I had opportunity to shoot with a pro event photographer that uses both, yes thats right both (with their respective logo neck straps attached) hanging around his neck at the same time. Makes sense really. He uses the Nikon for flash photography because he likes the accurate WB/matrix metering/good color, he uses the Canon for low light ambient and telephoto work. Interesting thing is I don't think he uses any OEM lenses opting mostly for fast pro Tamron standard and Sigma telephoto glass. Strange guy, great photographer, no hang ups about being a brand trader.
I think the real problem is that there isn't enough people like that or more testers who are willing to do similar testing. To be fair, it'd require a ton of time and money to compare everything. Ideally I'd love to see more "small" tests where the same photographers shoots the same scene with similar equipment. With enough small tests it would be easy for someone to make a decision that suited their needs.
Misc equip : Canon 610, Canon 10D, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
0
John MuellerRegistered UsersPosts: 2,555Major grins
edited August 21, 2006
Just a little story I thought I would share.
There is a guy that I deal with which carries Canon & Nikon.Most of my major Canon purchases have been through him.One day I told him I was interested in trying a Nikon.A kit type deal.I dont mind having 2 different systems.
He told me NO, you dont! I found this very odd.After all my money is green for whatever I want to purchase.
So,I ask,why not? He started to explain to me all this tech jargon that Im not really in to.dunnodunno
Funny thing though,I have watched him sell Nikons like it was the best thing going.
I guess I could have lowered the ISO and shoot ISO 800 at 1/30 but that would put me right at the edge with Rule of Thumb handholdability. (22 x 1.6 = 35.2)
I was walking around the fair and 1600 gave me a greater shooting range at dusk.
How steady are YOU????
Here's my 2 cents for whatever it's worth (which isn't much, I know!). I have the Canon 20D. I always coveted owning Nikon, but when I went to buy, the Nikon was just a little more awkward in my hands and I was already quite familiar with the Canon menus. Those were the only 2 reasons I bought Canon at the time. Since then I have purchased a 200mm f/2.8L lens, which is my longest lens. I do not have great strength or steadiness in my hands/arms. But I hate tripods and insist on hand-holding my lenses. The 200 for me is a nose-heavy lens with all that good L glass I guess. Add an extender and I have major shaking going on. I fought and fought to learn how to hold it steady, insisting on shooting at low ISO's because that's the way I learned years ago. Finally someone pointed out I should be shooting at a minimum of 400 and things have definitely improved since doing that. But I do a lot of shooting at dusk, in fact probably over half the shooting I do is late afternoon to early evening. So most of the time I am shooting at 800 and quite often 1600. I no longer "fear" the grain because Canon can handle those numbers. I would be happy to own a Nikon system, or a Fuji, or a Sony. I'm sure most of us would be. The differences are minimal at best, and I believe will not contribute to improving your shots. Unless I missed it, you haven't mentioned what you like to shoot and what types of lenses you wish to own. I think if you like to shoot in low light situations a large percentage of the time, you might lean towards Canon, otherwise they are all great.
I thought this might be interesting to post here. I was at the Air and Water show on Sunday with FrankieAng. I was shooting a 20D with 300 f/4 IS + Tamron 1.4TC and Frank was shooting a D2H with 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. I was just looking at his images and noticed we both had the same shot taken miliseconds apart. Both shooting at ISO 400 me at f/8 him at f/5.6 both hand held. Besides the color and contrast difference that I am contributing to processing differences (he shot jpg I shot RAW) these shots are just about identical. I'll let you decide for yourself. Personally I think both systems worked wonderfully and would have been happy shooting either in this situation.
1) Set your budget and find the cameras within that range.
2) Filter out which cameras won't fit your need feature-wise.
3) Go to your local dealer and give them a feel.
4) Look at sample photos from many (many) different photographers* -- does it give the quality you want?
5) Make the purchase and don't worry what anyone has to say about the brand you chose.
This worked for me in deciding which P&S to get.
*I've found that I can easily do this by searching for the camera name on flickr.
I guess I could have lowered the ISO and shoot ISO 800 at 1/30 but that would put me right at the edge with Rule of Thumb handholdability. (22 x 1.6 = 35.2)
I was walking around the fair and 1600 gave me a greater shooting range at dusk.
