Sarge, your long-lost camera question...my reply:
04-22-2004, 04:27 PM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarge, your long-lost camera question...my reply:
Q: <i>But I'm debating between a 300d or 10D w/16-35 2.8L or a Nikon D70 w/17-35 f2.8D ED.</i>
A: Well, there's a price difference between the 300D and 10D to consider for sure. On the surface of it, the Canon 300D = Nikon D70, and Canon 10D = Nikon D100. It's not as simple as that though. For example, Nikon obviously had time to evaluate and make some decisions with regards to the D70 which make it a pretty clear choice over the 300D (not in image quality necessarily, but in functionality). Same goes with the Canon 1D Mark II putting the hurt on the Nikon D2H...this leapfrogging will always be a factor, with the newer of any model generally being better in some way/s than the competitive model from another manufacturer. The 300D and D70 are slightly limited (compared to the 10D and D100) if you're going to grow and try new things with your photography. For example, the 10D has higher ISO sensitivity, greater white-balance control, greater exposure compensation, more sophisticated metering, a higher frame rate, mirror lockup, a metal body, many custom functions, a better viewfinder, and a $500 higher price tag than the 300D. DPReview.com has a great "<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp">side-by-side</a>" feature where you can compare the basic feature sets of any number of cameras.
You should try to look at the camera bodies without factoring in any bundled lenses. Unless your budget is too tight to not look at them, you should consider that you'll likely (I dunno, perhaps not?) want another lens later on...a telephoto, macro, or wide angle. I have the Canon 16-35 f/ 2.8L, and my friend/biz partner has the 17-35 f/2.8 ED. They are pretty comparable...if one has an edge, it would be his.
Q: <i>I can buy the Canon 300D setup w/ L lense new for roughly $2k or the Nikon for a little more - new, not refurb. The 10D is nice too, I'm primarily interested in acquiring the best lense for PJ and at some point a zoom above that, along with a capable but cheap camera (since I'll only keep the camera a year at most before 'needing' the next round of dSLR 'greatness'...</i>
A: The downside to these cameras for PJ/street photography is the "<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_length_multiplier_01.htm">focal length multiplier</a>". Both Canon's have a 1.6x, and the Nikon's a 1.5x. On the Canon for example, this mean that the 16-35mm lens functions as a 25.6-56mm lens. A real hinderance in getting nice wide-angle shots - though 25mm is pretty good! Possibly my favorite lenses in my bag are the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2, which work as 80 and 136mm respectively. This really affects how well these lenses can be used in tight quarters. When indoors I find myself inevitably backing into a corner someplace to try and "zoom out". This is one of the (many!) motivations in my buying the 1D Mk II (it's FLM is "only" 1.3x).
Q: <i>Curious what you think of the Nikons - are you a Canon fanatic (as I am Audi) or have you primarily just purchased your way into loyalty via lenses?</i>
A: The Nikons are fantastic. So are the Canons. I went with Canon to some degree because of my familiarity with the brand, but primarily because I like their lens lineup. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS (Image Stabilized) is just incredible, though Nikon has definitely caught up for the most part with their "VR" (Vibration Reduction) lenses. I started fresh when I bought my D60, and could have chosen Nikon at that time. Also, I don't own any third party lenses and so cannot comment on what they might be like. That 85mm f/1.2 is arguably the second or third best portrait lens that has ever been made. I'd really say it's an either-or situation on the bodies, though Canon seems to have the upper hand right now with their 1Ds and the new 1D Mk II.
A couple other things:
- Nikon's software seems to be better (though their full-on package is an added-cost item) than Canon's (this could change with Canon's completely revised software shipping with the 1D Mk II).
- I like the Canon CMOS sensors because they are said to be better (cleaner, less noise) in low-light shooting (Canon also have greater ISO ranges in their cameras - both high and low) than the Nikon CCD's. Canon make their own sensors while Nikon out-source theirs, but that's not necessarily good or bad.
I try not to be brand loyal in general - though of course I am to some extent. I use a Mac, but wouldn't much care if it happened to be a PC, and I drive an Audi, but will consider other makes when car shopping next...to some degree just to try something different. I'm wary of fanatics that discount the competition in any field (cars, cameras, stereos, etc.) and would recommend to take advice from such people with a grain of salt.
Q: <i>My itch is to regain the sharpness and contrast of my Leica minilux, which was great for what it was, and Nikon is supposed to produce the sharpest PJ range lense. OTOH I really like my S50, except it's a bit soft and definitely slow (like any non SLR) but have nothing against Canon, just seems the reviews and pics I've seen show a bit more sharpness to Nikon - thoughts?</i>
A: The <a href="http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux2/index_e.html">Leica Digilux 2</a> seems like a really cool camera (see also the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04021305pansonicluminlc1.asp">Panasonic Lumix</a>), but probably not as robust (feature-wise) in the digital arena as these other D-SLR's are. Any of these D-SLR's will trounce the point-and-shoot (S50) in responsiveness. They are all super-quick focusing and have very short shutter release times - just like a real camera!
