What kind of Digital Camera are you using today?

[Moxiemike]

20D
70-200L
17-40L*
100-400L*
600L*
singh-ray ray filters


*on there way to moi

im not entirely comfortable with the "nikons are sharper" theory, but thats another argument.

a recent photo from my favorite little place, the hawk conservancy

You're really just not confortable cedeing anything away from your beloved canons. And that's fine. Your bird shot is incredibly sharp.

Hell, I've even made noiseless ISO 1600 shots with my D2h.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well like I said I know next to nothing about them....I thought they were for Canon and Nikon cameras

Either way, they SOUND like a good lens, but my only influence is coming right off these boards, so don't blame me if they suck....blame everyone else

LOL.

In a bit of a quandary as to the direction I will go. Have the 10D with the 17-40L, 28-135IS, and the 75-300IS right now (along with other cameras). Feel much more confident with the C8080 than I do with the 10D. But been playing with a 1dmkII at work, and I have fallen for it, though much bigger than I like. The Olympus E system is attractive also. And with their new lenses, very tempting.

 

[efoto]

LOL.

In a bit of a quandary as to the direction I will go. Have the 10D with the 17-40L, 28-135IS, and the 75-300IS right now (along with other cameras). Feel much more confident with the C8080 than I do with the 10D. But been playing with a 1dmkII at work, and I have fallen for it, though much bigger than I like. The Olympus E system is attractive also. And with their new lenses, very tempting.

Olympus' E series is the one with the smaller image sensor? So if you could explain this, with a smaller image sensor the native image size must be smaller correct? or how does this work....I'm quite confused.

I like how Canon has their white lenses differentiated from the rest of the line (those are the pro ones right? ). I know next to nothing about Canon since I went the Nikon route and have vested my time into attempting to learn my D70 well enough. I still don't know how to use the thing to its abilities yet.

 

[Moxiemike]

Olympus' E series is the one with the smaller image sensor? So if you could explain this, with a smaller image sensor the native image size must be smaller correct? or how does this work....I'm quite confused.

I like how Canon has their white lenses differentiated from the rest of the line (those are the pro ones right? ). I know next to nothing about Canon since I went the Nikon route and have vested my time into attempting to learn my D70 well enough. I still don't know how to use the thing to its abilities yet.

If we were talking film, re the olympus, you'd be right on. But it's a smaller sensor that they just shove extra pixels onto (in layman's terms. hah)

The Nikon D70 has a 1.5 sensor crop, 15 x 23 appx. It has 6 million pixels on it. The D2x has a 1.5 sensor crop, 15 x23 with 12 million. The olympus is a 4:3 ratio hence 4/3's while the normal slr's are all 3:2. The image size is different, a bit, but not smaller. The pixel count makes it smaller.

Does that make sense?

 

[BakedBeans]

You're really just not confortable cedeing anything away from your beloved canons.

why come out and say something like that? trying to start an argument i presume?

sometimes we back what we believe to be best, then there is you with you unnatural love for all things nikon

Hell, I've even made noiseless ISO 1600 shots with my D2h.

and?

 

[Mr. Anderson]

you guys should play nice - it really doesn't matter what the camera is, its the pictures and the person taking the shot that makes it.

 

[Moxiemike]

you guys should play nice - it really doesn't matter what the camera is, its the pictures and the person taking the shot that makes it.

I think so too. If you look back a few pages, I posted some minute differences between the two.

I don't think that the difference in sharpness and the difference in noise is that pronounced if you know what you're doing.

And Al, i've been very critical of Nikon. As a business, they suck. Period. They make bad decisions. But as an equipment maker, they make incredible gear.

I happen to take that gear and wrestle the most out of it. As you do with your Canon stuff. That said, in the end, there's not much of a difference in image quality.

You may have to sharpen, which degrades some detail and causes halo-ing. I have to do some noise reduction, which degrades detail. But in the end, i'm sure you sell photos and I do too.

I just happen to think that you focus a little too much on how your stuff is the best. You even say it! You believe it to be the best. That's foolish. Simply because if enough of the Canon folks keep saying it... well... it destroys innovation!

