Manufacturer Traits

C

cloudhunter

Messages
328
Edit My Images
Yes
Can i start by saying that im not after a slanging match. Just opinions.

Ok, im just wondering if the different manufacturers have different traits. For instance someone could say nikon are best for sport, canon for portrait, sony for high iso etc etc

I know one isnt going to be the best as one camera could be best for sport but have crap high iso performance and so on..

So what would you say are the traits for the following:

  • Nikon
  • Canon
  • Sony
  • Olympus
  • Pentax/Samsung
 
cloudhunter said:
Thanks for the helpful replies , NOT
Click to expand...

:dummy:

Unfortunately this topic nearly always ends in a slagging match. You only have to search previous posts.

I can not comment as I have only used Canon and that is the lowly 350d but I am happy with its results so far. They also make good printers although I use Epson
 
At the moment I'd personally say Nikon have the best high ISO, and I'd say Canon have the more natural looking colours. Fuji seem to have a pretty good dynamic range.
I haven't used any of the other brands recently, so I can't compare them.
Things like this are very subjective, some will argree other will disargree, these are just MY personal opinions.
 
yes, imo as well they do have general traits.
Sony imo tend to have more natural colors than either Nikon or Canon & also more detail at lower ISOs but at the expense of more noise at higher ISOs.

"For instance someone could say nikon are best for sport, canon for portrait, sony for high iso etc etc"
thing is even within 1 manufacturer's range 1 body may be great for e.g. sports but several others may be worse than competing manufacturers' products.
I think that you really have to break it down to individual models & their direct competitors & what are the important features for you ....
 
Firstly let me say I'm a Nikon user but I had a little dabble some time ago with Sigma and have to say the colours from the Foveon X3 sensor would take some beating, would love to see what either of the big 2 could achieve using it.
 
I've always found Olympus to be not as good as the competition at high ISOs. Don't know whether the current models are the same. ISO performance is something that could change with each generation of camera release. Up to a few years ago, Canon were the best in low light, but that seems to have changed with the release of the Nikon D300/D3 and every model following giving Nikon the mantle of best low light cameras.

Nikon and Canon seem to have the better Auto Focus. Maybe as a result of having professional models.
 
just laying a mod marker here, please keep it civil and sensible.
 
At the end of the day all the manufactures you have listed can be used for anything, sports, portrait, landscape, etc etc etc.

All have the ability to make fine images, but because they all use slightly different technology in them, the images they produce will also be slightly different. One reason I use Olympus is because of the image colours & quality that come out of them. BUT that is a personal choice.

All have there strengths and weaknesses, but once you get to know your system then you can work around issues they may have.

If you are looking for a kit then the best thing to do is head off down to a camera store and try them out. All feel different in the hand, for example the old Nikon F4 is one of the best designed and ergonomically handling cameras made in the last few years and would not swap it for anything, Nikon digital cameras I have a problem with, they just do not feel comfortable to hold or use BUT again this is a personal choice :D

Not much help but hey ho :D
 
cloudhunter said:
Can i start by saying that im not after a slanging match. Just opinions.

Ok, im just wondering if the different manufacturers have different traits. For instance someone could say nikon are best for sport, canon for portrait, sony for high iso etc etc

I know one isnt going to be the best as one camera could be best for sport but have crap high iso performance and so on..

So what would you say are the traits for the following:

  • Nikon
  • Canon
  • Sony
  • Olympus
  • Pentax/Samsung
Click to expand...

Keeping the discussion at brand level is pointless IMO; surely you need to look at individual camera's for a proper debate? Take Nikon for example (the only brand I have used), I have owned the D40, D90 and D700 - all offer different things, the only common denominator's being that they are all Nikon's and all take pictures!
 
Hi,

Ok the following models, the traits of these :

  • Canon 40d
  • Nikon D90
  • Nikon D300
  • Sony A700
  • Pentax K20d
  • Olympus E3

Which would be best for Aviation with a view to doingt weddings in a few years?
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Ok the following models, the traits of these :

  • Canon 40d
  • Nikon D90
  • Nikon D300
  • Sony A700
  • Pentax K20d
  • Olympus E3

Which would be best for Aviation with a view to doingt weddings in a few years?
Click to expand...

they are all very different camera's, and aviation and weddings are very different things. I'm not saying no crossover - but glass is more important then bodies for both. All the bodies on you list will be replaced by who knows what within a two year cycle, so really, glass is more important

Hugh
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Ok the following models, the traits of these :

  • Canon 40d
  • Nikon D90
  • Nikon D300
  • Sony A700
  • Pentax K20d
  • Olympus E3

Which would be best for Aviation with a view to doingt weddings in a few years?
Click to expand...
Ok, imo from an aviation pov & bearing in mind what lenses you use will also have an effect as will your budget. These were my thoughts when I did this ~18 months ago:
Pentax K20D - not enough fps & AF performance isn't great.
Olympus E3 - tremendous build/sealing, expensive imo for it's performance given that I didn't need it's imo main selling feature - build/sealing. Also relatively poor selction of longer lenses at reasonably affordable prices.
Nikon D300 - great body but it was ~2x the cost of a 40D/A700 & imo only ~5% better. Also not the best selection of reasonably affordable lenses for the purpose - the 80-400 doesn't have a great rep for AF performance, the 200-400 is superb but way out of my budget & heavy.

