My observations regarding Canon and Nikon systems

The23rdman

The23rdman

Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
I realise this is a heated subject so please feel free to take a chill pill before reading or posting...

I started out shooting Canon DSLR's with a 350D then 40D and 1DsII. They are all excellent cameras with positives and negatives to them. I liked the range of lenses for Canon bodies, but after using the 1 series I knew I needed a better screen, better functionality and better iso performance, but could in no way afford a 1DsIII.

So I switched to a D3. Unfortunately I had to downgrade slightly to a D700, but actually preferred the size and option to shoot gripped or not. The iso performance, of course, is stella, but that's not news or a surprise to me. What was a surprise was the loss of detail as we went up the iso scale. I have come to accept that, but what I'm finding difficult to accept is the loss of resolution. The 1DsII was incredibly sharp and resolved to an exceptional degree. I suspect there isn't a DSLR that betters it in this aspect of performance and neither the D3 or D700 comes close.

I love sharpness and clarity in my pictures and do pixel peep to see it. Even using Nikon's prime lenses I just do not see the same sharpness. It's downright disappointing, tbh, to have to sharpen so much more. I do love the smoothness of the tone the D700 produces even if the red saturation is too high for skin -took some getting used to.

As for the idea that Nikon's "just work better", well, I think this is a load of the stuff that comes from t'other end of a bull . I've sent back 3 Nikon lenses for focus and/or softness issues and had a 70-200 give up AF on me at a wedding yesterday. To be fair, the Canon's I had had equal issues.

So, am I happy? I'm not sure. I've still to find reliable lenses for the D700 and I do miss the prime range. I do, however, REALLY like Nikon's functionality in their bodies and AF system -although I've found it no more reliable that the 1 series. It would be hard to go back to Canon and their frankly daft menu systems.

Just throwing out some thoughts really...
 
It's good to read an honest and frank opinion based upon usage from the two main contenders.
I guess like most cases the two will excel and lose out in completely different areas. Finding a happy medium isn't always straight forward.
 
I guess a lot of it is what you get used to using, and making the swap can be more problematic than you might think. There's little to choose between the two makes in all honesty, and if you switch horses in either direction you're likely to have expectations of improved results which might be a little optimistic.
 
I'll post examples later. I have considered my body may need looking at.
 
The23rdman said:
I'll post examples later. I have considered my body may need looking at.
Click to expand...

Well, as you would expect from a sensor design which is both FF and 3 years younger, all the reviews show a massive step up from the 1Dmk2 to the D700.

Compared to the older Canon, the Nikon outscores it on every parameter by a considerable margin, including resolution, as you would expect from a much newer and larger sensor (though it outscores the mk3 as well).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon

And if you think this is just numbers, I have to say this is borne out in actual prints too.

I have to ask, are you shooting JPEG? If so...

Nikon apply very little default sharpening, but you can change that.
Nikon apply high ISO NR which softens images, but you can change that.
The default camera profile is a bit to magenta for skintones, but you can change that (and even download other profiles from Nikon).

Now I am happy shooting both makes, so I have no axe to grind, but if you are getting more resolution at high ISO from your 8MP 1d2 than your 12MP FF D700, something really ain't right.

I certainly don't notice a resolution fall off as you increase ISO, though of course noise does appear eventually.
 
Critical I said:
Well, as you would expect from a sensor design which is both FF and 3 years younger, all the reviews show a massive step up from the 1Dmk2 to the D700.

Compared to the older Canon, the Nikon outscores it on every parameter by a considerable margin, including resolution, as you would expect from a much newer and larger sensor (though it outscores the mk3 as well).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon

And if you think this is just numbers, I have to say this is borne out in actual prints too.

I have to ask, are you shooting JPEG? If so...

Nikon apply very little default sharpening, but you can change that.
Nikon apply high ISO NR which softens images, but you can change that.
The default camera profile is a bit to magenta for skintones, but you can change that (and even download other profiles from Nikon).

Now I am happy shooting both makes, so I have no axe to grind, but if you are getting more resolution at high ISO from your 8MP 1d2 than your 12MP FF D700, something really ain't right.

I certainly don't notice a resolution fall off as you increase ISO, though of course noise does appear eventually.
Click to expand...


The 1DsII (I did say s) was MUCH better resolution that my current D700. MUCH better. 1. D. S. Mark II. That does make a difference. :)

I shoot RAW exclusively. Perhaps my body is faulty after all...
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
The 1DsII (I did say s) was MUCH better resolution that my current D700. MUCH better. 1. D. S. Mark II. That does make a difference. :)

I shoot RAW exclusively. Perhaps my body is faulty after all...
Click to expand...

