jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #11 · canon 20D and nikon D200 samples | |
Boy, this is interesting. To be honest, having been a Nikon shooter for 20+ years that *very* reluctantly switched to Canon, I was not surprised. Very disappointed, but not surprised. Nikon has really struggled to handle high-ISO noise. The D100 was pretty poor, the D2H was awful when it had been hyped as being excellent, and while people like to rave about the D70s and D50, they still don't come close to the low luminance noise of the Canons--all of them.
For many people, this does not matter. It did for me. I labored over my decision to switch to Canon for more than a year, and then bought a 20D just to see what I would think. I was blown away at the low noise at high ISO's--it was at least 2 stops better than my D100 and D2H. The nail in the coffin were the "early release" images from the D2X, which I had a deposit on, and was guaranteed to get one of the first ones in the US. I called up and switched that order to a 1Ds Mark II and have never looked back.
What do I shoot? A lot of night photography--aurora, the milky way, astrophotography. Wildlife--where the IS on long primes from Canon was a huge bonus (and the lenses cost less), and where high ISO can be necessary. To me, these made the switch to Canon imperative. Add to that my belief that FF was the way to go (Why not? I have yet to see a *real* argument that convincingly points out that a crop factor is really the best thing. It's about price, period. The minute FF costs the same, no one will buy crop cameras anymore), and Canon became compelling. I didn't like the ergonomics of the 1-series, but have gotten used to them. I still prefer Nikon ergonomics. The ergonomics and interface of the 20D and 5D are very good, however.
Other things I learned: Like many, I believed the bunk that Canon's wide offerings were nowhere near as good as Nikon's. It's just a load of junk. I have gone back to images with my vaunted 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikon and have been appalled by the CA and flare problems that lens had compared to the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 17-40mm f/4 (a real bargain lens). The bull from the Nikon crowd that Canon uses so much noise reduction that their images look "plasticky" and lose detail. Not true at all. It seems that since the D2X, and now with the D200, that trend has switched to Nikon. They clearly are smearing detail now.
What is the point of this? Look at good side-by-side evaluations like this before jumping to conclusions based on specs. Yes, more pixels on the D200--but not enough to make a major resulotion difference if you understand the match. Weather sealing? It's minor, not in the same class as the D2-series, and not going to give you much over the 20D--besides, the bulk of Nikon lenses don't have a weather seal, so what's the point? The water will leak in anyway.
In the end, these are tools, not toys (OK, they are toys, too I will admit it!), and you need the right tool for the job. If you do a lot of low-ISO shooting, the Nikon's are superb. If you have to bump up to higher-ISO shooting, they lose their edge, that is pretty clear.
If I could have my Canon sensors in a Nikon camera with my Canon glass....I would be a very happy person. Oh, except for the Nikon 200-400mm VR and the 200mm macro--I would want those lenses back in my stable, too.
Thanks for the great comparison. At some level, it makes me sad that Nikon can't put a little more pressure on Canon, but glad I didn't wait even longer to switch to a tool that better fits my needs. I am sure we will see more of these, and it will be interesting to see if the trend that I have seen in multiple posts already continues to hold. And let's not forget that the 20D is up for replacement this spring, based on Canon's history--and contrary to what many think, a higher-MP version of the 20D will NOT eat into sales of the 5D, which is a specialty camera for those who have to have FF now at a more reasonable price than the 1Ds Mark II.
Jeff
Edited by jhapeman on Dec 23, 2005 at 02:48 PM GMT
|
--but the results are just the opposite of the other ISO 800 crops (admittedly, i am not a fan of DPP and always thought i got less noise using ACR with my canon files. this is also my first time using NC and, boy, is it s-l-o-w...and i've got a pretty fast P4 3.0 ghz system too). anyway, as before, i'm happy to share my RAW files with anyone who wants them...just drop me an email.
. Like I said, I was a long-time Nikon user and have no preference one way or another--I just need the tool that can do my job--but I continue to see Nikon lack in their ability to handle high-ISO noise.