es". May just get more respect
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
I might actually be joining you pretty soon (I'll keep both systems though). The more I research the Oly, the more I like it. Have you been on the cameraquest web site by the way? They have an adapter to put almost any lens on an Oly. I can continue doing lens conversions for Nikon f-mount and use them on the Oly for the increased DOF. Or I can custom machine or just use (possible) one of the t-mount adapters that have started showing up on Ebay to get a reproduction ratio not possible with what I am doing now. I really have to look at some of these high speed lenses I have sitting around and study the field curvature of them and see how advantageous that will be. The DOF will be regardless.
I've been following some comments on DPReview by a retired optical engineer concerning the advantages of the Oly 4/3 mount and register distances. For all our bickering on the subject of Canon vs. Nikon, the Oly system has some advantages that are certainly enticing.
Fight nice!
Olympus is the most underrated solution in digital SLR world right now.
C'mon Nikon and Canon, can't you figure out how to make a dust reduction system? How about live LCD preview? Adjustable LCD screen? How about quality lenses that will not force you to eat ramen for the rest of your life? My E-500 will compete with your 30D in image quality any day, except I can get 3 of them for the price of one of yours. Isn't that sensor in the D70 and D50 getting a little old?
We Olympus photographers are laughing because we've got compatible equipment, but we didn't have to take out a second mortgage.
Solution = Olympus
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
So while at PMA today, Ian and I stopped at the Nikon booth. There, we examined the D200, the D2X and some of Nikon's sweet, sweet glass. We got to talking about Canon vs. Nikon, and the subject got to high-ISO shooting rather quickly. Scott Frier, Nikon's Professional Markets Tech Rep, assured us that he could prove that ISO 1600 from Nikon was as good or better than ISO 1600 from Canon. Hmm I said.... and then proceeded to tell him about our forum, and the definitive Nikon-Canon Debate. He said he'd be glad to show us his examples.
For reference, Scott - here are some shots from the Great Nikon-Canon Debate Gallery:
ISO 1600
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53205203/Large
ISO 3200
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large
And a bunch more in here:
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/1141376
I'm sure we all would love to see your Nikon high ISO examples - hope to see you post them here!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I normally do not trust people in sales. I hope that Mr Frier himself is more of a pro-photographer than a Rep. I can't wait for his post so that I don't have to sell my D200.
Hope he doesn't doctor iso100 exif data to 3200 as a means to an end. Desperate times desperate measures, sales is a cut-throat business ya know.
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
P.S. I am told the d200 is an improvement in the high iso dept ut still not great.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
About the only comparison that is useful is one that is done with the cameras under identical settings and then processed with identical parameters in the same converters.
As far as Nikon vs. Canon high ISO, all I know is that the last time I compared the two (a D70 and a 20D) I made the mistake of comparing jpg output. The D70 was clearly more monochromatic (film like) in noise. That settled it for me. I'm sure shot in Raw and processed by someone who knew what they were doing it would have been different.
I've yet to see one comparison that between Nikon and Canon that would be truly useful as far as telling which is the worst when it comes to noise.
If all a person wants is 1600ISO samples then I can show them all day long.
In the end I'll prove nothing other than how good or bad I am at processing the output of my D100.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Andy knows the point I'm making. He's done poster size (possibly larger but memory fails me now) with a Sony 828. According to any review you can find online it's a camera that really shouldn't be capable of that type of output. Andy of course has mastered it along with the processing it needs.:):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page20.asp[url]
Or, more pointedly, D200 with NR left, 20D in the middle, D200 without NR on the right:
With the in-camera noise reduction the D200 makes a pretty clean shot, certainly less color noise than the 20D, but without noise reduction the Canon beats it easily.
I haven't used a D200 personally to get a feel for it, but the 300D and 20D both easily beat out the D70 by ISO 800. But in my opinion this is largely rendered moot by excellent post-processing noise reduction tools.[/url]
jimf@frostbytes.com
Jim - bleaaaaaachhh I don't care about those test sakmples
Real world!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Only way to get a fair comparison is a controlled experiment. That's about the best you're going to do, and it's been my experience that those tests map really well onto real world results.
All of which is kinda moot since I can push a few buttons and make the noise magically go away -- granted, with a little loss in clarity but hey have you seen the grain on ISO 1600+ film? I'll take de-noised digital any day.
jimf@frostbytes.com
Did you also notice the at length discussion of the actual usefullness of DPReview's review of the D200 as it pertains to image issues? I think you'll find folks on both sides of the fence that don't care about jpg output and would love to see some better reviews and comparison with equalized output so we could really tell.