To be fair, when i shot raw on my works Canon bodies (20/30D in particular) the raw files came out of the camera looking sharper to start with and just with a bit of instant punch that I had (and still have to) work harder to get with my DX bodies, particularly the D200, which was the equivalant to those bodies back in the day. Mind you, colour rendition on the Nikons is miles better, as is graduation between tones.

On the menu issue, is the 1Dsmk2 of the same style of menu as the 40D/5D etc (i.e. that linear menu that uses tabs at the top of the screen?). Compared to the old list-style menus on the older canons, I find it totally frustrating. The Nikons do seem somewhat easier to navigate....

As for equipment failures - I think some folk see brands through rose-tinted specs, as if one brand (the one they chose) is perfection and will never show signs of weakness. I've had gear from both Nikon and Canon break down or just not perform - it's just one of those things that happens methinks.... :)
 
The23rdman said:
I do love the smoothness of the tone the D700 produces even if the red saturation is too high for skin -took some getting used to.
Click to expand...

Addressing this point in isolation, I have always found using the "Neutral" picture control setting has less red saturation in skin tones.
 
specialman said:
To be fair, when i shot raw on my works Canon bodies (20/30D in particular) the raw files came out of the camera looking sharper to start with and just with a bit of instant punch that I had (and still have to) work harder to get with my DX bodies, particularly the D200, which was the equivalant to those bodies back in the day. Mind you, colour rendition on the Nikons is miles better, as is graduation between tones.

On the menu issue, is the 1Dsmk2 of the same style of menu as the 40D/5D etc (i.e. that linear menu that uses tabs at the top of the screen?). Compared to the old list-style menus on the older canons, I find it totally frustrating. The Nikons do seem somewhat easier to navigate....

As for equipment failures - I think some folk see brands through rose-tinted specs, as if one brand (the one they chose) is perfection and will never show signs of weakness. I've had gear from both Nikon and Canon break down or just not perform - it's just one of those things that happens methinks.... :)
Click to expand...

The 1DsII was designed by a sadist. You need at least two fingers to control anything. Tedious in the extreme.

Martyn... said:
Addressing this point in isolation, I have always found using the "Neutral" picture control setting has less red saturation in skin tones.
Click to expand...


I shoot RAW, but always set camera to neutral.:)
 
The23rdman said:
The 1DsII (I did say s) was MUCH better resolution that my current D700. MUCH better. 1. D. S. Mark II. That does make a difference. :)

I shoot RAW exclusively. Perhaps my body is faulty after all...
Click to expand...

For some reason I read your post twice to check and still misread it. I didn't know functional dyslexia was age related, never mind, sorry about that.

Yes, the 1Ds 2 should have more resolution but it should not be visible at 100% on screen unless images are resized to the same dimensions. Also the D700 should have less noise and therefore less drop off in sharpness as you increase ISO. Certainly I found the amount of chroma noise in shadows objectionable at ISO1600 on the Canon and I still found you needed sharpening.

Which RAW converter are you using? The JPEG settings only matter if you are using Capture NX2 (and then only as defaults) and "standard" does not apply much sharpening. I find the default sharpening in Photoshop is about right but I do apply the D2X profile to most of my shots in Adobe Camera RAW as it seems to apply a better gamma setting. Overall I find ACR default produces a bit less moire as well as better skin tones as long as WB is OK so I leave it as it comes for portraits.

Not sure what lenses you are using either, there are some older screw drive lenses that sometimes require a bit of BF/FF adjustment, plus I have had to send back one or two more modern lenses because of poor QA, but that's almost universal. However I cannot complain about the 24-70 F2.8 or the 70-200 F2.8 VR, my two standard lenses. In this case I would say honours to Nikon for the wider one, and Canon for the longer, but marginal in both cases.

I also adore the old, cheap, 85mm F1.8D which is very sharp. I really didn't appreciate most of the older wide angle D lenses.

So perhaps you should just get the AF on your D700 checked. If you are finding shots noticeably softer I am quite certain that something is wrong.
 
specialman said:
On the menu issue, is the 1Dsmk2 of the same style of menu as the 40D/5D etc (i.e. that linear menu that uses tabs at the top of the screen?). Compared to the old list-style menus on the older canons, I find it totally frustrating. The Nikons do seem somewhat easier to navigate....
Click to expand...

I find that quite intuitive. Scroll along the tabs for the major function areas then down to the item. It's really quick to get the the function you want to address, plus you've the quick menu via the joystick if required.

How does Nikon do it?
 