So for me it came down to Canon 40D & Sony A700. From a body pov I much preferred the handling of the Sony, IQ, fps & AF performance are pretty much similar.
Canon had the 400/5.6 plus the 100-400 IS L which at the time was probably the best reasonably affordable all round aviation lens imo - but I knew that Sony had the 70-400 G SSM coming ...

I bought the A700 & have never regretted it despite many Canon 40D etc. using friends. Firmware V4 was the icing on the cake (basically brought the A700s IQ upto D300 standard - it, D300 & D90 all share substantially the same sensor if not identical).
Subsequently bought the 70-400 G SSM which imo is better than the 100-400 IS L (at least until Canon revamp that).

If I was doing it today I would probably be looking at the Canon 50D, Oly 630 & the Nikon D90 as well but I suspect that of those imo the most interesting would be the 50D. It has better AF than the 40D plus AF adjust, a higher res screen & no doubt a few other minor extras. Also the A700 is imminently due for replacement so that would get considered too.
In terms of IQ I think that we have reached a bit of a plateau where any of them are good enough & there is minimal differences between them.

So really it's features that you need, lens availability, handling & budget & only you can really decide that balance for you.
 
heidfirst said:
Ok, imo from an aviation pov & bearing in mind what lenses you use will also have an effect as will your budget. These were my thoughts when I did this ~18 months ago:
Pentax K20D - not enough fps & AF performance isn't great.
Olympus E3 - tremendous build/sealing, expensive imo for it's performance given that I didn't need it's imo main selling feature - build/sealing. Also relatively poor selction of longer lenses at reasonably affordable prices.
Nikon D300 - great body but it was ~2x the cost of a 40D/A700 & imo only ~5% better. Also not the best selection of reasonably affordable lenses for the purpose - the 80-400 doesn't have a great rep for AF performance, the 200-400 is superb but way out of my budget & heavy.

So for me it came down to Canon 40D & Sony A700. From a body pov I much preferred the handling of the Sony, IQ, fps & AF performance are pretty much similar.
Canon had the 400/5.6 plus the 100-400 IS L which at the time was probably the best reasonably affordable all round aviation lens imo - but I knew that Sony had the 70-400 G SSM coming ...

I bought the A700 & have never regretted it despite many Canon 40D etc. using friends. Firmware V4 was the icing on the cake (basically brought the A700s IQ upto D300 standard - it, D300 & D90 all share substantially the same sensor if not identical).
Subsequently bought the 70-400 G SSM which imo is better than the 100-400 IS L (at least until Canon revamp that).

If I was doing it today I would probably be looking at the Canon 50D, Oly 630 & the Nikon D90 as well but I suspect that of those imo the most interesting would be the 50D. It has better AF than the 40D plus AF adjust, a higher res screen & no doubt a few other minor extras. Also the A700 is imminently due for replacement so that would get considered too.
In terms of IQ I think that we have reached a bit of a plateau where any of them are good enough & there is minimal differences between them.

So really it's features that you need, lens availability, handling & budget & only you can really decide that balance for you.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply. I noticed you said if you were doing it again you would go d90 or canon 50d. Why not the A700 again ? Is there something you dont like about it? Whats the A700 in low light?
 
cloudhunter said:
Thanks for the reply. I noticed you said if you were doing it again you would go d90 or canon 50d. Why not the A700 again ? Is there something you dont like about it? Whats the A700 in low light?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that I would go D90 or 50D or Oly 630 I said that if I were doing it now I would also consider them as well (they weren't around at the time) & the imminent A700 replacement.
of those I suspect that the 50D would be the most interesting to me.

I love the A700, it's a great body for the money.
As for low light with V4 firmware it's as good as a D300. The D90 is supposed to be fractionally better than a D300 in low light but I doubt that there's much in it.
 
heidfirst said:
I didn't say that I would go D90 or 50D I said that if I were doing it now I would also consider them too (they weren't around at the time) ...
Click to expand...

Aaagh right , my mistake. Heard the V4 software has made it alot better. Ive seen the new a230/380 and dont like the grip at all. It would be a shame if they did the a700 replacement with a small grip wouldnt it!
 
You can also use the d300 as a hammer incase a seat falls apart at the wedding, and im pretty sure you could use it as a replacement part of a plane :D, that thing is built like a TANK
 
canon have more available glass (24-105L 100-400L), there are more options in a lot of areas and more choice in tele-primes (though nikon make what is possibly the only decent superzoom which gets very good reviews).
Not all Nikon lenses have AF motors in which is a very dodgy hangover from the old days and I very much prefer the EF system of all lenses having motors and no bodies.

Nikon have a better flash system with CLS, much better than the IR system canon flashes use. It's a lot cleverer too.

Canon and Nikon have the most options, discounting 3rd party glass to fit sonys the only other option with decent glass is Oly and they have some nice toys but no real intermediate glass and there are jobs which require full frame sometimes that fits with existing lens systems.

I tried to be impartial, I shoot canon BTW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top