Another thing to consider with these D-SLR images is that they <i>require</i> a lot of post-processing to, uh, become all they can be. If you're going to really get into your photography - and you well might as these things are addictive! - you should give some thought to how you're going to work on your images. You'll need a computer and some good software at least, and maybe a printer and a bunch of other software (image processing plug-ins, RAW processing programs, something to help make web pages, etc.). Straight up: the images are soft as they come out of the camera. At the very least, they must be sharpened to look really good, and color-corrected and tweaked in a number of ways to be their best. I probably spend 10 minutes minimum (absolute minimum!) on a web-sized photo...tweaking it to look good. From what I've heard (and for what good that is!), the Nikons are reportedly somewhat softer out of the camera due to their reliance on heavier anti-aliasing filtering (used in front of the sensor) to reduce moire patterns in the images. It is impossible to gauge sharpness from web-based images...there is just too much of that processing that might or might not have been done to make decisions based on someone's posted images. IMO, the best general source for objective measurements on the sharpness topic are the dpreview reviews.
As with all hobbies, don't forget that the best thing you can do to take better pictures is not to hang out on the photo-chat boards, nor even read about photography (though there is some good reading to be had on the topic), but to just go out and take lots and lots of pictures. Bring them home, sort through them, trash the bad ones (if you don't you'll go crazy trying to manage the thousands of files clogging your quickly filling hard drive), look at the good ones and then go out and take some more.
A bunch more.
Content shot!
<img src="http://www.digitalfields.com/sfautoshows4.jpg">
<small>November 2003 / San Francisco Auto Show / Audi S4 / Canon 10D, 56mm, ISO 200, f/2.8, 1/60th sec.</small>
A: Well, there's a price difference between the 300D and 10D to consider for sure. On the surface of it, the Canon 300D = Nikon D70, and Canon 10D = Nikon D100. It's not as simple as that though. For example, Nikon obviously had time to evaluate and make some decisions with regards to the D70 which make it a pretty clear choice over the 300D (not in image quality necessarily, but in functionality). Same goes with the Canon 1D Mark II putting the hurt on the Nikon D2H...this leapfrogging will always be a factor, with the newer of any model generally being better in some way/s than the competitive model from another manufacturer. The 300D and D70 are slightly limited (compared to the 10D and D100) if you're going to grow and try new things with your photography. For example, the 10D has higher ISO sensitivity, greater white-balance control, greater exposure compensation, more sophisticated metering, a higher frame rate, mirror lockup, a metal body, many custom functions, a better viewfinder, and a $500 higher price tag than the 300D. DPReview.com has a great "<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp">side-by-side</a>" feature where you can compare the basic feature sets of any number of cameras.
You should try to look at the camera bodies without factoring in any bundled lenses. Unless your budget is too tight to not look at them, you should consider that you'll likely (I dunno, perhaps not?) want another lens later on...a telephoto, macro, or wide angle. I have the Canon 16-35 f/ 2.8L, and my friend/biz partner has the 17-35 f/2.8 ED. They are pretty comparable...if one has an edge, it would be his.
Q: <i>I can buy the Canon 300D setup w/ L lense new for roughly $2k or the Nikon for a little more - new, not refurb. The 10D is nice too, I'm primarily interested in acquiring the best lense for PJ and at some point a zoom above that, along with a capable but cheap camera (since I'll only keep the camera a year at most before 'needing' the next round of dSLR 'greatness'...</i>
A: The downside to these cameras for PJ/street photography is the "<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_length_multiplier_01.htm">focal length multiplier</a>". Both Canon's have a 1.6x, and the Nikon's a 1.5x. On the Canon for example, this mean that the 16-35mm lens functions as a 25.6-56mm lens. A real hinderance in getting nice wide-angle shots - though 25mm is pretty good! Possibly my favorite lenses in my bag are the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2, which work as 80 and 136mm respectively. This really affects how well these lenses can be used in tight quarters. When indoors I find myself inevitably backing into a corner someplace to try and "zoom out". This is one of the (many!) motivations in my buying the 1D Mk II (it's FLM is "only" 1.3x).