Byker28i said:
I find that quite intuitive. Scroll along the tabs for the major function areas then down to the item. It's really quick to get the the function you want to address, plus you've the quick menu via the joystick if required.

How does Nikon do it?
Click to expand...

How about programmable buttons that'll give you instant access to a menu item or any function you require? How about a quick dial click for mirror up? you've obviously never tried the 1DsII, mate. The 50D is lightning in comparison.
 
Critical I said:
For some reason I read your post twice to check and still misread it. I didn't know functional dyslexia was age related, never mind, sorry about that.

Easy done. :)

Yes, the 1Ds 2 should have more resolution but it should not be visible at 100% on screen unless images are resized to the same dimensions. Also the D700 should have less noise and therefore less drop off in sharpness as you increase ISO. Certainly I found the amount of chroma noise in shadows objectionable at ISO1600 on the Canon and I still found you needed sharpening.

Agreed. Chroma noise was hideous at 1600.

Which RAW converter are you using? The JPEG settings only matter if you are using Capture NX2 (and then only as defaults) and "standard" does not apply much sharpening. I find the default sharpening in Photoshop is about right but I do apply the D2X profile to most of my shots in Adobe Camera RAW as it seems to apply a better gamma setting. Overall I find ACR default produces a bit less moire as well as better skin tones as long as WB is OK so I leave it as it comes for portraits.

I use Lightroom 3 almost exclusively and nearly always have to drop red saturation by 10 points.

Not sure what lenses you are using either, there are some older screw drive lenses that sometimes require a bit of BF/FF adjustment, plus I have had to send back one or two more modern lenses because of poor QA, but that's almost universal. However I cannot complain about the 24-70 F2.8 or the 70-200 F2.8 VR, my two standard lenses. In this case I would say honours to Nikon for the wider one, and Canon for the longer, but marginal in both cases.

I tried the 35-70 f2.8, which was sharp across the frame, but FF so much I couldn't adjust for it. I've not seen another copy as sharp though.

The 70-200 I tried was sharp.

I also adore the old, cheap, 85mm F1.8D which is very sharp. I really didn't appreciate most of the older wide angle D lenses.

I'm going ot look at this lens. The issue I'm really having is with the 50mm primes. I've tried 2 copies of the 1.4 G and one 1.4 D and neither are as sharp as my Canon lenses were. Saying that I think they seemed sharper on the D3 so it could be my body.

So perhaps you should just get the AF on your D700 checked. If you are finding shots noticeably softer I am quite certain that something is wrong.
Click to expand...
 
I used Canon for 20 years and last year changed over to Nikon.

I love Ultrasonic lens. can not be beat. I love the feel of the Nikon = Grip and weight.
The Nikon does have a shed load more on the menu. Half of which I can notbe arsed with. Too much faffing before a job. I only ever use full manual. A & shutter priority for certain jobs and that's it.... although the 3D focus has been interesting for fast moving directly towards you objects.

So give me a Nikon body with Canon lens and I'd be happy.
 
The23rdman said:
I use Lightroom 3 almost exclusively and nearly always have to drop red saturation by 10 points.

Thats interesting, though of course it's up to lightroom as to how the colours are interpreted. I don't use it so I am wondering if it tries to interpret the camera profile? Either way, I found ACR did a reasonable job with skin tones using the default Adobe profile, and I had assumed the two were the same.

Note, I did find issues using AWB in shade, far too magenta. Always use pre-set or manual if I want to nail it in camera.

I have a default ACR profile for portraits and one for landscapes. There is no difference in colour balance, only in saturation and contrast and default exposure.

On another topic, I do find in Adobe I need to apply sharpening. Capture NX2 does create slightly sharper results but with more difficult colour defaults (closer to the JPEGs which I don't like as much as the Adobe colours). However, what you mean by soft and what I mean could be two different things.



The issue I'm really having is with the 50mm primes. I've tried 2 copies of the 1.4 G and one 1.4 D and neither are as sharp as my Canon lenses were. Saying that I think they seemed sharper on the D3 so it could be my body.

If you are having this much trouble, I cant help but think you have some AF issues with the body. Interested in what Nikon say. Can post some comparison 100% crops later if you want to compare using my 50 F1.4 using default ACR settings.

So far I have bought 7 lenses and only one showed a slight FF issue and one was decentered (both replaced with OK versions). Admittedly most of the lenses were new but some are still AF-D lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's AF issues. The shots are in focus, but just not as crisp and well defined as on my canon primes.
 
I generally leave it in adobe standard. I never thought of changing it to camera neutral, which is how I set up my review in camera. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top