Gary
About what I thought. If you had been using a tripod or monopod you could have used a much lower ISO.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Here's my 2 cents for whatever it's worth (which isn't much, I know!). I have the Canon 20D. I always coveted owning Nikon, but when I went to buy, the Nikon was just a little more awkward in my hands and I was already quite familiar with the Canon menus. Those were the only 2 reasons I bought Canon at the time. Since then I have purchased a 200mm f/2.8L lens, which is my longest lens. I do not have great strength or steadiness in my hands/arms. But I hate tripods and insist on hand-holding my lenses. The 200 for me is a nose-heavy lens with all that good L glass I guess. Add an extender and I have major shaking going on. I fought and fought to learn how to hold it steady, insisting on shooting at low ISO's because that's the way I learned years ago. Finally someone pointed out I should be shooting at a minimum of 400 and things have definitely improved since doing that. But I do a lot of shooting at dusk, in fact probably over half the shooting I do is late afternoon to early evening. So most of the time I am shooting at 800 and quite often 1600. I no longer "fear" the grain because Canon can handle those numbers. I would be happy to own a Nikon system, or a Fuji, or a Sony. I'm sure most of us would be. The differences are minimal at best, and I believe will not contribute to improving your shots. Unless I missed it, you haven't mentioned what you like to shoot and what types of lenses you wish to own. I think if you like to shoot in low light situations a large percentage of the time, you might lean towards Canon, otherwise they are all great.
I'm not all that steady. That's why I use a tripod or monopod when I need one. I prefer using some form of support over the trade offs of using a higher ISO. There are many good reasons why using the lowest ISO possible is recommended.
When ever one of these useless threads get started Canon users start posting pictures of high ISO shots. The only thing interesting about most of these shots is that they were taken at high ISOs. When I view these shots my first thought is why was the high ISO necessary? The answr is usually that the shooter doesn't like using support (their preference but one I don't agree with) and/or they didn't have a decent flash available.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
About what I thought. If you had been using a tripod or monopod you could have used a much lower ISO.
Without prior consent tripods are not allowed and crimped my shooting style. Candids in an uncontrolled environment like a street or fair come at you quick (true the image in question was not a candid, but that was the intent of the fair shoot), no time for tripods or monopods.
Tri and Mono pods are wonderful tools but are very restrictive both in actual use and from venues.
In a perfect world I would tripod everything with ISO 1 at 1/100000 ... no camera shake ever. *sigh* but it isn't a perfect world.
So Harry, when you get well head out to your fair or downtown and try some candids ... your birds are beautiful. but variety is the spice of life.
When ever one of these useless threads get started Canon users start posting pictures of high ISO shots. The only thing interesting about most of these shots is that they were taken at high ISOs. When I view these shots my first thought is why was the high ISO necessary? The answr is usually that the shooter doesn't like using support (their preference but one I don't agree with) and/or they didn't have a decent flash available.
Well, I see their point. Some shots just aren't going to be there if you have to take the time to set up the tripod.
But I will admit that I am a bad, bad man for starting this thread.
Without prior consent tripods are not allowed and crimped my shooting style. Candids in an uncontrolled environment like a street or fair come at you quick (true the image in question was not a candid, but that was the intent of the fair shoot), no time for tripods or monopods.
Tri and Mono pods are wonderful tools but are very restrictive both in actual use and from venues.
In a perfect world I would tripod everything with ISO 1 at 1/100000 ... no camera shake ever. *sigh* but it isn't a perfect world.
So Harry, when you get well head out to your fair or downtown and try some candids ... your birds are beautiful. but variety is the spice of life.
Gary
That's why I use a monpod too. Its not bulky or intrusive and allows me to get the shot I want w/o tthe trade-off of a higher ISO.
I took a fair number of candids in NYC.
and other city stuff too
I shoot wherever I go
and even a few non bird shots in Florida
I just haven't needed an ISO over 800 yet. I must be doing something wrong.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm going to be no help here. One of my major buying points with going Canon was the high ISO performance over Nikon. Except for that I initial leaned towards Nikon. For much of my shooting I have to be at ISO 3200 even with a tripod or monopod (theater lighting & no flash--whether I have one available or not). Really the two brands are so close to one another it's down to the little things that push you one way or the other.
BYW, Gary, small world. I know that dancer, imagine my surprise to see her looking at me in this thread. And of course the OC Fair scenes.
Nope, doing nothing wrong ... just limiting you photo opps.
Gary
Not at all. I haven't missed a shot yet that I wanted to take. I just haven't sacrificed quality. I rather take a shot on a monopod at ISO 800 than go handheld at 1600. That would be sacrificing quality for convenience.
I'm not saying that shooting at 1600 is bad just that its not necessary in most of the shots I've seen posted. Everytime I ask someone why did you use 1600 the answer almost always is that they wanted the ease of shooting handheld instead of using proper support for their camera. Sorry but to me that's not a big selling point.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Nope, doing nothing wrong ... just limiting you photo opps.
