Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2009 · Nikon or Canon

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Nikon or Canon

mawz wrote:
There most certainly is a change when opening up the lens on these screens, if only in the visible depth of field. It's not nearly as pronounced as it is at smaller apertures and it can be difficult to accurately determine focus, but it remains possible. This is my experience shooting with quite a number of crop cameras from the Nikon D50 (awful finder) through the Pentax K10D and Nikon D300 (quite nice finders). I'm currently using an E-30, *istDS and G1 with fast manual focus glass. All allow reasonably accurate manual focus with some care.

Note that actual depth of...Show more →

interesting, i'm going to have to disagree with you here. perhaps it's because we are using different cameras (though apparently the same manufacturers). of course the G1 isn't a problem since the image comes straight from the sensor. with dslrs i have never been able to see any difference between f/2.8 and any wider aperture (all the way down to f/1.2. believe me, i spent a long time trying when i first switched to dslrs trying to figure out what was wrong till i finally read a few reports that the design of modern focus screens for increased brightness on slow lenses actually causes this. i don't recall the explanation of why, something about light scatter or something (i'll have to look it up). just to be sure i retested the e520 (only camera i have handy) on a tripod at minimal focus distance focused on a ruler so it would be easy to see depth of field changes. once again i could detect absolutely no difference in depth of field (or brightness) between f/1.2 and f/2.8. smaller apertures than f/2.8 the difference was obvious. it could just be the e520, though i've heard many newcomers to manual focus make the same complaints no matter what type of camera they use. i'll have to borrow a D700 sometime to try the same test.

Nov 29, 2009 at 01:45 PM

seraphkz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Nikon or Canon

You can't only look at bodies. Nikon definitely has some nice features that Canon is lacking. Such as the wonderful AF system they put in the D700 as compared to the weak AF system in the 5Dmk2.

However, you have to look at what lenses each company offers. I am a prime shooter, so IMO, Canon has much better primes than Nikon. That's why I chose Canon.

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:00 PM

you2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Nikon or Canon

Is the D700 autofocus system really that much more accurate than the 7D or (5D if object is slow moving or stationary) ?

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:14 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Nikon or Canon

you2 wrote:
Is the D700 autofocus system really that much more accurate than the 7D or (5D if object is slow moving or stationary) ?

If you're tracking moving objects, yes. High-point-count AF systems have a massive advantage due to their point density. This was the primary source of the Canon AF dominance from the release of the EOS 3 until the release of the D300 and D3.

For stationary or slow moving objects it's not a big deal, but the 7D's system offers little advantage over say the A700's system there aside from usable off-centre points. Note the Nikon system is colour sensitive (via integration with the metering system) and will do a bit better at auto-selecting the active AF point but overall everybody but Pentax does well at this sort of thing.

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Navyblue
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Nikon or Canon

Btw, 5D line replacement is not 'late". It's product cycle is 3 years like the 1D series instead of 12-18 months. And only 40D to 50D is 12 months, the rest are standard 18 months.

Nov 30, 2009 at 11:17 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Nikon or Canon

mawz wrote:
If you're tracking moving objects, yes. High-point-count AF systems have a massive advantage due to their point density. This was the primary source of the Canon AF dominance from the release of the EOS 3 until the release of the D300 and D3.

I must admit that the fact that this AF system perform so well despite the fact that most of its AF points are not cross type never cease to amaze me.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 01, 2009 at 04:58 AM

RKH
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Nikon or Canon

The Nikon D300 has a focus confirmation dot, not the arrows.
Kim

Dec 01, 2009 at 10:52 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Nikon or Canon

Yakim Peled wrote:
I must admit that the fact that this AF system perform so well despite the fact that most of its AF points are not cross type never cease to amaze me.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

All of the high-point-count systems have a minority of cross-type points except for the newest system in the 1DmIV (with 39 of 45 points being cross-type). The 1DmIII/1DsmIII has 21 cross-type points and the first version had a mere 9 cross-type points clustered in the centre. The thing is that if you have enough points overall it ensures that any moving subject close to the centre of the frame is under 1 or more points which is the real win.

Dec 01, 2009 at 10:59 PM

thrice
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Nikon or Canon

You gotta remember which side you choose might affect your love life options!

Dec 01, 2009 at 11:35 PM

pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Nikon or Canon

I know this is an old thread but it bears continuing with new equipment arrivals.....

I got a 7d a few months ago and have been a lifelong Canon and Nikon user (back to the 70's, right tool for the right job, etc) -- previously I had (and still have) a 20D. Manual focusing is much easier on the 7d than on any other crop body I've tried, which includes some Nikons.

I currently use the following Nikon MF lenses on my 7D:

1. 50mm f 1.4
2. 200mm f4
3. 105mm Micro F4 (a lot of the time on a Nikon PB-4 bellows -- great to copy slides with PS-4 slide copier)
4. 55mm 3.5 Micro (a lot of the time on a Nikon PB-4 bellows)
5. 135mm 2.8

I have no issues whatsoever focusing on the groundglass.... but then again, "back in the day" I never really thought the micropsisms and splits were an absolute necessity. On my old F2, one of the first things I did was replace the stock screen with a plain groundglass. Nowadays, I don't use any of the MF Nikon stuff for any action shots..... just still-lifes, landscapes and posed portraits.... On the 7d (not so on the 20D), manual focusing is as easy and fast (or slow) as it ever was with any camera I've ever used. When I shoot fast-action, I reach for my 24-105 F4 IS L or the 70-200 2.8 L which have incredibly fast and accurate AF on a 7d.

As for Nikon's current bodies.... I don't really care for any of the crop ones... I'll take a 7d any day over any of them. OTOH, the D3 family is awesome... if I were in the market for a FF body, I'd have some Canon VS Nikon decisions to make....

Feb 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Nikon or Canon

can you get focus exactly where you want shooting at f/1.4 or does it have the same issue as the stock screen on the 5D (and others) at apertures below f/2.8?

Feb 10, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Depp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Nikon or Canon

Amazing the 1000's of pro's world-wide using old obsolete gear ever made a living,if their gear was so poor. I guess they were only saved by good technique ... and as for this game of tag,well the game isn't compulsory. Take photo's and what you find is they often turn out well,if you know what you're doing and have a good eye.

The gear issue really is not worth having a lobotomy over. The constant round of 'keep up' really isn't worth wetting pants over. Creativity and craft is primary. So pick up a Canon one day and a Nikon the next,and guess what ... your shots are still good. If they ain't then it sure ain't the gear.

I have both Canon and Nikon bodies and lens,and each have their particular sweet spot for different kinds of shooting...but quite often that doesn't matter,because I'll shoot with whatever cameras and lens I have with me at the time.

Dennis Connor was once asked,how he became such a skilled helmsman...he replied,"How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice,Practice,Practice!"....

Feb 10, 2010 at 01:01 PM

pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Nikon or Canon

Sebboh: My F-->EF adapters are all cheap chinese ones... (around $10 bucks on ebay). I bought one for every lens (and the bellows) and just leave them on the lenses. I did get a couple of duds that wouldn't mount right, etc.... threw them away -- at that price its not worth sending them back. I went this route after spending $150 for a Novoflex (my first one) and finding out it was no better than the $10 ones in practice. They all focus a hair past infinity (including the expensive Novoflex) -- to me, this doesn't matter because even if I'm shooting something I know is at infinity, I still go with what I see in the viewfinder. I don't have a 5d and don't know what focus issue you're referring to, but yes, focus is exact with all these lenses... IOW, if its sharp in the viewfinder (or LCD if in live mode), the image will be sharp as well.

My only advice on the mount adapters (besides don't waste your money on the expensive ones) is to stay away from the "chipped" ones with the electronics. This adds a whole new level of engineering complexity. I've seen these come apart in side the mirror box and trash my friend's 5D... its not worth it just to get the focus confirmation light and some fake EXIF data. If your have astigmatism (in your eyes, not the lenses!), get some contacts (I did) and the rest of the correction you can do with the diopter wheel. If you don't have astigmatism, you should be able to correct with the wheel alone and not need your glasses (I could never shoot right with glasses). Play with it so the LED numbers are tack sharp in the viewfinder and you should have no trouble focusing on the groundglass.

Depp: Right on!!! I can make amazing shots all day long with a disposable Kodak within its technical limitations. The art is in our heads, not in the gear....

One thing though... if it weren't for all the boneheads replacing all their gear every couple of years, who knows if Canon and Nikon would even exist any more..... their business models pretty much depends on this any more.... gone forever are the days of one major camera update every ten years or so.... the original F came out in 1959 and the F2 not until 1973 or so.... The 60's saw nothing from Nikon except 2 Nikkormats which was their entry into the amateur market. The 70s saw the F2 and another Nikkormat.... Canon had the FTb in the 60s and put out the F1 and EF around 1971, and the A line in 76 -- In the 80s... it all went to hell with a new camera every 10 minutes...... and here we are...

