Canon V Nikon Top of Line Digital in Photoshop

GB
Posted By
g_ballard
Aug 1, 2006
Views
369
Replies
17
Status
Closed
I have an opportunity to have a company buy me a highend digital SLR system (money is no object).

Body, wide zoom, normal medium zoom, 70-200 2.8 zoom, and hard 600mm fast or 300-600 fast zoom).

MY QUESTION is Nikon or Canon?

I’m not up on this stuff, and could use some feedback putting a system together for documentary AD, active lifestyle, horse racing, surfing.

I’m using a Nikon (D70) now, but there has to be a reason why Canon is so popular with long lens users…

Sorry I haven’t Googled yet 😉

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

GB
g_ballard
Aug 1, 2006
PS:

I had Canon (F1) when Nikon was hot, and when I bought Nikon, Canon got hot!
R
Ram
Aug 1, 2006
Nikon D2Xs.
R
Ram
Aug 1, 2006
Oh, wait…

money is no object

Top of the line digital Hasselblad. No question.
RM
Rick McCleary
Aug 1, 2006
It’s kind of like asking – Lexus or Infiniti? Maserati of Lamborghini?

There is no answer to the question. Only a bunch of passionate opinions.

The bottom line is that Nikon D2x or Canon1DsMkII will produce superior quality images. You can’t go wrong with either.

Actually, the Canon 5D is more comparable to the Nikon D2x if you’re trying to compare apples to apples. The Canon1DsMkII is a notch up – slightly larger file (16Mp vs. 12Mp) and considerably more battle-hardened (better seals against moisture and dust – good for shooting on the front lines in Iraq, or dirty horse race tracks!)

(BTW, I use Canon.)

I’ll stand back and let the passion flow…
PF
Peter_Figen
Aug 1, 2006
For 35mm based systems, cost is no object, ultimate image quality, the 1DsMKII is still the best thing out there. The rumors, however are flying fast and furious about Canon’s rumored replacement to the MKII, which, according to those who think they know, will be announced the second week in September.

If I were you, and wanted to to best by my company, I would rent a couple of systems for a week and shoot with them both to see which system and what lenses are best suited for your type of imagery. That would be the best pre-purchase investment you could make, and you wouldn’t have to rely on the preferences of those of us who are only going to recommend what we already own.

FWIW, I really don’t like cropped sensor cameras with their increased depth of field and smallish viewfinders. You may not mind.
GB
g_ballard
Aug 1, 2006
Ramón,

The choice is 35mm-style SLR, but thanks for the Hasselblad tip 😉

I recall I held one of the Canon camera bodies a year or so back and it felt like my old F1 with motor drive (ouch!) — I hope they are getting lighter.

the preferences of those of us who are only going to recommend what
we already own.

That’s good and what I am looking for, if Nikon focusing is not as good as Canon for horse racing and surfing action that would be good to know, likewise the weight issue…and I promise I will Google these when I get a few spare minutes.
PF
Peter_Figen
Aug 1, 2006
Personally I LIKE the weight of the 1DsMKII. It helps especially when you’ve got a big heavy lens to balance out the package. The weather sealing and autofocus are going to be hard to beat. There are certain lenses from each company that have become signature lenses and could sway your decision one way or the other. For me, the Canon 24-70 is just remarkable, as are the three tilt/shift lenses, the 85 1.2, the 135 f/2 and the 200 1.8, the last of which is only available used now.
DR
Donald_Reese
Aug 1, 2006
There are very capable offerings from each company. if you want an excellent long lens fast zoom, i hear the nikon 200-400 is very sought after by serious shooters. even canon users are envious of it i am told. dont forget that lens becomes a 300-600 on a nikon body. must be nice to be in that position to get exactly what you want.
RR
Reed_Reed
Aug 1, 2006
g ballard,

That is a terrible, terrible position to be in. I know other people who’s companies bought them high end equipment, money was no object, and they were never happy again. So just send the equipment to me . . .