Also what it does is cloud your ability to just shoot. I completely outperformed this other pro at a shoot this weekend. I think he was too worried about getting me to switch to canon to watch his exposures. And at that point, why even bother? You're producting crappy images with a $4500 camera. But it's the best, right?

 

[efoto]

If we were talking film, re the olympus, you'd be right on. But it's a smaller sensor that they just shove extra pixels onto (in layman's terms. hah)

The Nikon D70 has a 1.5 sensor crop, 15 x 23 appx. It has 6 million pixels on it. The D2x has a 1.5 sensor crop, 15 x23 with 12 million. The olympus is a 4:3 ratio hence 4/3's while the normal slr's are all 3:2. The image size is different, a bit, but not smaller. The pixel count makes it smaller.

Does that make sense?

Makes enough sense, yeah. After reading it a second time it makes fine sense, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Moxiemike]

Makes enough sense, yeah. After reading it a second time it makes fine sense, thanks for the explanation.

think of it as pixel depth defining the image SIZE while the sensor size is fluid and can change.

in film, the film size (which is replaced by the sensor) keeps the image size static for 35, medium format, or large format. This is why people keep saying, as we approach 20+mp in cams, that a high MP digital SLR could replace medium format.

The formats of film sizes have been rendered obsolete in terms of digital, instead we get various sensor sizes with different pixel depths.

 

[efoto]

think of it as pixel depth defining the image SIZE while the sensor size is fluid and can change.

in film, the film size (which is replaced by the sensor) keeps the image size static for 35, medium format, or large format. This is why people keep saying, as we approach 20+mp in cams, that a high MP digital SLR could replace medium format.

The formats of film sizes have been rendered obsolete in terms of digital, instead we get various sensor sizes with different pixel depths.

So the size is static as you stated, and increasing the MP is just increasing the quality of that image at the static size determined by the sensor (film)? which would in turn allow higher quality images that lend themselves to better blow-ups....do I understand? cause I think so, but who knows for sure

 

[Moxiemike]

So the size is static as you stated, and increasing the MP is just increasing the quality of that image at the static size determined by the sensor (film)? which would in turn allow higher quality images that lend themselves to better blow-ups....do I understand? cause I think so, but who knows for sure

Exactly.

Now here's the thing. The sensor size within a camera is static, but for example, Canon uses a 1.6 crop in the rebels and 20d's and a 1.3 crop in the 1d/1d mk II series. IN the 1dmk I & II they use a full frame, or 24x36mm sensor, same as film.

So across manufacturers sensor size can change. And the way they engineer pixel depth, 4mp, 6mp, 8mp, 12mp, 16mp, is what determines things like noise, etc.

For example, Nikon is up against a wall, supposedly, with 12mp on a 1.5 crop sensor. Who knows if more mp can be added without a sacrifice in noise. It's all friggin' too scientific for me, but I do understand a bit.

 

[efoto]

Exactly.

Now here's the thing. The sensor size within a camera is static, but for example, Canon uses a 1.6 crop in the rebels and 20d's and a 1.3 crop in the 1d/1d mk II series. IN the 1dmk I & II they use a full frame, or 24x36mm sensor, same as film.

So across manufacturers sensor size can change. And the way they engineer pixel depth, 4mp, 6mp, 8mp, 12mp, 16mp, is what determines things like noise, etc.

For example, Nikon is up against a wall, supposedly, with 12mp on a 1.5 crop sensor. Who knows if more mp can be added without a sacrifice in noise. It's all friggin' too scientific for me, but I do understand a bit.

Ahh!, I did know that Nikon was using a 1.5x crop sensor and Canon a 1.6x crop, but didn't know about the 1.3x on the 1dmk series. Would the lesser crop be why many 'pros' like to head to the 1dmk series? Does Nikon have anything with a lesser crop or are all their DSLR cameras using 1.5x?

 

[Moxiemike]

Ahh!, I did know that Nikon was using a 1.5x crop sensor and Canon a 1.6x crop, but didn't know about the 1.3x on the 1dmk series. Would the lesser crop be why many 'pros' like to head to the 1dmk series? Does Nikon have anything with a lesser crop or are all their DSLR cameras using 1.5x?