Digital is even worse.... people throw away perfectly good 2 year old cameras on eBay just to get a couple of additional megapixels. Most people don't even know that you have to quadruple the megapixels to double the resolution... so it takes 32 megapixels (doesn't exist in any portable form) to double the resolution of an 8mp 20D. I got my 20D (my 1st digital) soon after it came out (2004?) and did not see any need to upgrade until just recently -- and the megapixels (18 vs 8) were only a very small consideration. What sold me on the 7D was the improved AF, 100% viewfinder, high ISO performance, live mode, and HD video... in that order... I still use my 20D (I missed having 2 bodies like I always had with film) -- when shooting wildlife, the 20D sits on a tripod with the long 400mm lens and the 7d I carry with the 70-200 2.8 for closer-up fast action. They both publish equally well on the web and on paper. As for prints,up to 16x20, they look just as good from either camera... on 20x30 you can start to see the difference in favor of the 7d.

Edited on Feb 10, 2010 at 02:16 PM · View previous versions

Feb 10, 2010 at 01:42 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Nikon or Canon

sorry if i wasn't very clear. my question was about the 7D viewfinder, not about the performance of adapted lenses. i too have always been quite happy with $10 adapters. the issue i'm referring to is that with most stock screens there is no visible change in depth of field between f/1.2 and f/2.8ish. this is why people buy the super fine ground glass screen that canon makes as an accessory for the 5D and 5D II - so they can see correct focus with fast lenses. my question is this: can you get critical focus on the eye (not near the eye) 95% of the time or better focusing through the viewfinder using the 50mm f/1.4 wide open for a posed headshot? i have not been able to do this with any of the modern dslrs at apertures faster than f/2.8. it is not a dof or movement issue because i have no problem doing it using live view. it is also not an issue with my vision because my vision is considerably better than 20/20 and i can do it easily with a 350mm at f/4.8 which has a narrower dof. i understand if you haven't really shot in this situation, but i would love to hear that the 7D does not have this issue since it sounds to me like a great, reasonable priced camera in nearly every aspect accept the lack of a interchangeable focus screen.

pKai wrote:
Sebboh: My F-->EF adapters are all cheap chinese ones... (around $10 bucks on ebay). I bought one for every lens (and the bellows) and just leave them on the lens. I did get a couple of duds that wouldn't mount right, etc.... threw them away -- at that price its not worth sending them back. I went this route after spending $150 for a Novoflex (my first one) and finding out it was no better than the $10 ones in practice. They all focus a hair past infinity (including the expensive Novoflex) -- to me, this doesn't matter because even...Show more →

Feb 10, 2010 at 02:12 PM

pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Nikon or Canon

Sebboh: I have not had this issue in my portraiture, but i generally don't shoot wide open preferring a little more DOF (avoid blurry ears?)... I also use the 105 (this one is good for more than just macro work) or the 135 a lot more than the 50 for portraits.

Since I now understand what you meant, I will go and specifically look for the problem with the 1.4 and post back what I find.

Feb 10, 2010 at 02:20 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Nikon or Canon

thanks a bunch, i'm don't regularly take head shots at f/1.4 either, but once i noticed the problem (after reviewing low light shots that i was sure had been in focus) i found this to be a consistant way to test for it.

pKai wrote:
Sebboh: I have not had this issue in my portraiture, but i generally don't shoot wide open preferring a little more DOF (avoid blurry ears?)... I also use the 105 (this one is good for more than just macro work) or the 135 a lot more than the 50 for portraits.

Since I now understand what you meant, I will go and specifically look for the problem with the 1.4 and post back what I find.

Feb 10, 2010 at 02:54 PM

pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Nikon or Canon

Sebboh:

I didn't encounter the issue you described on my 7d... Focus was where it should be.... In my hasty little studio test last night I did discover that the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 is quite a bit softer and less contrasty wide open at 1.4 than my Canon 24-105 F4L wide open at F4. I realize this isn't a fair comparison, but the results are astounding. You will also notice on the 24-105, F4 that the folds in the background are visible (did I say hasty? --

!) -- at 1.4, these are effectively gone. I'm gonna have to try this with a real person... the softness of the 1.4 might be a good thing.

http://geekpix.com/host/lrgalleries/geisha

Click on each thumbnail and the full size will download with a caption at the bottom.

