21farms wrote:
yes, it is. i read in one of my photo mags (can't remember which but it's either popular photography, american photo, outdoor photographer, or photo but i'm pretty sure it was pop.photo) that nikons are dead on with their rated ISOs but that canons are understated (more sensitive than rated) and that is what i am seeing as well.
.
Phil Askey has recently been checking ISO sensitivity in his tests, comparing cameras against an incident light meter. The Canons do seem to understate ISO by about 1/3 stop using that method of testing. It's apparent in his other testing, and was a point of contention in the 350D/XT noise tests.
Given the results being shown the big question becomes is the combo of the D200 and the 17-55 worth $1200 more than the 20D with the 17-40? (Note the price difference would expand even further if a third lens were purchased and will shrink by $250 once the rebates go away).
Sam Bennett wrote:
Except that it's 17-55, not 17-40 and it's an f/2.8 and not an f/4. I'd buy a 17-55 f/2.8L. I wouldn't touch a 17-40L with a 15 foot pole.
Yes, a Canon 17-55 f/2.8L would be nice, particularly in EF-s. The proverbial 24-70 for the 20D. Wouldn't happen in full-frame, though. Too tough of a design in FF.
Not sure why you don't like the 17-40, especially on the 1.6X camera. Mine was a great performer on my 10D, and wasn't bad on the 1D Mk II either. It's weakness is in the corners on full-frame.
Enjoyed your post and discussion of Canon versus Nikon wides.
Another area where Nikon is generally noted as having leadership in in flash. What is your impression of the Canon flash system compared to the Nikon flash system?
Enjoyed your post and discussion of Canon versus Nikon wides.
Another area where Nikon is generally noted as having leadership in in flash. What is your impression of the Canon flash system compared to the Nikon flash system?
Thanks!
JimR
This is a mixed bag. In terms of getting exposure right, the 580EX is on par with the SB-800/SB-600. Not sure on the 430EX; haven't tried it yet (but will be soon). The 550EX was not nearly as good....I wish Canon included a diffusion hood and gels like Nikon does--for what you pay for the 580EX, they should. Instead, I have to buy a Stofen OmniBounce, which does the same job, and is cheap enough...but another step.
The multi-flash capabilities of Nikon's CLS is unbelievable. It is much easier to set up and control multiple flashes with Nikon's SB-800/600 than anything from Canon. Really, really slick interface. Luckily for me, I don't use a lot of multi-flash. I use a flash with a BetterBeamer for fill in wildlife shots, and then around the house.
On the other hand, in the macro department, until just now, Nikon had nothing that was TTL. It was awful. Meanwhile, Canon had the MR-14EX and the MT24-EX. Two compared to none....for my macro shots, I knew I would have an edge with Canon.
Summary: Both Canon and Nikon do well with getting the exposure nailed with their flashes, but Nikon's flash system is more capable and flexible. In the macro department, Canon still has more options, but Nikon's newest offering is more up-to-date with technology. Overall, it's sort of wash, depending on the type of shooting you do.
10DFT wrote:
Not sure why you don't like the 17-40, especially on the 1.6X camera. Mine was a great performer on my 10D, and wasn't bad on the 1D Mk II either. It's weakness is in the corners on full-frame.
All that I know, right now, is that the 20d is one hell of a camera. Its crops look markedly better to me. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing what they have up their sleeves next!
Sam Bennett wrote:
It's a slow zoom. It's useless for the work I do.
Slow is relative. In a zoom, you can only gain more stop. Not a whole lot and you will pay more than twice as much. Now, you can gain two+ stops with primes....but they are not as flexible. Each lens has its place, as you rightly point out--the work you do demands a faster lens.
That said, the 17-40 is a remarkably good lens, especially when you consider the price. My 24mm f/1.4L and 35mm f/1.4L are only a slight bit better than the 17-40 at their respective FL and stopped down to f/4. Noticeable for pixel-peeping, but unless I am doing big prints, not very noticeable.
Now, when I need those stops, they are awesome. I use the primes for a lot of night photography, where the 17-40 is just not suitable.