On the serious side. This is indeed a passionate area. I have mostly Nikon lenses because I bought a Fuji S2 several years ago. I am very happy with this camera, and until it develops a malfunction (not ucommon in digital sensors) I won’t consider a replacement. But before this I had Canon film cameras. And I have to say that looking through a full-frame 35 mm viewfinder is MUCH more satisfying than the half-frame finders that we now have with Nikon gear (and some Canons).

If you can, go with the Canon only because their high end Camera is full frame. It is a BRICK, though. It is very heavy. I had one for a few days, and really could NOT get used to the weight.

Nikon appears wed to the small sensor technology. Both in body design and lens production.

As with all rapidly-developing technology, waiting just a little while longer for the "next generation device" which is always just around the corner, is always part of the game. But right now, it really IS a good idea to wait for Photokina. Late this month and early Sept all the major manufacturers will announce their new equipment. And while it won’t be immediately available, the direction Nikon and Canon are going to take for at least the next several years will be very clear.

Whichever you choose, Nikon or Canon, the high end is going to be a piece of equipment there won’t be much anyone can find fault with. (Drool!) Except of course, by true believers in the opposite camp of whatever you go with.

Rich
BB
by_Buko
Aug 1, 2006
I also own a Fuji S2 had a chance to use an S3, absolutely loved it. I’m waiting for the S4 the few rumors I’ve read sound really good.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Aug 1, 2006
What Rick said:

The bottom line is that Nikon D2x or Canon1DsMkII will produce superior quality images. You can’t go wrong with either.

Having used Nikons including the D2x hard under very rigorous hot/cold/wet/sandy/humid (not all at once) conditions I am kind of surprised to hear the suggestion that the Canon might be stronger. Suffice to say that in my experience the top Nikons are extremely durable and weather/abuse resistant and have a 50+ year reputation as such. I consider them bombproof.

The 1DsMkII is superior at high ISO (800+) shooting, and Canon has a T/S lens selection Nikon lacks.

The EOS and the D2x are both very excellent cameras. Some things I find better with the D2x:

Image quality.
As far as I know prints from Canon’s best and Nikon’s best are similarly excellent. In spite of the EOS’s ~50% higher cost and additional pixels it does not, AFAIK, provide significantly better prints. Nikon worked some pretty good engineering to achieve that.

Speed.
The D2x shoots RAW at 5 to 8 fps versus the EOS Mark II 1Ds 4 fps. When you are trying to capture the "perfect" instant of a rapidly changing scene higher frame rates increase the likelihood of catching the perfect moment. Or if you are auto-bracketing, faster speed captures your bracketed images before the scene changes. The concept of shooting a burst of 5-20 frames just to catch the very best pic is new to most photogs, because with film it was impractical. With cameras like these DSLRs and fast large capacity CF cards new photo workflows have evolved.

8 fps Crop Mode.
The D2x will shoot 6 megapixel images taken from the center of the frame at 8 fps. So if one wants to shoot tele action shots like sports it is ideal.

Buffer capacity.
IMO a much bigger issue than fast frame rate is the buffer capacity at that fast frame rate. The D2x captures about twice as many pix (~22) as the EOS does before the buffer fills.

Card capacity.
Canon built a slower camera with 30% more pixels and that leads to less images per card, slower file transfers, etc.

LCD size.
The D2x LCD is more than 50% larger than the EOS. The larger LCD changes everything as far as the ergonomics of DSLR workflow are concerned. Just try a D2x side-by-side against the much smaller EOS LCD. This is a significant issue. Shooting with the lame 2 inch EOS LCD defeats some of the value of DSLR.

Weight.
Being a 200# male with large hands I don’t worry about size and weight too much. The Canon does weigh almost a pound more. Dimensions are pretty similar, with the Nikon a few mm larger.

Self-timer.
Nikon has choice of 2/5/10/20 seconds whereas Canon is only 2 or 20 seconds. I find 2 seconds is sometimes not enough to let the camera settle down on the tripod if it is extended, so typically I use 5 seconds. Using 20 seconds as a cable shutter release substitute would drive me crazy. Often this is moot because I almost always have a cable shutter release with me.