Gary
I don't know that Harry is limited, any more than we are limited by not having the beautiful long lenses he has. Harry has specialized, and he has acquired the equipment, and experience, necessary to produce gorgeous images, just not those that require ISO 3200 and some lowlight handheld situations.
Personally, I could be happy with the ISO 1600 of the D200, and possibly the D80 (from limited samples I've seen.) I think Nikon is closing the ISO gap with Canon. It is unfortunate to sacrifice the 1/500th flash sync, because I truly envied that of the D70(s) and D50.
I also think that Nikon did have a flash exposure advantage, but that E-TTL II and Digic II processing make that advantage much less now.
Other feature differences are less compelling to me, like the relative size differences and controls placement. I have discovered that I am trainable to almost any camera.
Harry and I met in Florida to discuss this very topic. You see Harry is a
heavy Nikon guy and I, a heavy Canon guy. At the time, we both had
cameras we each believed in. And we have the same set of glass.
In the end, I think we proved that between Nikon and Canon, it's your
choice. Best to find the one you like and not spend too much time worrying
about which is better. Because in the end it really is your choice.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Once again, you are limiting yourself to what you shoot. The limitation is in regards to the spectrum of photographic opportunities ... not limiting yourself within what you are already shooting. Many venues do not allow tripods or monopods and/or the subjects are moving.
quote=Seefutlung]Once again, you are limiting yourself to what you shoot. The limitation is in regards to the spectrum of photographic opportunities ... not limiting yourself within what you are already shooting. Many venues do not allow tripods or monopods and/or the subjects are moving.
Sorry but you aren't limited to high ISOs in dim lighting and moving subjects. example: ISO 200 1/4 sec exposure time handhled
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Comments
71622631-L.jpg
No Noise Reduction of any Kind.
Unsharp at any Speed
65468676-L.jpg
No Noise Reduction applied.
Unsharp at any Speed
No Noise Reduction Applied
Unsharp at any Speed
I think the real problem is that there isn't enough people like that or more testers who are willing to do similar testing. To be fair, it'd require a ton of time and money to compare everything. Ideally I'd love to see more "small" tests where the same photographers shoots the same scene with similar equipment. With enough small tests it would be easy for someone to make a decision that suited their needs.
Why was ISO 1600 needed for this shot?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
There is a guy that I deal with which carries Canon & Nikon.Most of my major Canon purchases have been through him.One day I told him I was interested in trying a Nikon.A kit type deal.I dont mind having 2 different systems.
He told me NO, you dont! I found this very odd.After all my money is green for whatever I want to purchase.
So,I ask,why not? He started to explain to me all this tech jargon that Im not really in to.
Funny thing though,I have watched him sell Nikons like it was the best thing going.
Cincinnati Smug Leader
It was dusk. Full EXIF=
22mm
F/4.5
1/60
I guess I could have lowered the ISO and shoot ISO 800 at 1/30 but that would put me right at the edge with Rule of Thumb handholdability. (22 x 1.6 = 35.2)
I was walking around the fair and 1600 gave me a greater shooting range at dusk.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Here's my 2 cents for whatever it's worth (which isn't much, I know!). I have the Canon 20D. I always coveted owning Nikon, but when I went to buy, the Nikon was just a little more awkward in my hands and I was already quite familiar with the Canon menus. Those were the only 2 reasons I bought Canon at the time. Since then I have purchased a 200mm f/2.8L lens, which is my longest lens. I do not have great strength or steadiness in my hands/arms. But I hate tripods and insist on hand-holding my lenses. The 200 for me is a nose-heavy lens with all that good L glass I guess. Add an extender and I have major shaking going on. I fought and fought to learn how to hold it steady, insisting on shooting at low ISO's because that's the way I learned years ago. Finally someone pointed out I should be shooting at a minimum of 400 and things have definitely improved since doing that. But I do a lot of shooting at dusk, in fact probably over half the shooting I do is late afternoon to early evening. So most of the time I am shooting at 800 and quite often 1600. I no longer "fear" the grain because Canon can handle those numbers. I would be happy to own a Nikon system, or a Fuji, or a Sony. I'm sure most of us would be. The differences are minimal at best, and I believe will not contribute to improving your shots. Unless I missed it, you haven't mentioned what you like to shoot and what types of lenses you wish to own. I think if you like to shoot in low light situations a large percentage of the time, you might lean towards Canon, otherwise they are all great.