I just want to make sure people don't get the impression that the 17-40mm is not a great lens. It is, if it suits your needs (i.e., you want a zoom and you don't need it to be very fast).
Sam Bennett wrote:
Why? The differences in character of noise is pretty obvious in any case.
For academic reasons of course.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Why would you use ACR? Then you're subject to ACR's handling of each file. I think it's better to assume that Nikon and Canon know how to get the best out of their files, which is why I used Nikon Capture and Canon. I know that that is the case with Canon files, not so sure about Nikon. I personally do not like ACR's processing, so I really don't care to see it's results here.
Not everyone has DPP or NC installed. Despite what you like, other people have different preferences. We do not force you to use ACR, nor should you suggest everyone else should use DPP and NC exclusively.
If people are interested in the results, then shouldn't that be enough reason to see what the differences are? Or is curiousity an unnecessary evil these days as well?
Sam Bennett wrote:
But RAW is the format where you'll see the camera at its best. Shouldn't the output of Nikon's own RAW software produce the best results?
Not everyone shoots in RAW. RAW isn't the end all be all format[or lack thereof] of digital cameras.
JimboCin,
Having had pretty much all Canon non-macro flashes, I think I can add a bit to this. With the 550EX, and to a slightly lesser extent, with the 580EX, I always felt like I was just not getting the perfect exposure. I was always just a little under or over exposed and would have to tweak it a bit. That said, having had a chance now to use the SB-800 a bit, I've had better results so far with it than I ever consistantly had with either of the Canon top of the line offerings. Not to say I didn't get some great shots with the Canons, or that this isn't just beginners luck with the Nikon, but so far I've had much better results. A couple of things I've found interesting about the SB-800 vs the 580EX. The Nikon is a bit smaller, but the case is larger, so you can leave some extra stuff in there (like the gels and stofen-like diffuser). It always bothered me that the 580's case wouldn't fit anything extra. The 580 seemed to cycle faster, but this could be that my Sony NiMH batteries were a bit weak. They are recharging tomorrrow and I'll likely give them a good workout tomorrow, if only for fill work. The rotating retension screw knob on the Canon is more work to use than the switch-like lever on the Nikon. Man, I wish Canon bodies didn't have painted shoes. The 580EX is just too expensive - about $65 more than the SB from a good retailer like BH. That may be a reflection of the deaper market for Canon gear, but I think it's overpriced.
-Tom
joesmith wrote:
Interesting, is the 20D iso800 that much more sensitive than the D200 iso 800?
Looking at the histograms, the D200 expose was about half a stop more to the right.
Does anyone have a link for the 20D showing what is the true iso for each iso?
Hi
Canon are more sensitive, to obtain the same shutter speed and aperture, it would be 800ISO setting for Nikon and about 1000ISO for Canon.
omar wrote:
Canon are more sensitive, to obtain the same shutter speed and aperture, it would be 800ISO setting for Nikon and about 1000ISO for Canon.
You've got it backwards. Yes, the Canons are more sensitive, so ISO 800 on the Canon would be about ISO 1000 on the Nikon. Ultimately this means that Nikon's noise issues are even worse if you're really pushing the limits.
kalieaire wrote:
Not everyone has DPP or NC installed. Despite what you like, other people have different preferences. We do not force you to use ACR, nor should you suggest everyone else should use DPP and NC exclusively.
I'm assuming that this is a discussion to objectively assess the D200's greatest potential. That greatest potential of each camera is ostensibly obtained by using the manufacturer's RAW tools. I think we're all familiar with the compromises in using in-camera processing for JPEG files, but the difference RAW utilities also have their own set of compromises. So again, if we want to establish the best that these cameras can do - I'll be using NC and DPP.
kalieaire wrote:
If people are interested in the results, then shouldn't that be enough reason to see what the differences are? Or is curiousity an unnecessary evil these days as well?
No, but again... if the original poster's goal is to show each camera in its best light, ACR is not the best tool to do that with. ACR's results may be interesting for some, but ultimately it's Adobe's interpretation of what can best be done with RAW data - an interpretation I've learned not to trust.
