simonella_viru wrote:
Canon has the 24, 35, 85, 135L lenses to which there's no equivalent in nikon land. sure, nikon has awesome zooms and their 200/2 lens is awesome. but nikon still has their work cut out lens-wise.
If you are searching for pixel perfect zooms, the Canon 24L and 35L are not going to do it. I've owned both and sold them. the 24-70L was sharper at all comparable apertures, and while the primes did go another stop or two, they were getting soft - especially in to the corners.
The 85L has a wonderful creamy bokeh but is too slow to focus - and a PITA to use in manual focus mode. Not many people use it at f1.2 all that often, and at f4-f8, there are better choices for work horse glass.
The 135L was nice but the 70-200 f2.8L IS did a better job for me over all.
If you are in to primes (I have been there and done that with both Canon and Leica) then it's easy to look over the fence and see greener grass. Be careful though. All that glitters is not gold.
Many people with Canon primes are dissatisfied, and look to other brands, like Leica and Zeiss. Personally I took a long hard look at the finished products (the print!) and decided that the extra time & hassle required to carry primes, and the expense of them over a 'less is more' zoom approach was simply not worth it. Seeking pixel perfection often means we lose sight of the overall picture.
I'm continually amazed at how many people say they cannot or do not see a difference in image quality and/or image "character" between Canon DSLRs and Nikon DSLRs. The differences are pretty apparent to me; and I don't mean at the pixel-peeping level, either. Viewing at a simple window view or at 50%, I see differences. But MOSTLY I see differences in the prints.
Several months ago I did some extensive comparisons between my 5D and my D2x using my Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D (used the Cameraquest adapter on the 5D). I'm sure the higher pixel density of the D2x was a major influence in the outcome for that camera. But, nevertheless, the overall "character," texture, color rendition, tonality, color gradations, shadow detail, edges-of-subject sharpness and definition, etc,, etc., etc., of the images these two cameras produced were different, period.
veroman wrote:
I'm continually amazed at how many people say they cannot or do not see a difference in image quality and/or image "character" between Canon DSLRs and Nikon DSLRs. The differences are pretty apparent to me; and I don't mean at the pixel-peeping level, either. Viewing at a simple window view or at 50%, I see differences. But MOSTLY I see differences in the prints.
Several months ago I did some extensive comparisons between my 5D and my D2x using my Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D (used the Cameraquest adapter on the 5D). I'm sure the higher pixel density of the D2x was a major influence in the outcome for that camera. But, nevertheless, the overall "character," texture, color rendition, tonality, color gradations, shadow detail, edges-of-subject sharpness and definition, etc,, etc., etc., of the images these two cameras produced were different, period.
James R wrote:
Now we are discussing the differences between the D2X and 5D? I'm wondering how the D70 compares...
Well ... no. I was just pointing out the differences I perceived between a Canon product and a Nikon product. Not sure what your reaction means or implies, but as far as I'm concerned I could have been comparing a D3 with a 1Ds III or a D60 with a 450D/xsi and my reaction would have been the same: the essential "character" of the files from these two camera brands ... whichever models in their lines you want to compare ... is different.
My response was tongue-in-cheek. Didn't mean to insult you. I just don't find camera comparisons very useful, especially when comparing full frame to a cropped sensor.
James R wrote:
My response was tongue-in-cheek. Didn't mean to insult you. I just don't find camera comparisons very useful, especially when comparing full frame to a cropped sensor.
Oh, you didn't insult me. Not at all. I just didn't get the full gist of your reply. I don't find camera comparisons that useful myself. I just get tempted every once in a while to fool around to see what the differences are or might be. I'm a Canon shooter, and a dedicated one at that. They do the job for me....
veroman wrote:
I'm continually amazed at how many people say they cannot or do not see a difference in image quality and/or image "character" between Canon DSLRs and Nikon DSLRs. The differences are pretty apparent to me; and I don't mean at the pixel-peeping level, either. Viewing at a simple window view or at 50%, I see differences. But MOSTLY I see differences in the prints.
- Steve
+1
The overall character differences and the sum look they impart to a photo are of more consideration and importance than the minutia we often see discussed in reviews.
That's part of the reason holistic opinion style reviews are so valuable.
Again if you shoot raw and convert with the same convertor. The difference in TODAYS cameras is too close to worry about. You really need to pixel peep. You would also have to view photos side by side to see it anyways.
For a plus you would have to shoot Canon a few times to get the focus correct
I don't think anyone's freaking out William. The OP provided an opinion....
the D3 images have poor colour and are just don't cut it in the resolution and sharpness stakes. i have yet to see a D3 image that comes close to a 5D image.
These questions are meant in a purely inquiring way, and not really a criticism of anything. Clearly some people have a view point that I would like to investigate and fully understand. Try not to read things out of context...
So, why do you think so many people are happy with their D3/D700 when some people are claiming they are still way behind Canon?
Could it be that all Nikon shooters are so used to 'crap' images from their Nikon bodies that they see a 'less crap' D3 as a major step up and so are impressed...?
Is it that people are so blinded by the high ISO capability they can't see that the normal images are just plain crap compared to a Canon...?
What about the people who are moving FROM Canon to Nikon for an 'improved' IQ....?
I have shot both Nikon and Canon, but never at the same (approx) resolution at the same time. My current Canon is 16.7MP, and my current Nikon is a D300, so they are not really comparable.