I think Canon has the 1.3 to offer pros a little more wide angle coverage with their Canon wides. That said, I think that it's a little confusing, what with the 20d being a pretty pro camera, to go from figuring out coverage for a 1.3 sensor and then switching to a 1.6 crop. That would be annoying.

In that regard, in my opinion, I think Canon is a little less organized across their line. but it does help differentiate. That said, it's the reason, I think, that Canon hasn't converted their 24-70L into a 17-55 or something like the DX lenses Nikon has.

Nikon gets to advert their 17-55 as a digital 28-90. The 12-24 as a 18-36. Etc.

Canon has only made "digital" lenses for the 1.6 series of camera. Those aren't compatible with the 1d series (which makes sense, as they are lesser lenses.).

I was talking to someone yesterday who was buying lenses to cover the 1.6 crop and hoped that a future 20d replacement used the same crop. If not, you're reconsidering your VERY expensive lens purchases.

I personally love the way the 1.5 crop works, save for architectural and interior work. But the 17-55 blows away any ~24/28-70/80/90 i've used in terms of sharpness, color, noise (yes, lenses affect noise!), saturation and contrast.

PLus the fact that I can use it on my D100, D2h and soon to be D2x and have it cover the focal lengths i'm used to is a MAJOR plus for Nikon in my book. I'm money concious. And i'm sure if I had canon, i'd have a 1d mk II and a 20d. Slapping a 24-70 on the 1d mk II makes it ~31mm at the wide end. That same lens on the 20d is ~38mm at the wide end. Hardly wide enough.

I just couldn't justify spending $1200 on a Canon L 24-70 and not even getting a useful range of focal lengths. Just like my 24-70 Sigma became useless on digital in my opinion.

The 17-55 Nikkor? Easily justified spending $1200 on it because it gives me the range I need. When I looked hard at Canon aftert he D2x WB thing, one of the reasons I didn't move was that I like my wides. And Canon just doesn't stack up on that area at all. Though their 10-22 is compelling, i haven't heard much about it.

 

[calyxman]

you guys should play nice - it really doesn't matter what the camera is, its the pictures and the person taking the shot that makes it.

That's true. Even Ken Rockwell on his site says that it's not the camera but the person taking the picture, because after all, photography is an art.

Speaking of Rockwell, he did a very in depth review of the Casio EX-Z750 and he gave it a thumbs up.

Maybe in a few more months I'll be messing with one too.

 

[BakedBeans]

I think so too. If you look back a few pages, I posted some minute differences between the two.

I don't think that the difference in sharpness and the difference in noise is that pronounced if you know what you're doing.

And Al, i've been very critical of Nikon. As a business, they suck. Period. They make bad decisions. But as an equipment maker, they make incredible gear.

I happen to take that gear and wrestle the most out of it. As you do with your Canon stuff. That said, in the end, there's not much of a difference in image quality.

You may have to sharpen, which degrades some detail and causes halo-ing. I have to do some noise reduction, which degrades detail. But in the end, i'm sure you sell photos and I do too.

I just happen to think that you focus a little too much on how your stuff is the best. You even say it! You believe it to be the best. That's foolish. Simply because if enough of the Canon folks keep saying it... well... it destroys innovation!

Also what it does is cloud your ability to just shoot. I completely outperformed this other pro at a shoot this weekend. I think he was too worried about getting me to switch to canon to watch his exposures. And at that point, why even bother? You're producting crappy images with a $4500 camera. But it's the best, right?

thats fine mike, when you put yourself forward like that i have no problem, i think you get mixed up with what I'm saying, when i say i think canons are better, thats because at the time of posting i think just that, that in the areas that matter and matter most to me canons are better, there are lots of reasons for this however i think you think I'm biased toward canon, Im not and im not biased toward mac either, i would switch to windows tomorrow if it was more secure and better designed etc etc, this also applies for nikon (not now that i've got lenses of course) at the end of the day if a user has got good nikon lenses then there is only one choice, but i will currently recommend canon equipment to newbies because because i believe it to be better than nikons offerings, seminally if a pc user has 10k of pro software for pc and isnt going to use the internet then im going to recommend getting a dell.

I am with you on the "photographers take the photograph" stuff but cameras play a big part in our images being that little bit more special, especially now that digital is taking over the mainstream.

 

[BakedBeans]

I personally love the way the 1.5 crop works, save for architectural and interior work. But the 17-55 blows away any ~24/28-70/80/90 i've used in terms of sharpness, color, noise (yes, lenses affect noise!), saturation and contrast.

PLus the fact that I can use it on my D100, D2h and soon to be D2x and have it cover the focal lengths i'm used to is a MAJOR plus for Nikon in my book. I'm money concious. And i'm sure if I had canon, i'd have a 1d mk II and a 20d. Slapping a 24-70 on the 1d mk II makes it ~31mm at the wide end. That same lens on the 20d is ~38mm at the wide end. Hardly wide enough.

I just couldn't justify spending $1200 on a Canon L 24-70 and not even getting a useful range of focal lengths. Just like my 24-70 Sigma became useless on digital in my opinion.

The 17-55 Nikkor? Easily justified spending $1200 on it because it gives me the range I need. When I looked hard at Canon aftert he D2x WB thing, one of the reasons I didn't move was that I like my wides. And Canon just doesn't stack up on that area at all. Though their 10-22 is compelling, i haven't heard much about it.

moxie, part of the reason i get defensive is because your weighing things up wrongly.

most people are going to use the 1ds mark2 for sports and the 1ds/mark2 for landscapes meaning that the full frame on the 1ds is perfect for that lens, which is a fantastic lens btw, the 17-40L is also a beauty. your giving the wrong impression and negative "facts".

the 10-22, 17-40L and 24-70L have got things tied up at that end for canon, a pro that needs to use a 24-70L and have it at a true full frame 24mm is going to be shooting film or 1ds.

 

[Moxiemike]

thats fine mike, when you put yourself forward like that i have no problem, i think you get mixed up with what I'm saying, when i say i think canons are better, thats because at the time of posting i think just that, that in the areas that matter and matter most to me canons are better, there are lots of reasons for this however i think you think I'm biased toward canon, Im not and im not biased toward mac either, i would switch to windows tomorrow if it was more secure and better designed etc etc, this also applies for nikon (not now that i've got lenses of course) at the end of the day if a user has got good nikon lenses then there is only one choice, but i will currently recommend canon equipment to newbies because because i believe it to be better than nikons offerings, seminally if a pc user has 10k of pro software for pc and isnt going to use the internet then im going to recommend getting a dell.

I am with you on the "photographers take the photograph" stuff but cameras play a big part in our images being that little bit more special, especially now that digital is taking over the mainstream.

See, i'll recommend canon if end user is, say, a sports shooter or more interested in big teles. I'll recommend them to nikon for PJ, as nikon has better glass in that area.

i'll recommend consumers who want to grow the D70/D70s (and now the D50, which is awesome).

I'll recommend advanced amatuers to look at what they're app is (sports? architecture?) and recommend either a 20d or a d70 based on that.

I'll recommend the Rebel to soccer moms, since it's cheap and they'll probably use it twice before going back to their G5 P&S or whatever.

If someone is geeked about landscapes? I'll gladly point them to the Fuji S3 or 1ds.

It's not that Canon is 100% unequivocaly better than Nikon. Or vice versa. I think that's what you don't understand. There's myriad of benefits between the two, enough to justify a recommendation of either.

that said, when it boils down to it, I think Nikon's offerings are just as robust as Canons. Noise, IMHO, is a non-issue, as ISO 1600 on my D2h is better than film at ISO 800.

Sharpness is a non-issue because I can sharpen, and I use high quality glass.

Color? I can manage the color and contrast I want with either Canon or Nikon. I think that a 100% recommendation of anything is foolish.

I use a mac, but I recommended a Sony with an AMD to my dad. Why? He needs AutoCAD. Do i like giving him a virus infected platform? No. But i explain those issues and let him choose.

Would I recommend a Canon to a landscape photog? Maybe the 1ds. but surely not the 1dmk II or 20d. Can you do landscapes with them? Certainly. But the crop factor kills the wides. I'd recommend a Sigma or Tokina lens, as you can't find a canon made lens to match up with the Sigma or Tokina offerings on a 20d.