Framing.
Some folks prefer a DSLR to be the same lens factor as 35mm film. Other folks do not. Quality superwide lenses are achieved at a $500-$1500 cost while supertelephoto is a $5000-$15000 cost; personally I prefer the 1.5 factor since it extends the expensive telephoto range. However, 1:1 versus 1:1.5 is a matter of personal preference rather than one being "better" unless print quality were to suffer.

The framing issue can be a big deal at the tele end. When your fast 400mm lens can function like a 600mm that is pretty significant. At the wide end I find the Nikon 10.5mm true fisheye NC correctable to rectilinear to be pretty nice, and the Nikon 12-24 deals very well functioning as 18-36 mm. So the wide end is well covered with just two quality Nikon lenses.

Ergonomics.
Try both cameras and see what you like. IMO individual ergonomics are of extreme importance, perhaps more than all other characteristics.

Regarding:

there has to be a reason why Canon is so popular with long lens users…

That occurred well prior to the DSLR era, largely because Nikon got behind in the area of long lens performance for a while. A lens discrepancy for DSLR photography does not exist today. Nikon has excellent 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 70-200 and 200-400 offerings that work well with the D2x. And 3 quite good telextenders as well. [Note that after applying the 1.5 framing factor the lenses above function like 300, 450, 750, 900, 105-300 and 300-450 at no loss of lens speed.]

Both brands have great lenses available across the normal to mild tele range.
RR
Reed_Reed
Aug 1, 2006
Buko,

You might be interested in my post in the ACR forum about S2 ACR conversions vs Fuji hyper utility.

<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc11a2c/3>

I continue to be amazed at the HUGE prints I continue to be able to make from my S2. 20" x 30" is just no problem, and it’s seldom necessary to issue any warning about viewing them from 3 or 4 feet away, they hold up so well.

Yes, the S4 rumors are flying about like crazy now. I think we will either see a very capable S4, with at least 12 MP real resolution (will that mean 18-24 MP "Super CCD" interpolated resolution?) and much faster shooting than the S3, or nothing – meaning Fuji will not compete in the DSLR race anymore.

I am a sucker for full frame though.

Rich
AW
Allen_Wicks
Aug 1, 2006
Correction to post #11:

[Note that after applying the 1.5 framing factor the lenses above function like 300, 450, 750, 900, 105-300 and 300-450 at no loss of lens speed.]

Should be: [Note that after applying the 1.5 framing factor the lenses above function like 300, 450, 600, 750, 900, 105-300 and 300-600 at no loss of lens speed.] In 8 fps crop mode even more effective zoom occurs, by taking 6 MP of image data just from the center of the frame. Great for telephoto action photography; properly exposed that 3200 x 2100 pixel image is adequate for a magazine cover.

Note too that Nikon’s "Creative Lighting System" using camera flash units seems to be a bit superior to Canon’s offering. Both brands offer a range of excellent powerful camera flash units.
L
Larryr544
Aug 2, 2006
If you want full frame and light weight get the Canon 5D. Very sweet!
BB
by_Buko
Aug 2, 2006
I just love the way you can enlarge Fuji RAW I have not seen the problem you refer to though.
RR
Reed_Reed
Aug 2, 2006
Buko,

The particular image I posted seems to reveal the problem much more than others. It must be the particlar angle and frequency of the fine detail that triggers this sort of thing. The feather detail of the hummingbird does it. I have one other image from that series that is actually much sharper (those buggers are hard to focus!) that shows the problem even more.

While the problem is very visible in this image, I have gone back over many other images that I never thought were problematic, now that I know what to look for, and have found it in many of them. While it doesn’t jump right out in some images, it definitely degrades them. I’ve reprocessed them in the Fuji converter and they are absolutely clean in that conversion.

This is a discouragement, because as you know, the Fuji software is a huge PITA to use and ACR is so well integrated into PSCS2 and Bridge. But the Fuji hyperutility RAW converter absolutely gets the best quality out of the Fuji RAW file format.

Rich
BB
by_Buko
Aug 2, 2006
I don’t even have the Fuji software installed on my G5.

How do the pics look using Lightroom compared to the Fuji software?

Also are you over sharpening the RAW file in ACR I know its automatically set to 25%. If you set this to 0% would you eliminate the problem?

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections