p.2 #1 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
I have been reading quite a few reviews that compare Nikon and Canon cameras (some of them written by respected photographers). I have been also reading many threads on Fred Miranda, posted by many experienced photographers
I have been in photography for quite a long time (not professionally) but I am wondering what those who are not experienced at all can think if the opinions about some basic issues (which camera may be technically better) can vary so dramatically.
In other words: whom to trust? ("I do not trust...")
p.2 #2 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
mfurman wrote:
I am wondering what those who are not experienced at all can think if the opinions about some basic issues (which camera may be technically better) can vary so dramatically.
In other words: whom to trust?
Why, the participants in this forum, of course!
Seriously, one of the reasons I like Mike Johnston is that - unlike many reviewers, e.g., Ken Rockwell and even Michael Reichmann - Johnston says up front (read his first two paragraphs in the review linked at the top of this thread), and he says it over and over and over again, that
a) reasonable people will disagree with his conclusions, and
b) the differences between high-level cameras are really relatively minor ("the Pentax IQ is close to the Canon IQ, which in turn is close to the Nikon IQ").
Johnston believes that by far the biggest factor in determining image excellence is the photographer, not the camera. This will not endear him to gearheads and pixel-peepers, but it does get him a lot of respect among plenty of "name" photographers.
I'd rather have a widely respected expert on photography downplay the importance of his own conclusions rather than someone who knows no more than some of the advanced photographers here trumpet his own conclusions as if they were the final word.
Dec 19, 2008 at 09:21 AM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.2 #3 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
whom to trust? Well, look what he doesnt show, what he doesnt say.
on one hand he says the canon did "splendidly" on the other hand he is really looking for issues on the canon and post crops of CA, Noise and Blackdots. Why does he not show crops of the nikon or the sony, I wonder?
It's like making a nice face in front of a person and showing him the finger when he turns your back to you.
The real question to me is why does Canon get such a bad press? Maybe Canon is just too good and too large.
p.2 #4 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
RalphJ:
...the differences between cameras are relatively minor
I have been recently trying to come to the same point I was with film cameras - buy a camera you would be happy with for the next 5 years and forget about it. For these reasons alone, I have been reading a lot about different tests and compared a lot of data. It seems to me that "per pixel" quality of most Canon DSLRs are practically the same. The difference comes from resolution (final print quality - if the prints are big). I also unfortunately concluded that Nikon DSLRs are better than Canon offerings. I have to think what to do with this (I have been a Canon user since 1990)
p.2 #5 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
mfurman wrote:
I have been recently trying to come to the same point I was with film cameras - buy a camera you would be happy with for the next 5 years and forget about it....
I also unfortunately concluded that Nikon DSLRs are better than Canon offerings.
Johnston's point - and I agree - is that except for pixel-peepers, the IQ differences not just between Canon cameras but also between Canons and Nikons are "relatively minor."
Plenty of good reasons (esp. wrt features) to choose one brand over the other, but it bothers me when anyone implies that no reasonable person could come to the exact opposite conclusion.
p.2 #6 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
RalphJ:
You had me.... then you lost me.
To be brief and not to hijack the thread: Nikon (D700 in particular) seems to be better if someone is mostly interested in low light photography (and does not print big at all). I very much prefer Canon lenses offerings and I know the system.
I am not referring at all (!) to Mike Johnston's article.
p.2 #7 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
Point well-taken (I had thought that your "better" statement was an overgeneralization, but the low-light qualifier helps me understand). Btw, I had edited out that "You had me..." part as being too harsh from my post at the same minute you posted the above.
p.2 #8 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
mfurman wrote:
I have been recently trying to come to the same point I was with film cameras - buy a camera you would be happy with for the next 5 years and forget about it. For these reasons alone, I have been reading a lot about different tests and compared a lot of data. It seems to me that "per pixel" quality of most Canon DSLRs are practically the same. The difference comes from resolution (final print quality - if the prints are big). I also unfortunately concluded that Nikon DSLRs are better than Canon offerings. I have to think what to do with this (I have been a Canon user since 1990)...Show more →
If I showed you a print could you tell what brand of camera it came from? Of course not. And that's the bottom line: Final output is up to the photographer, not the camera body. Any modern DSLR has superb image quality, but many have different features. For the truly educated photographer its simply a matter of matching your particular shooting needs to a particular camera's feature set. Once again bottom line is: No expert can look at a print and tell what camera (ore even what manufacturer) was used to capture the image.
p.2 #9 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
I used to read his first blog and he is a good guy. I enjoyed his articles but I did not really care about his reviews. When he reviewed gear that I already owned I felt that he was way off with his conclusions. Maybe when Sony makes a high end P&S he will be in heaven.
p.2 #10 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
Andi Dietrich wrote:
whom to trust? Well, look what he doesnt show, what he doesnt say.
on one hand he says the canon did "splendidly" on the other hand he is really looking for issues on the canon and post crops of CA, Noise and Blackdots. Why does he not show crops of the nikon or the sony, I wonder?
It's like making a nice face in front of a person and showing him the finger when he turns your back to you.
The real question to me is why does Canon get such a bad press? Maybe Canon is just too good and too large....Show more →
MJ has posted crops and further commentary on the Sony and Nikon offerings in the individual write-ups he did earlier on the a900 and d700 respectively.
p.2 #11 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
Yes, those who came late to the party don't know that Johnston had previously written in depth about the Sony and the Nikon over the past month or so. It was only natural for him to assess the three as a group once the 5DII was available, but the blogpost being discussed here is more or less "a look at the Canon in light of my earlier experience with the Sony and the Nikon," not an equal look at all three (he apparently doesn't even have his review copy of the Sony anymore).
Andi Dietrich wrote:
The real question to me is why does Canon get such a bad press?
Johnston didn't exactly hammer the Canon. For example, it's hard to argue with this section of his writeup: "[The 5D II] has much more resolution than the Nikon, and much better high-ISO capability than the Sony. So its win over the Nikon where resolution is concerned is bigger than the margin by which it loses to the Sony in the same department, and its win over the Sony in high-ISO performance is much more decisive than the margin by which it loses to the Nikon on that score. As they say in auto racing, when you're really good but not quite the best, what they call you is second—but strong seconds in two categories could be a good thing."
Dec 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.2 #12 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
Yes but look at his comments about CA, I cant believe this guy has ever written about gear before
p.2 #13 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
i'm not sure what he is going on about with the longitudinal CA since that is 100% a characteristic of the lens and I've seen it on everything from 10D to 5DMkII.
OTOH, not sure why he thinks the 5dMkII is PF resistant as I see it here too just like with all the other bodies.
would've been nice for him to show a smaple of the canon blowing the highlights.
also the wire against the sky sounds like it is how ACR demosaics things, since DPP keeps things blacker and not color tinted although DPP has other sorts of artifacts.
p.2 #14 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
Lance Couture wrote:
I've only visited his site a few times, and never given anything there more than a cursory glance, but from what I have seen, its no worse than anything other site which offers a single point of view...
it is a little different in that it is always 100% wrong or more often not even wrong