Would I recommend a D2h for a landscape shooter? Not with the D2x out for sure! I'd recomend the D2x and 12-24 +17-55.

If you have an AF-S 70-200 Nikkor, get a D2hs, D2x, or D70s and do your sports stuff.

The thing you're missing with your 100% vote on Canon because "i believe it to be better than nikons offerings" is a little proposterous. I talk to Mr. A about his 20d very often. And i'm glad he got one. He's making fine use of it. Would he have been better off with a D70? Maybe as much as Mr. A could make outstanding pics with kodak disposable.

I told an older guy with some jitters (i think he might have parkinsons, i'm not sure) to get a Minolta Maxxum 7d because he gets vibration reduction on ANY lens.

He was a digital newbie. He bought one and LOVES it. Loves his images. Finds it perfect for his use. He's happy he can handhold shots in museums at ISO 800 with a 50mm prime lens.

And you know what? I feel great about doing it. I just have issue with people who make 100% recommendations based on their preference of brand, be it Nikon, Apple, Canon, Microsoft, etc.

The only product I recommend with 100% excitement is the iPod.

 

[Moxiemike]

moxie, part of the reason i get defensive is because your weighing things up wrongly.

most people are going to use the 1ds mark2 for sports and the 1ds/mark2 for landscapes meaning that the full frame on the 1ds is perfect for that lens, which is a fantastic lens btw, the 17-40L is also a beauty. your giving the wrong impression and negative "facts".

the 10-22, 17-40L and 24-70L have got things tied up at that end for canon, a pro that needs to use a 24-70L and have it at a true full frame 24mm is going to be shooting film or 1ds.

Oh c'mon. You'll recommend an $8700 camera system to a newbie because he can use a 17-40L on it when they could get a Nikkor 12-24 and D70 for under $1700???

Hell, for $8700 the user could get a D2x, 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200 and be covered from 18-300 ~ and have a useful sports, landscape and studio camera. That's MUCH more versatile than a 1ds MK II and ONE wide lens.

THAT'S the kind of misinformation I can't stand.

I was talking specifically about the crop. And there's no way you can deny the edge sharpness problems of the FF sensor, but it Kodak's for Nikon or Canon or Canon's in the 1ds/1ds II.

 

[BakedBeans]

It's not that Canon is 100% unequivocaly better than Nikon. Or vice versa. I think that's what you don't understand.

try not to patronise me to much mike

the rest are special cases, i was talking on average.

 

[BakedBeans]

Oh c'mon. You'll recommend an $8700 camera system to a newbie because he can use a 17-40L on it when they could get a Nikkor 12-24 and D70 for under $1700???

Hell, for $8700 the user could get a D2x, 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200 and be covered from 18-300 ~ and have a useful sports, landscape and studio camera. That's MUCH more versatile than a 1ds MK II and ONE wide lens.

THAT'S the kind of misinformation I can't stand.

I was talking specifically about the crop. And there's no way you can deny the edge sharpness problems of the FF sensor, but it Kodak's for Nikon or Canon or Canon's in the 1ds/1ds II.

where the hell did i say that i would recommend a newbie a 8700 dollar camera? im talking about the best for doing a job, your work - i even used the term pro. the 1ds mark2 with l glass isnt even in the same league as the d70 with a 12-24

newbies dont need dslrs and if they do they need a rebel xt/d70 depending on what they are doing. we are talking about professional equipment, nothing like that is for newbies, we are talking about L series lenses, not for newbies.

money and value has never come in to the argument a rebel xt with the 10-22 will perform just aswell if not better for landscapes than the d70

 

[Moxiemike]

try not to patronise me to much mike

the rest are special cases, i was talking on average.

You talk about misinformation. You're full of misinformation.

You're a hell of a shooter, no doubt, but again, statements like "i believe it to be better than nikons offerings" show us that you do indeed have a huge bias.

Me? I just like to shoot. I'm comfortable with my Nikons. I'd also be comfortable with a Canon. Or a Fuji. Or a Minolta.

You can BELIEVE Canon has better offerings. But you're not really correct on that. The D2x stacks up to the 1ds and costs $3000 less. That's a nice chunk of change.