20D 300f/4 IS + Tamron 1.4TC
D2H 80-400 f/4.5-5.6
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
Hard to tell. The Nikon image has an overall cyan cast that I do not like, but as you said, could be in the post processing. Yours is more pleasing.
The one thing I did notice....smugmug loaded a lot quicker than pbase!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
1) Set your budget and find the cameras within that range.
2) Filter out which cameras won't fit your need feature-wise.
3) Go to your local dealer and give them a feel.
4) Look at sample photos from many (many) different photographers* -- does it give the quality you want?
5) Make the purchase and don't worry what anyone has to say about the brand you chose.
This worked for me in deciding which P&S to get.
*I've found that I can easily do this by searching for the camera name on flickr.
About what I thought. If you had been using a tripod or monopod you could have used a much lower ISO.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm not all that steady. That's why I use a tripod or monopod when I need one. I prefer using some form of support over the trade offs of using a higher ISO. There are many good reasons why using the lowest ISO possible is recommended.
When ever one of these useless threads get started Canon users start posting pictures of high ISO shots. The only thing interesting about most of these shots is that they were taken at high ISOs. When I view these shots my first thought is why was the high ISO necessary? The answr is usually that the shooter doesn't like using support (their preference but one I don't agree with) and/or they didn't have a decent flash available.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Without prior consent tripods are not allowed and crimped my shooting style. Candids in an uncontrolled environment like a street or fair come at you quick (true the image in question was not a candid, but that was the intent of the fair shoot), no time for tripods or monopods.
Tri and Mono pods are wonderful tools but are very restrictive both in actual use and from venues.
In a perfect world I would tripod everything with ISO 1 at 1/100000 ... no camera shake ever. *sigh* but it isn't a perfect world.
So Harry, when you get well head out to your fair or downtown and try some candids ... your birds are beautiful. but variety is the spice of life.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Well, I see their point. Some shots just aren't going to be there if you have to take the time to set up the tripod.
But I will admit that I am a bad, bad man for starting this thread.
That's why I use a monpod too. Its not bulky or intrusive and allows me to get the shot I want w/o tthe trade-off of a higher ISO.
I took a fair number of candids in NYC.
and other city stuff too
I shoot wherever I go
and even a few non bird shots in Florida
I just haven't needed an ISO over 800 yet. I must be doing something wrong.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
BYW, Gary, small world. I know that dancer, imagine my surprise to see her looking at me in this thread. And of course the OC Fair scenes.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Nope, doing nothing wrong ... just limiting you photo opps.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
As long as you admit your failing, you are halfway towards recovery.
Now you just need to buy a camera, and a lens, and memory cards, and more lenses, and a camera bag, and ..., well, you get the idea.
Just keep us posted and share your images.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Not at all. I haven't missed a shot yet that I wanted to take. I just haven't sacrificed quality. I rather take a shot on a monopod at ISO 800 than go handheld at 1600. That would be sacrificing quality for convenience.
I'm not saying that shooting at 1600 is bad just that its not necessary in most of the shots I've seen posted. Everytime I ask someone why did you use 1600 the answer almost always is that they wanted the ease of shooting handheld instead of using proper support for their camera. Sorry but to me that's not a big selling point.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I don't know that Harry is limited, any more than we are limited by not having the beautiful long lenses he has. Harry has specialized, and he has acquired the equipment, and experience, necessary to produce gorgeous images, just not those that require ISO 3200 and some lowlight handheld situations.
Personally, I could be happy with the ISO 1600 of the D200, and possibly the D80 (from limited samples I've seen.) I think Nikon is closing the ISO gap with Canon. It is unfortunate to sacrifice the 1/500th flash sync, because I truly envied that of the D70(s) and D50.
I also think that Nikon did have a flash exposure advantage, but that E-TTL II and Digic II processing make that advantage much less now.
Other feature differences are less compelling to me, like the relative size differences and controls placement. I have discovered that I am trainable to almost any camera.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Harry and I met in Florida to discuss this very topic. You see Harry is a
heavy Nikon guy and I, a heavy Canon guy. At the time, we both had
cameras we each believed in. And we have the same set of glass.
In the end, I think we proved that between Nikon and Canon, it's your
choice. Best to find the one you like and not spend too much time worrying
about which is better. Because in the end it really is your choice.
Ian
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Example:
ISO 3200 / Aperature 2.8 / Shutter Speed 1/100 / Focal Length 70mm
71689256-L.jpg
Unsharp at any Speed
Sorry but you aren't limited to high ISOs in dim lighting and moving subjects. example: ISO 200 1/4 sec exposure time handhled
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Nice shot. Silly argument.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
(Definitely a cool shot)