Q: <i>Curious what you think of the Nikons - are you a Canon fanatic (as I am Audi) or have you primarily just purchased your way into loyalty via lenses?</i>
A: The Nikons are fantastic. So are the Canons. I went with Canon to some degree because of my familiarity with the brand, but primarily because I like their lens lineup. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS (Image Stabilized) is just incredible, though Nikon has definitely caught up for the most part with their "VR" (Vibration Reduction) lenses. I started fresh when I bought my D60, and could have chosen Nikon at that time. Also, I don't own any third party lenses and so cannot comment on what they might be like. That 85mm f/1.2 is arguably the second or third best portrait lens that has ever been made. I'd really say it's an either-or situation on the bodies, though Canon seems to have the upper hand right now with their 1Ds and the new 1D Mk II.
A couple other things:
- Nikon's software seems to be better (though their full-on package is an added-cost item) than Canon's (this could change with Canon's completely revised software shipping with the 1D Mk II).
- I like the Canon CMOS sensors because they are said to be better (cleaner, less noise) in low-light shooting (Canon also have greater ISO ranges in their cameras - both high and low) than the Nikon CCD's. Canon make their own sensors while Nikon out-source theirs, but that's not necessarily good or bad.
I try not to be brand loyal in general - though of course I am to some extent. I use a Mac, but wouldn't much care if it happened to be a PC, and I drive an Audi, but will consider other makes when car shopping next...to some degree just to try something different. I'm wary of fanatics that discount the competition in any field (cars, cameras, stereos, etc.) and would recommend to take advice from such people with a grain of salt.
Q: <i>My itch is to regain the sharpness and contrast of my Leica minilux, which was great for what it was, and Nikon is supposed to produce the sharpest PJ range lense. OTOH I really like my S50, except it's a bit soft and definitely slow (like any non SLR) but have nothing against Canon, just seems the reviews and pics I've seen show a bit more sharpness to Nikon - thoughts?</i>
A: The <a href="http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux2/index_e.html">Leica Digilux 2</a> seems like a really cool camera (see also the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04021305pansonicluminlc1.asp">Panasonic Lumix</a>), but probably not as robust (feature-wise) in the digital arena as these other D-SLR's are. Any of these D-SLR's will trounce the point-and-shoot (S50) in responsiveness. They are all super-quick focusing and have very short shutter release times - just like a real camera!
Another thing to consider with these D-SLR images is that they <i>require</i> a lot of post-processing to, uh, become all they can be. If you're going to really get into your photography - and you well might as these things are addictive! - you should give some thought to how you're going to work on your images. You'll need a computer and some good software at least, and maybe a printer and a bunch of other software (image processing plug-ins, RAW processing programs, something to help make web pages, etc.). Straight up: the images are soft as they come out of the camera. At the very least, they must be sharpened to look really good, and color-corrected and tweaked in a number of ways to be their best. I probably spend 10 minutes minimum (absolute minimum!) on a web-sized photo...tweaking it to look good. From what I've heard (and for what good that is!), the Nikons are reportedly somewhat softer out of the camera due to their reliance on heavier anti-aliasing filtering (used in front of the sensor) to reduce moire patterns in the images. It is impossible to gauge sharpness from web-based images...there is just too much of that processing that might or might not have been done to make decisions based on someone's posted images. IMO, the best general source for objective measurements on the sharpness topic are the dpreview reviews. As with all hobbies, don't forget that the best thing you can do to take better pictures is not to hang out on the photo-chat boards, nor even read about photography (though there is some good reading to be had on the topic), but to just go out and take lots and lots of pictures. Bring them home, sort through them, trash the bad ones (if you don't you'll go crazy trying to manage the thousands of files clogging your quickly filling hard drive), look at the good ones and then go out and take some more.
A bunch more.
Content shot!
<img src="http://www.digitalfields.com/sfautoshows4.jpg">
<small>November 2003 / San Francisco Auto Show / Audi S4 / Canon 10D, 56mm, ISO 200, f/2.8, 1/60th sec.</small>
04-23-2004, 04:44 AM
#5
AudiWorld Super User
Excellent information well put. Looking at the explaination of the cropping...
of the image would suggest that the resultant image quality across the whole CCD panel would be better because it is copping the edges where the quality usually deteriorates. Does this happen in the real world?
I did not realise that you have to manipulate your photo's before we see them, other than for things like colour balance.
I did not realise that you have to manipulate your photo's before we see them, other than for things like colour balance.
04-23-2004, 05:39 AM
#7
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I may buy a D70, the CMOS sensor produces amazing image quality...
I think if it were down to D100 vs 10D, the 10D would have it if the deciding factor were image quality.
The images I see from D100s are very, very good, but the images I see from 10Ds are at times absolutely stunning.
D70 seems like a nice middle-ground right now if you don't want to go up to a 10D or down to a 300D.
The images I see from D100s are very, very good, but the images I see from 10Ds are at times absolutely stunning.
D70 seems like a nice middle-ground right now if you don't want to go up to a 10D or down to a 300D.
Trending Topics
04-23-2004, 09:07 AM
#8
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^^^^--What he said.
