 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Canon 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 > Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled > them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 Nikon lenses are more expensive. >> Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled >> them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Nikon lenses are more expensive. You mean Canon has more selection of cheap lenses? <snip> > Nikon lenses are more expensive. That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most part.  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> Nikon lenses are more expensive. > > That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of > lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most > part. Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results? SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>>Nikon lenses are more expensive. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results? Nikon has some consumer lenses, Canon has more selection, much of that selection is more consumer lenses. I think Matt's math is probably right, in my Nikon bias, I'd say Nikon is more careful about what they release, given fewer releases <g>. In any case, neither of them are clueless so you do generally get what you pay for. > >> Nikon lenses are more expensive. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results? No, I just remember having a similar grouse about Nikon's telephoto lenses. Canon offered, and I assume still does, more for less. But then I looked at the wide end of things, and the situation was reversed. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> >> Nikon lenses are more expensive. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results? Why, have you done the math? SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>> >> Nikon lenses are more expensive. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why, have you done the math? No, but I am not the one indicating it averages out. I ask because the statement seems very generalized and potentially unfounded. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> 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! Signaturewww.photosbydouglas.com www.weprint2canvas.com If you really must write,use my name at an above domain. >>> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >>> Noise is well supressed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 >>>> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >>>> Noise is well supressed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. > Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled > them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > This will actually help mitigate any vibration caused by Canon's rough > firing. ALERT - ALERT!! Rich actually touched a camera! > 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 >> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >> Noise is well supressed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >proper comparison -- right???) >Bob No, I did other shots. At 1600 ISO, both cameras produce similar images, with the Canon (IMO) handling the noise better both in the type of noise it produced and the quantity. However, because of the Nikon's production of noise in shadow, I'd like to do the test again with subjects of wider dynamic range just so the Nikon gets a more thorough test. The differences I noticed were not confined to noise and I'd like to do daylight outdoor shots as well because I saw problems with the Nikon's WB (in terms of how it handled the indoor lighting) compared to the Canon. -Rich >>> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >>> Noise is well supressed. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lighting) compared to the Canon. > -Rich Oh, well, that completely explains it then!! Bob > Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled > them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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! > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to get the D200 vs. the D30. Now it's the D200 wins? Talk about an > unbiased opinion....NOT! The Sensor used in the Nikon is a CCD which has good and bad points. I think these are better suited to less than harsh lighting but having said that, the Canon 20D/30D is not a well made camera when compared to the Nikon. I would have a D200 in a heartbeat over a 30D if I knew absolutely I'd never take an outdoor picture in bright sunlight or a not need ISO 3200 every once in a while. It's the same sort of thing when looking at Evolt Olympus cameras. Absolutely superb optics, magic handling and less than great image processing. I'm afraid when the quality of your image is critical and you absolutely cannot afford lost highlights or missing shadow detail, Canon is presently the only choice. Sad as it is for me, the new 1Ds I just ordered is not going to be a substitute for the car I sold to pay for it. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >processing. I'm afraid when the quality of your image is critical and >you absolutely cannot afford lost highlights or missing shadow detail, You buy a Fuji S3? :) The problem with the Fuji is that it is a great sensor in a $100 body. The viewfinder accuracy is terrible, if you need any precision. The door to change the card was a bad design on the S1, and it is still the same. No weather sealing at all, that card door would leak like a sieve in a rain storm. That said the image quality is wonderful, that is how they have kept their market nitch. I have used Canon F1s (both models) and Nikon F3 and F5, on all these cameras look in the viewfinder place an object, that is where it comes out on the image, the D200 is that sort of camera, I've used Fuji S1& S2 cameras, there is always some shift in the viewfinder, the S3 uses the same basic camera. Also the Fujis won't meter with older Nikon lenses. Tom >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > just ordered is not going to be a substitute for the car I sold to pay > for it. This is funny for doug to admit Canon has better dynamic range. He had tried very hard to convince us the Panasonic FZ20 is better! >> It's the same sort of thing when looking at Evolt Olympus cameras. >> Absolutely superb optics, magic handling and less than great image [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is funny for doug to admit Canon has better dynamic range. He had > tried very hard to convince us the Panasonic FZ20 is better! That's a good one leo. I supposed it never occurred to you in your rush to take a stab at me that this is a thread specifically about 2 DSLR and the Panasonic FZ cameras are not SLRs? Apart from that, I have only ever said (and I have the evidence to substantiate it) that the FZ is a better low light camera than Canon DSLRs. In fact, most non reflex digitals of reasonable quality are better low light cameras than Canon DSLRs. Even my wife's 3 year old and much abused Olympus 760 Ultra Zoom is a better low light camera than a Canon 20D or 5D. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/lighting.htm It's all about shadows and how Canon CMOS sensors and DIGIC processors create major noise patterns in deep shadows which cannot ever be repaired. The Kodak and Panasonic sensors don't do this. That makes them better low light cameras. The fact they don't like other lighting situations as well as Canon DSLRs is immaterial. Nothing has ever been said by me to compare them in any other way except in a price for quality comparison. Enjoy... Douglas >> Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled >> them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >to get the D200 vs. the D30. Now it's the D200 wins? Talk about an >unbiased opinion....NOT! Read the context. the D200 wins from an aspect of shutter/mirror slap damping and (IMO) body design and build. Thats all I meant. From a visual standpoint, from what I've seen so far the Canon takes the brass ring, at least under the circumstances I shot in. My opinion is completely unbiased. I'm not tied to any brand and if one looks bad in one way, or good in another, I'll say it. My opinion of the Olympus E-330? Cheaply constructed for what it costs, no WAY would I pay $1370 Can. for it and not $1600 for the 30D. but it produces images that are reasonable and perhaps not as "bad" as has been implied by dpreview.com. My reasons for attacking Canon this past few months were because I felt (rightly so, I think) that Canon's industry-leading sensors and internal software were being let down by Canon's insistence in NOT upgrading their lens line. Thats all. -Rich >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. Any differences in the chromaticity of noise in different cameras using the same net white balance are due to interpretations made the the RAW converter. There is no distinction between luminance and chromatic noise in RAW data. Noise (random-pixel, line, or posterization) is colorless until bayer-minded interpretation colors it. Images taken in the native light color of the camera (usually somewhere around magenta), display the least chromatic noise when colored. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Here is what I mean when I said the noise was different. The first image (both are crops from underexposed areas) is from the Nikon. Notice the noise in the darker area of the slats on the wall and on the fellow's face. It appears mostly greyish and rough. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655518 Second is the Canon. Notice the overall even, coloured noise on the slats. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655520 >The first image (both are crops from underexposed areas) is from the >Nikon. >Notice the noise in the darker area of the slats on the wall and on the >fellow's face. >It appears mostly greyish and rough. >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655518 Looks like an impressionistic painting; obviously a very aggressive noise-reduction algorithm. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. I bet those store folks "love" to see you coming and wonder if you will ever actually buy anything (as we do here). >> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. > >I bet those store folks "love" to see you coming and wonder if you will ever >actually buy anything (as we do here). What if I already had? Most of those people are twiddling their thumbs in the off hours. A diversion won't kill them. -Rich >>> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What if I already had? Most of those people are twiddling their > thumbs in the off hours. A diversion won't kill them. Oh. Bless you for going only in the off hours and saving them from tedious boredom. You are indeed a saint. >>>> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oh. Bless you for going only in the off hours and saving them from tedious > boredom. You are indeed a saint. You've never worked retail have you? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You've never worked retail have you? Yes I have. We had to dust and rearrange the stock when no customers were around. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.