The D70 kicks the original rebels' arse and holds its own against the new one. The D2h/D2hs is the 1d mk II's equal in every regard except the mpix. it's just as fast, ergonomically nice, and the image quality is outstanding.

The only place canon has a clear victory as far as products go is the 20d v. the ancient D100.

Other than that, either product on either side given to the right person, should produce negligable differences in image quality for all of the standard print sizes (4x6 up to 12x18)

 

[Moxiemike]

where the hell did i say that i would recommend a newbie a 8700 dollar camera? im talking about the best for doing a job, your work - i even used the term pro. the 1ds mark2 with l glass isnt even in the same league as the d70 with a 12-24

newbies dont need dslrs and if they do they need a rebel xt/d70 depending on what they are doing. we are talking about professional equipment, nothing like that is for newbies, we are talking about L series lenses, not for newbies.

money and value has never come in to the argument a rebel xt with the 10-22 will perform just aswell if not better for landscapes than the d70

If we're talking pro gear, i'd still recommend a D2x over a 1ds MK II. The image quality differences are negligable and the speed and versatility of the D2x makes it a much better value, pound for pound, than the 1ds mk II.

At $5k i'd even take it over a 1d MK II which is around $3500 right now.

In the end, if we're talking image quality, it's a toss up.

But as far as product lines go, Canon and Nikon seem to have divided the road up a bit with what features they give. And yes, megapixels are a FEATURE.

Nikon can't compete with Canon's massive R&D so they engineer middle market cameras. Don't go head to head, but rather develop products that fit in between. Add features Canon doesn't have (nikon: 1st with wireless. 1st with high speed image crop.) And put the products on the market and watch them sell. Which the D2x, D70 and certainly the D70s and D50 will do. The d2hs i'm not so sure about.

Kinda like, oh, Apple, perhaps?

 

[Moxiemike]

where the hell did i say that i would recommend a newbie a 8700 dollar camera? im talking about the best for doing a job, your work - i even used the term pro. the 1ds mark2 with l glass isnt even in the same league as the d70 with a 12-24

newbies dont need dslrs and if they do they need a rebel xt/d70 depending on what they are doing. we are talking about professional equipment, nothing like that is for newbies, we are talking about L series lenses, not for newbies.

money and value has never come in to the argument a rebel xt with the 10-22 will perform just aswell if not better for landscapes than the d70

For the record, please list all of the DSLR's and lenses you've used. I'm curious. I'll post mine too. I bet you'll be surprised.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

ok guys - lets not make this into a pissing match

agree to disagree and let it go....

They wouldn't make such a wide range of cameras if there weren't a wide range of uses/users out there - pro and amateur alike.

D

 

[BakedBeans]

You're a hell of a shooter, no doubt, but again, statements like "i believe it to be better than nikons offerings" show us that you do indeed have a huge bias.

as are you mike, i currently believe that the products weigh up better (currently, if only slightly) better then there nikon couterparts.

Me? I just like to shoot. I'm comfortable with my Nikons. I'd also be comfortable with a Canon. Or a Fuji. Or a Minolta.

me also, the D2x is a sweeeet camera no?

You can BELIEVE Canon has better offerings. But you're not really correct on that.

well lets see on that

The D2x stacks up to the 1ds and costs $3000 less. That's a nice chunk of change.

the 1ds mark 2 (which i presume you mean) is a better camera in a number of areas though, thats why its that much more expensive.

The D70 kicks the original rebels' arse and holds its own against the new one.

yep, it did. and although isnt quite as good is in real terms the same as the xt

The D2h/D2hs is the 1d mk II's equal in every regard except the mpix. it's just as fast, ergonomically nice, and the image quality is outstanding.

that just isnt true mike, there are a number of things that are worse,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...canon_eos1dmkii,nikon_d2h,nikon_d2hs&show=all

Other than that, either product on either side given to the right person, should produce negligable differences in image quality for all of the standard print sizes (4x6 up to 12x18)

im not saying your wrong on that, im just saying that doesnt make nikons are better.

side by side on each canon have the edge as far as im concerned and the specs are concerned