 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / September 2006Cnet Reviews Nikon D80 and Canon DR XTi
I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch the D80 is a better choice. In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses (excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the big thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that Nikon did not include. If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking care) changes their lenses at least 2 to 3 times on an outing; I would like to know just how serious this dust issue is. Is it enough of a problem to favor Canon for this feature or is a composition grid and a spot meter to favor the Nikon. From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the sensor and the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does not come back perfect. Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much difference between the two as far as results, I have read that Nikon has better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more appealing color. Comments Welcome! > I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in > Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Comments Welcome! Dust isn't really a big problem, I have had a Nikon D200 for 8 months and haven't had to go near the sensor (actually the glass sealing the sensor). I switch lenses often as I have mostly primes. I have a 4 year old Fuji S1 in my office and it hasn't needed a sensor cleaning either, we photograph eyes so there is a lot of white in the picture. Friends who have cleaned their sensors have used a Giotto Rocket Blower or some obscenely expensive sensor pads. They look at the sensor cleaning as a chore and not a difficult one. Don't let rumors of sensor cleaning keep you from getting a DSLR. It is not as big a deal as some would have you think. Have you ever had a strait scatch accross your film, that is from dust on the pressure plate. Tom > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >Tom > I saw the Canon XTi today and other than a nice menu system I was not impressed with the look and feel in my hands. I have not seen the D80 yet. Once thing is certain I found the D70 having a much better balance and feel than the Canon DR XT and expect the D80 to be better than the XTi.. Like I said, other than the Dust Removal system it apperars that the Nikon D80 had more favorable reviews. The other thing is the cost of the lenses when compared to Canon (excluding the expensive Canon L: series. I only want to consider VR vs IS lens comparisons. One last thing. Currently Nikon does not make a full frame sensor camera but I expect them to. People have said that one should not buy the fine, smaller, lighter, and better balanced DX lenses because you will not be able to upgrade your system to full frame. They tell me to go with the non DX lenses. The same decision applies to the D200 as well. What do you think? > The other thing is the cost of the lenses when compared to Canon > (excluding the expensive Canon L: series. I only want to consider VR > vs IS lens comparisons. I don't think there's a big difference. Do you have specific examples? > One last thing. Currently Nikon does not make a full frame sensor > camera but I expect them to. People have said that one should not buy > the fine, smaller, lighter, and better balanced DX lenses because you > will not be able to upgrade your system to full frame. They tell me > to go with the non DX lenses. The same decision applies to the D200 > as well. What do you think? I'm not sure which lenses you're considering. You said you weren't considering Canon L lenses, so you're presumably also not trying to decide between, say, the 17-55 DX and the 17-35 non-DX. That leaves longer lenses, for which you should go full frame; and the "kit" 18-70 DX (etc.) lenses. The kit lenses go with the D200 quite nicely and are not that expensive, so you might as well get one. And if you're into wideangles, the 12-24 DX is probably indispensible, with no full frame substitute possible. I'd be resistant to the D200 given that the next price jump puts you in EOS-5D territory. The full frame sensor really is a big deal. I was hoping Nikon would announce something at Photokina (happening now), but no such luck. Right now you are somewhat out of luck for copy photography with Nikon. They have no flat-field macro lens shorter than 55mm, which on a DX is like 90mm on a full frame camera, so you end up with inconveniently large distance between the camera and the subject. Canon doesn't have a shorter lens either, but at least you can use a 5D and get the same working distance you'd get with a film SLR. >> I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in >> Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of >> scratch >> the D80 is a better choice. I agree with that, but not necessarily for the reasons they say. If I was buying a new system from scratch, I would choose the Nikon D80. But that's just what I prefer, while others will prefer Canon. My reasoning is based on a few things I prefer in the Nikon. The D80 has a better viewfinder, better handling and ergonomic layout, and better flash system. So I'd get the Nikon. And I can say that even though I own and use a Canon Rebel XT. I also happen to use a Nikon D70s and D200 (when I get the chance) because a friend uses them and lets me borrow his camera and