I really don't follow the non D-SLR market as much as I do the DSLR's and so can only say to read the reviews that are out there. I used to read every review on every camera at every web site out there, but it's just too much to cover. I've settled in with my gear and pretty much only follow it (and its direct competitors) in depth. Start at dpreview.com, and look at his "links" for other good sites.
Only piece of advice I can give: don't be a sucker for the "more-pixels-are-better" marketing. It is <b>not</b> true. I'd much rather a 6MP DSLR than an 8MP point and shoot. The images are better. They look better on screen, they'll print much better, you can manipulate them more without losing quality, etc. However, that's not to say that the current crop of 8MP point-and-shoots are not excellent cameras. They really are pretty amazing.
Only piece of advice I can give: don't be a sucker for the "more-pixels-are-better" marketing. It is <b>not</b> true. I'd much rather a 6MP DSLR than an 8MP point and shoot. The images are better. They look better on screen, they'll print much better, you can manipulate them more without losing quality, etc. However, that's not to say that the current crop of 8MP point-and-shoots are not excellent cameras. They really are pretty amazing.
04-23-2004, 09:22 AM
#9
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's true. There are caveats though...
It's true that you're only using the very best (central) part of the glass in the lens, though there are other issues at hand.
As you open the aperture up, light hits the sensor at more and more oblique angles, and there are problems with that. The smaller that each light-sensing spot is on a sensor, the more problems the sensor has in gathering data (light) accurately. Particularly when that light isn't hitting the sensor "straight-on". That is one reason why the 8MP point and shoot cameras have poorer image quality than a 6MP near-35mm size sensor. All 8MP's are jammed onto a 2/3" sensor and the pixel sites are so tiny that the images are simply not as good at getting their data as a larger sensor with fewer pixels. This is yet another reason why I want that 1D Mk II so badly...more, larger photo-sites on the sensor...the images should look really great (cleaner, less noise, less chromatic aberration, etc.)
This is a ****-poor description of the issue, I'll see if I can find a link that describes it better. It's also nit-picking. Those 8MP cameras take a great picture. Just looking back a few short years and what was available then...they're unbelievable!
As you open the aperture up, light hits the sensor at more and more oblique angles, and there are problems with that. The smaller that each light-sensing spot is on a sensor, the more problems the sensor has in gathering data (light) accurately. Particularly when that light isn't hitting the sensor "straight-on". That is one reason why the 8MP point and shoot cameras have poorer image quality than a 6MP near-35mm size sensor. All 8MP's are jammed onto a 2/3" sensor and the pixel sites are so tiny that the images are simply not as good at getting their data as a larger sensor with fewer pixels. This is yet another reason why I want that 1D Mk II so badly...more, larger photo-sites on the sensor...the images should look really great (cleaner, less noise, less chromatic aberration, etc.)
This is a ****-poor description of the issue, I'll see if I can find a link that describes it better. It's also nit-picking. Those 8MP cameras take a great picture. Just looking back a few short years and what was available then...they're unbelievable!
04-23-2004, 09:49 AM
#10
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think - image quality wise - that the 300D vs. D70 is a near toss up, possibly the 300D being
better because of the sensor (CMOS vs. CCD, a bit less aggressive on the anti-aliasing filter, and a lower ISO rating) and a few more pixels (negligible). Feature-set wise, the D70 hclearly as the 300D beat. This is what five extra months of watching the competition gets you. If the 300D goes through a small revision at Photokina late this summer, it would be a clear choice over the D70.
If I had no loyalty (meaning, no lenses!) and were shopping for an intro DSLR, I would be hard pressed to make the call on which to get. I'd have to look at the respective lens and other accessory lineups to help make the case for one or the other.
One thing I didn't mention in my initial notes: Nikon's flash metering system beats the snot out of Canon's. However, the 1D Mk II has a completely revised setup (same flashes, which are excellent, but a different metering method/algorithm) which I expect will be used on all forthcoming Canon models and updated models (it had better be!).
Here's a screen cap from the "side-by-side" thing on DPReview.com:
<img src="http://www.digitalfields.com/300dvD70.jpg">
If I had no loyalty (meaning, no lenses!) and were shopping for an intro DSLR, I would be hard pressed to make the call on which to get. I'd have to look at the respective lens and other accessory lineups to help make the case for one or the other.
One thing I didn't mention in my initial notes: Nikon's flash metering system beats the snot out of Canon's. However, the 1D Mk II has a completely revised setup (same flashes, which are excellent, but a different metering method/algorithm) which I expect will be used on all forthcoming Canon models and updated models (it had better be!).
Here's a screen cap from the "side-by-side" thing on DPReview.com:
<img src="http://www.digitalfields.com/300dvD70.jpg">