The D300 both disappoints AND amazes me from time to time. The Canon does the SAME. It does seem easier to process Canon images, so maybe that is why some people are getting the impression that Canon is sharper. But in my experience the Nikon images can be made to shine too.
People talk about camera/lens signatures, but if I put (say) 10 re-sized shots on the web from (say) 3 or 4 random cameras and lenses, I doubt any one would get all 10 right - especially if I didn't tell them what cameras they were choosing from.
As I have said before, I am currently sitting on the fence (leaning towards Nikon) waiting for both the 5D2 and D3x to be shipping (even if I have to wait another 6-8 months) before deciding which side to fall on. I am not going to shoot both forever. With this in mind, I want to understand why some people hail the D3 as the 'best' and others call it (effectively) sub standard when comparing to 3 year old Canon technology.
Maybe it's partisan, maybe it's not. So, I want to know more.
How about some side by side examples? Yes, I have seen them on the web, and they do almost always say the 5D is sharper out of camera, but have never really gone on to process them properly, and individually - and then compare again. They always seem to run them through the sam raw converter - which could easily do a better job on one than the other. So, it's not really a fair test.
It may be redundant to some folks but I have one foot on each camp and as such, any notion of fanboyism can be thrown out the door. I agree with DaveEP, my D700 can give me amazing shots but it also can disappoint me and it did in a some occasion. The same goes with my Canon gear. I chose my lenses that way to minimize overlap in coverage although some overlap is unavoidable. I don't take both systems at the same time; either one or the other. I have yet to print images from the D700 but by just viewing on my 30" monitor, and both using Lightroom, I cannot tell difference between the two system.
AGeoJO wrote:
It may be redundant to some folks but I have one foot on each camp and as such, any notion of fanboyism can be thrown out the door. I agree with DaveEP, my D700 can give me amazing shots but it also can disappoint me and it did in a some occasion. The same goes with my Canon gear. I chose my lenses that way to minimize overlap in coverage although some overlap is unavoidable. I don't take both systems at the same time; either one or the other. I have yet to print images from the D700 but by just viewing on my 30" monitor, and both using Lightroom, I cannot tell difference between the two system....Show more →
Well stated. I have never used Canon, but, my Canon shooting friends "work" their cameras just like everybody else. You need to know the camera's strengths and weaknesses and make them work for you.
nikt wrote:
I don't think anyone's freaking out William. The OP provided an opinion....
and people commented. Nothing wrong with that.
The OP has only recently started posting on this forum, so, I'm certain many don't give him the creds needed for his broad statement to have legs. Initially, I thought the responses would be more aggressive, but, I'm glad they were not. Maybe Nikon shooters are on firmer ground now.
I have had the benifit of shooting both systems side by side. The IQ of both are amazing, and for me it comes down to ergonomics. The choice of buttons and wheels vs. menu diving for settings changes. For me the Nikon gets out of my way and lets me focus on shooting instead of where to go to get the next adjustment of the camera.
For me the Nikons our resolved the Canons...but then my test was with the 24-70 on the nikon....and that lens is good enough to get Canon users to purchase it and use it with an adaptor.
Both cameras have great quality....and with proper PP can create images of the best quality....
roman.johnston wrote:
For me the Nikons our resolved the Canons...but then my test was with the 24-70 on the nikon....and that lens is good enough to get Canon users to purchase it and use it with an adaptor.
Roman,
Are you referring to a particular lens, let's say the 24-70mm or a body, let's say, a D3/D700 compared to a 1Ds MarkII or 1Ds MarkIII? If the later, I am afraid you are not correct.... BTW, the Nikkor lens Canon users are using via an adapter is the 14-24mm and not the 24-70mm.
I have had or have the D3, both Mk IIIs and 5D. I would be at a loss without my D3. But since their features overlap there are advantages to the Canons too.
Bottom line is use the TOOL that gets you the image you want. It doesn't matter if you drive a Mercedes or BMW, they will both get you to the same place.
I have used both systems. Although I do like the handling and shooting performance of Nikon bodies, I do find the Canon files to be excellent, usually easier to post process. The 5D is particularly stellar in this regard.
On a side note, a number of folks on this thread have dissed the Canon 24-70L. This does not match my experience at all--my copy of this lens is one of the best I have used from any maker.
Here's a recent image (Halloween) shot with the 24-70 on a 5D wide open at ISO 1600 @ 64mm. Shot in RAW and converted in ACR 4.6, "camera standard beta 2" profile, default sharpening / NR:
While my 24-70 is great, I've seen other lenses with problems, which is the one thing I have come to question about Canon (QC). Canon 'L' lenses, when performing to "factory spec" are very good to excellent in my experience. Unfortunately, Canon lenses, particularly zooms, do exhibit some sample variation, which can lead to widely varying impressions among users.
AGeoJO wrote:
Roman,
Are you referring to a particular lens, let's say the 24-70mm or a body, let's say, a D3/D700 compared to a 1Ds MarkII or 1Ds MarkIII? If the later, I am afraid you are not correct.... BTW, the Nikkor lens Canon users are using via an adapter is the 14-24mm and not the 24-70mm.
No I have also heard of Canon shooters using the Nikon 24-70 with an adapter because they felt it was superior to the 24-70L. I am not saying either one is or isn't but it is a fact that there are people that feel that way and do in fact use the 24-70 nikon on canon body's
I'm wondering how the D70 compares...
For a plus you would have to shoot Canon a few times to get the focus correct 