Feb 11, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Robb Mann
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Nikon or Canon

Neither Canon or Nikon is actually a very good company. Both are terribly myopic with their business model.

Nikon failed to take digital seriously, and hard-liners at the company continued to develop pro film cameras long after others had stopped - the F6 might be the best 35mm film camera made, but how many have been sold?

I often say that the original 5D is the camera that saved Nikon. It was not a shot across the bow. It was a hull breach. Nikon had to abandon film and focus all of their resources on digital - to include FF. I won't buy a pre-2006 FX Nikkor. They just weren't designed with full frame in mind. Without the 5D there never would have been a FX D3.

The original D3 is to Canon what the 5D was to Nikon. The D3 caught Canon napping - confident they had no competition. It's taken Canon years to really respond to Nikon - The 5DII is widely believed to be a panic product from Canon. The 7D is really the response to the D300. Canon still lags far behind in lenses. Only their new TS lenses are better than the Nikon offerings.

Both companies are finally awake. The next few years will be good for photographers.

Feb 11, 2010 at 10:49 AM

pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Nikon or Canon

Robb: i agree with everything you said except the comment on the lenses..... please give me some examples.....

I have a good friend that is all Nikon.... I don't feel that his brand-new Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR is as good as my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS. Likewise, Nikon doesn't make an equivalent to the 400 5.6L which is an awesome, tack-sharp AND handholdable super-tele. Longer, faster stuff is out of my price range from either company, but I have another friend that works at the local paper (they have pool gear -- jealousy!!!) and they've recently looked at Nikon's 400 2.8 and 600 4 and he tells me they did not see anything with those lenses that would prompt them to junk their current Canon gear... and for these guys, dropping $100k on new gear is nothing, if justified. In his opinion, Nikon is still playing catchup in the super-tele world. Wide-angle and macro, OTOH, is and always has been Nikon's world (I use Nikon micros on my Canon bodies)....

You're absolutely right about one thing -- the next few years are going to be interesting....

The 5DII was definitely an "interim" camera.... but I did not see it as an answer to the D3 -- more like an aswer to the D700 and as such, it sort of succeeds. Canon, IMHO, really hasn't had an answer to the D3 and X -- bad for Canon. Maybe a future 1DS Mark 4?? Canon's "safe" approach of the last two decades or so of putting all new features in mid-range models and later after debugging them putting them in their pro models, IMHO, no longer works. As you say, Nikon woke up and began spanking them in the pro market. Canon needs to have the balls to release state-of-the art features in their top of the line models first and get it right the 1st time if they want to remain competitive.

Feb 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Nikon or Canon

thanks for the test. maybe i'll have to go down to the camera store and try one out after all. looks like you've got some of the glow associated with using fast legacy glass on high pixel digital cameras in addition to the softness. i see this on all the f/1.2 lenses and some of the f/1.8 lenses i have on both 4/3 cameras and nikon crop cameras (oddly i don't have any f/1.4 lenses). i've heard it attributed to coma, light bouncing around in the mirror box due to the oversized image circle, and the angle of light hitting the sensor. my suspicion is that it is just due to the fact that these lenses were not corrected for aberrations only visible at such high resolutions. i have seen it a bit in samples posted in the high resolution FF cameras but not on the original 5D and not with made for digital f/1.4 lenses. in any event it can produce a pleasing effect in certain portraits. in addition to softening skin it also seems to get rid of some of the red tone on skin.

anyway, back to the topic of manual focus. it's a little hard to tell (is this a 50% crop?), but it looks like optimal focus is on the more distant eye. is this what you were targeting? the focus screen issue will be harder to see in a studio test because the camera is mounted on a tripod and you have plenty of time to move the focus back and forth and estimate where the center of focus is. shooting unposed people one needs to pull the trigger as soon as things pop into focus. i should have told you the easier test of a focus screen first but i forgot - can you see any difference in screen brightness when you stop down from f/1.4 to f/2? most stock screens will show no visible difference.

thanks again

pKai wrote:
Sebboh:

I didn't encounter the issue you described on my 7d... Focus was where it should be.... In my hasty little studio test last night I did discover that the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 is quite a bit softer and less contrasty wide open at 1.4 than my Canon 24-105 F4L wide open at F4. I realize this isn't a fair comparison, but the results are astounding. You will also notice on the 24-105, F4 that the folds in the background are visible (did I say hasty? --

!) -- at 1.4, these are effectively gone. I'm gonna have to try this...Show more →

Feb 11, 2010 at 12:51 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.