Also do you not agree with my point about the output of the 828 (see above)? Is it not you that finally put Halpren in his place by showing what output the 828 was capable of? Output clearly not indicated as possible by the reviews that Halpren so dearly loved throwing in our collective faces?
Gotta admit, if the D70 had been out a few months earlier I would have rather stayed with Nikon rather than buying a 300D; the D70 is a much nicer body than the Rebel, and I like the feel of the D200 a *lot* more than the 20D. Nikon builds better bodies and has better controls IMO. But now I have too much invested in Canon glass to switch and, really, they are all good cameras.
FWIW you're one of very few people who think the pre-D200 Nikons have better high-ISO noise characteristics than Canon. I think they're clearer at low ISO, but the high-ISO differences, at least pre-D200, were pretty glaring. With the D200 I'd say it's pretty much a wash.
I admit to not paying a whole lot of attention to what they're saying but rather looking carefully at the pretty pictures. What it looks like to me is more important than what they think.
I don't care about jpg output at all, I almost never shoot in it, but it does give you a sense of what you're going to be dealing with in RAW. Or it did until they started putting decent quality image processors on-board :-).
jimf@frostbytes.com
Bet-cha can beat yourself in checkers too
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Just for the record I don't think pre-D200 Nikons have better high ISO characteristics across the board. Specifically I think the D100, D70, and D50 are better at high ISO than the 20D when the incamera jpg engines are the basis of comparison. I don't shoot anything in jpg anymore so I wouldn't use that as a basis of comparison again though. As far as the 300D I never bothered to compare it. Yes, many of the pictures that are posted there as examples of how good the D200 is at high ISO are indeed stunning. Especially considering the fact that folks are still learning the in and outs of a new body. I don't agree with that. Go look at the D100 review on DPReview then go back a few posts to the D100 samples I posted and tell me if those should even be possible at 1600ISO.:D
You'll never see a day where the in camera processors are not being beat by third party RAW converters. Even if you believe that do you really think you'll ever see a day where no new developements are being made in third party RAW converters? Conventional wisdom one day ends up failing real world tests the next because of this.
Andy, just for you here is a shot I did tonite at 1600ISO with a D100 and an old Nikon 135mm 2.8 AIS I've been playing with.
And a few 100% crops...
This is strait out of RSP. Just to show I didn't blast the noise into oblivion, here is the actual paramaters I use for every 1600ISO shot I process...
Now tell me what that proves since I have no idea.
Do you want some at 3200ISO? Some at 6400ISO? The D100 does that you know.
Unless you take those exact same shots under the exact same conditions and process with the exact same parameters we've learned little to nothing.
Now will you address the actual points I made to you earlier in the thread?
As you know, Andy shoots a lot of street scenes of which many are in very
low light. Like the subway or train stations (check his galleries for some
examples).
I shot all day today at 1600 (the booths are lit like Christmas trees but
otherwise, the place is a dungeon). If we were able to take a Canon and a
Nikon of similar performance and shot similar shots, that would be a comparison
I could live with (and I would think most could as well).
Back to the point. I think, in general, that the high ISO performance of the
Canon line up tends to be better than that of equal Nikon products. So I agree
with Andy.
I do think Scott (from Nikon) was generally interested in proving us wrong. I
certainly look forward to his results.
Ian
But of course
They're *totally* useless - this thread is 90% gag. Nikon has come a long way in the high ISO noise dept - and the truth is, (shhhh) Nikon's are just fine in my book! It's not the camera, it's who's behind it that count's. You've given some excellent examples, really.
I'd switch if it wasn't for two things:
1. I'm heavily invested in Canon gear
2. Canon is just better.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Flagrant personal foul
That'll be NO RED MEAT for a month (Yes that includes Ribs)!
Who knows what's next - you saying Harry can out gun you. Come on guy pull yourself together!
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
I am planning to invest in a second system this year. I'm still debating whether it will be an Oly or a Pentax. Oly because it looks like you can adapt any lens to it. The high speed macro lenses I think used on an Oly body would gain much needed DOF while retaining speed. That new Pana body is also very enticing.
Pentax because I just like the fisheye zoom and it's the sort of oddball thing I don't see Nikon coming out with any time soon.
I give up - the spirt of this thread is SHOT-TO-H%LL. It's turning into a love fest :puke1
Maybe ya'll can hold hands and skip off into the sunset
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Very true. In fact, we saw one guy that is still using at least 80's era manual
focus lenses on his Nikon bodies.