lenses, so I've had the opportunity to use both and compare. >> In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses >> (excluding Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. But the >> big >> thing (at least I think it is big) is the Dust Removal System that >> Nikon >> did not include. I think sensor cleaning is now the new big thing to hype. It was number of pixels, but since they all have 10mp sensors, it's now about dust removal. Sensor cleaning using vibration is just a gimmick, evidence has shown they don't really work as advertised (do a Google search). Sensor dust is being used as a scare tactic to promote sales of a product that doesn't really have a dust problem. Dust simply is not an issue in most situations, and I change lenses several times during a shooting session. If I was in the middle of the Serengetti with high winds blowing dust everywhere, I might be a bit more concerned. :-) >> If the Canon Dust system works as advertised and one (while taking >> care) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> problem to >> favor Canon for this feature No. Ignore that feature and base your decision on features that work and are truly helpful in assisting the photographer get better photos. > or is a composition grid and a spot meter >> to favor the Nikon. Those are two features that are nice to have, but may not be essential depending on your personal needs. Others may not care about those features, while some require them for their shooting style. >> From what I have read it is extremely difficult to clean the >> sensor and >> the factory wants over $100 to do the job. And many times it does >> not >> come back perfect. I don't know what you've been reading, but that's not exactly accurate. The manufacturers state they don't want users to clean their sensors simply to avoid warranty claims and damage from clumsy users who don't know what they're doing. The same way car companies recommend using only branded parts, oil, etc. when maintaining your car. Cleaning the sensor yourself is easy and safe, for most people. Here, read through this site for some info: http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/ By the way, when you send a camera in to have the sensor cleaned, the manufacturers generally do exactly what they tell users not to do. They don't have any specialized equipment for it. In other words, they clean the sensor using the same techniques mentioned in the website above. :-) >> Basically, even though most people find it difficult to see much >> difference between the two as far as results, I have read that >> Nikon has >> better exposures in difficult lighting situations and has more >> appealing >> color. Forget about silly stuff like that since they are generally not relevant to capturing the image. The in-camera adjustments can alter the image results causing more or less colour, better lighting results, depth of field, etc. Many basic reviews of cameras, like some of the ones at CNet, are often done using default camera settings in basic situations. The default settings and resulting images vary from camera to camera, which is why cameras have the ability to change these settings to get the results YOU want, not what the manufacturer set as default. Remember that in all situations, one camera will be better than the other using the basic or default settings. But which one will depend on the situation. A good photographer can get the same results using either camera by simply adjusting the camera to get the results they want. Between Canon and Nikon, the performance differences are usually subtle. There are some features that you may need for your specific shooting style, such as small size and low weight for hiking, or spot meter, or low noise at high ISO, or rear LCD cover, or whatever. The same applies to their lenses. Canon has the tilt-shift that Nikon lacks, while Nikon has the wide range 18-200 that has good optics that Canon lacks. If you need the tilt-shift, get Canon. If you need a walk around lense, the 18-200 VR is hard to beat so buy Nikon. If you don't have any specific needs, then either camera system will work equally well. > Dust isn't really a big problem, I have had a Nikon D200 for 8 > months [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > old Fuji S1 in my office and it hasn't needed a sensor cleaning > either, That's generally been my experience too. Dust just isn't an issue for most people. In the end, practical features will determine which camera body is the better one for you. Which camera feels better in your hands, and has better ergonomic layout of its controls, is usually the one that will help you take better pictures. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >the opportunity to use both and compare. > Including results like resolution, noise, and color what differences do you see between the systems? And why did you prefer your friends Nikon system over your Canon system other than ergonomics. I do feel that Nikon has better handling but most say that Canon is ahead technologically but maybe Nikon caught up. > > [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > > > Including results like resolution, noise, and color what differences > do you see between the systems? None worth mentioning. I thought I already covered that in my previous post. The cameras are close enough in image quality to be called the same, within reason. The subtle differences can be adjusted using the in-camera settings or in post-processing. > And why did you prefer your friends Nikon system over your Canon > system other than ergonomics. I do feel that Nikon has better > handling but most say that Canon is ahead technologically but maybe > Nikon caught up. Other than ergonomics...you mean like the bigger viewfinder, better handling, etc. in the Nikon D80 that I mentioned in my previous post as well? If you mean why do I like to use my friends Nikon gear, then that's easy - glass. He has some sweet glass that I would never pay for myself, but are nice to borrow once in a while. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >myself, but are nice to borrow once in a while. > From what you said and what I am reading, with the exception of the Canon 5D that Nikon has no answer for, I agree with you. But I still would like to know why the majority of users that express opinions say that Canon's technology is ahead. I also get the same thing from sales people in professional photography store. These are the same people that used to say the same about Nikon in years past many of whom sold their Nikon systems and repurchased Canon systems. Maybe Nikon caught up and few realize that at this point. > >>>Including results like resolution, noise, and color what >>>differences do you see between the systems? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > still would like to know why the majority of users that express > opinions say that Canon's technology is ahead. Because on a technical note, it is. Canon has the FF sensor. Canon also moved up to 8mp sensors long before Nikon giving them a clear pixel count lead. And for a given sensor size and pixel number, their CMOS fabrication produces a sensor with slightly lower noise. In practical terms, the only difference today is FF sensor. > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >In practical terms, the only difference today is FF sensor. > The big guess now is does Nikon intend or think it is necessary to come out with a FF sensor. Unless I do not undertand things most photographers using either sensor will crop their photos and when using a nice lens you can produce 13x19 and not be able to tell the difference. It seems that the noise issue where the Canon 5D is superior is at and over 800 ISO. > Nikon provides a software solution to removing dust from Nikon RAW, NEF, files and there are other photo editing programs that can remove dust from other formats including Jpegs. Even Point and Shoot cameras can get dust on their sensors but you can not remove it. > I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in > Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Comments Welcome! >Nikon provides a software solution to removing dust from Nikon RAW, >NEF, files and there are other photo editing programs that can remove >dust from other formats including Jpegs. > I know PS can do it but you first have to scour the photo for it and you may miss some. >Even Point and Shoot cameras can get dust on their sensors but you can >not remove it. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in > Cnet. The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch > the D80 is a better choice. The people at dpreview forums are having fun with this particular review, The CNN reviewer claims that Canon had to trim back the XTi (400d) sensitivity a full stop from ISO 3200 to ISO 1600 because the new sensor was noisier than the previous sensor. The question is: Since when did the Digital Rebel ever have 3200 ISO? A quote from the review lamenting the XTi's new sensor: "the XTi's measured and visible image noise was significantly worse than that of the CCD-based Nikon D80 for any given ISO speed." Again, it has been shown conclusively by several reputable websites (with 100% crops) that the XTi had far, FAR more details than the D80 on high ISO. The reason being that the D80 uses aggressive software noise reduction (hiss! boo!) at high ISO --- blurring out the noise and the details at the same time. The effects of the D80's noise reduction is shown conclusively on various charts and graphs in the otherwise-glowing D80 review at dpreview. Final quote complaining about the XTi's lack of spot metering: "Simply metering on the subject's face should have solved this shot's exposure problem, but the partial metering didn't work. A spot meter probably would have been able to handle it. Instead, I had to boost the exposure value of the entire scene by jumping to ISO 400." Honestly, reading that last quote, you can tell the reviewer was not only an amateur, but was a clueless one at that. What kind of moron tries to use ISO settings in lieu of proper metering? What do ISO settings have to do with proper metering at all? It's a disgrace the way CNN lets unqualified people do reviews these days. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >shown conclusively by several reputable websites (with 100% crops) that >the XTi had far, FAR more details than the D80 on high ISO. Can you provide the links to these websites? > The reason >being that the D80 uses aggressive software noise reduction (hiss! >boo!) at high ISO --- blurring out the noise and the details at the >same time. I thought there was a menu option to regulate this. And is it no true that if you shoot RAW then there is no processing of any kind? > The effects of the D80's noise reduction is shown >conclusively on various charts and graphs in the otherwise-glowing D80 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >way CNN lets unqualified people do reviews these days. > AND WHICH SYSTEM DO YOU THINK IS BETTER AND WHY? Assuming you have no lenses and will build a system. > AND WHICH SYSTEM DO YOU THINK IS BETTER AND WHY? Assuming you have no > lenses and will build a system. If there was a simple answer that worked for everyone, then there'd be no way for both brands to keep existing. It seems to me that Nikon has better ergonomics and UI than Canon. But Canon is somewhat ahead of Nikon in technology. Low-end Canons have more features per dollar than the comparable Nikons, and high end Canons (5D, 1DS) have no Nikon counterparts. If I were starting from scratch with $10,000, it would be a no brainer, I'd go with Canon because of the 5D. With a lesser budget, it's not so clear. I've been using Nikon for ages so I can't be really neutral, but if I were starting over, there's a pretty good chance that I'd switch to Canon based on my own shooting agendas and technology preferences. Those are likely to be different from your agendas and preferences. So you have to say more precisely what you're hoping to accomplish and so forth. You could possibly rent these cameras for a few days and see how you like them. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Canons (5D, 1DS) have no Nikon counterparts. > I agree with the above statement but I think that (other than the Dust Removal System - DRS) the Nikon D80 has more features than the Canon XTi but does cost a couple of hundred more. The Nikon lenses (forget L) also appear to feel more robust than Canon lenses. The Nikon full review in DPReview is impressive. I am looking forward to their take on the Canon XTi. I also would like to see comparitive reviews (especiall between competing Nikon and Canon) on a feature by feature basis to help determine an actual winner so to speak. >If I were starting from scratch with $10,000, it would be a no >brainer, I'd go with Canon because of the 5D. In some ways I agree with you but the 5D is lacking a major feature for me. That is on-board flash. I do not care what the Pros say since it is nice and convenient for fill in flash. If you have lighting situations that call for fill in flash having low noice at high ISO will not help. Now these same Pros who Poo Poo the small on board flash also Poo Pood auto exposure and auto focus. Now they embrace it. And before than they even Poo Pood on board metering. It seems that the ego of some of the Pros keeps their head in a place where the sun don't shine. > With a lesser budget, >it's not so clear. I've been using Nikon for ages so I can't be >really neutral, but if I were starting over, there's a pretty good >chance that I'd switch to Canon based on my own shooting agendas and >technology preferences. I also have Nikon for years and was thinking of going digital with the Canon XTi and the dust removal system appeared to be a deal breaker but I did see it yesterday (have not seen the Nikon D80 yet) but after reading D80 reviews and have seen the D50 and D70 I think that Nikon has caught up and surpassed Canon. Now Canon may be a little lower in noise between 800 and 1600 but how often will you shoot as those high ISOs and the differences from what I read are not that much. >Those are likely to be different from your >agendas and preferences. So you have to say more precisely what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >like them. > [clipped] > In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses (excluding > Canon L series) appear to be more expensive. [clipped] > Comments Welcome! I think Canon's whole lens thing is a marketing ploy. To how many people do they sell a set of lenses twice? Most consumers, and hobbyist will initially go for the non "L" glass, as it is less expensive, but a large percentage upgrade to "L" glass soon after. Why sell a line of lenses that don't live up to the capability of the manufacture, and their cameras? My recommendation, if you're going to buy Canon quality, do it across the board. Nikon does it right the first time! Bill Crocker > [clipped] >> In many ways I do agree. However at first glance Nikon lenses (excluding [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bill Crocker Give me a break. I've seen some pretty horrific Nikon consumer lenses. In one example they had a cheap zoom the was so loose and wiggly in front, I thought it was defective. We got another one (at the store) and it was the same. >I just completed reading reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi in Cnet. >The conclusion was that if you are building a system of scratch the D80 is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Comments Welcome! I was looking at the Rebel. In DPreview's test, the image quality was pretty much the same as the D80. Now I hear Pentax has a 10mp camera in the works based on the same Sony sensor the Alpha and D80 use. The camera has in body image stabilization which Canon and Nikon don't have. I'm not sure if it would work with older Pentax glass as I would think the camera would have to know the FL of the lens to compensate properly for movement. -S |
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
|
©2010 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.