Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 24, 2006, 5:30 PM   #41
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215

Interesting. I switched to Nikon when Canon abandoned the FD mount as well. In my case, if I was going to have to change all my kit anyway I didn't have to stick to Canon so I looked at what was on the market at the time and bought Nikon.


VinnyP! wrote:
Just to say I am not a long time Nikon user. I used to use Canon film cameras since the AE1 F1 and A1, through to the T90. I was using them alongside myMedium Formatcameraswhere the same arguments went on.

However when Canon abondoned the FD mount I had to let go. I moved to Nikon out of spite and for future proofing.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 5:41 PM   #42
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172

great answer, I think... as a newbie, I follow concepts but start to get fuzzy on all the detail.

if I follow, you may have answered one of the burning questions I can't seem to get answered. I, and others, have posted numerous, Nikon vs Canon questions. the answers seem to always get a majority of frustrated, don't be so tedious, just go buy something and start shooting answers. Then, we get involved in a debate like this, one that is much more specific, and the answers start coming out.

You address one of my major concerns. Nikon images, as a whole, seem to keep more clarity off in the distance. Buildings seem a little sharper. People in the distance seem to stay in focus better with Nikon images. Yes, several factors come into play. (getting some private, offline tutoring on these issues.) But, as a whole, as I search forums, I just continue to question why Nikon cityscapes seem to maintain clarity and people in the distance are visible further away. (Cityscapes may be just one example.)

Does your answer above address that to some extent. Could you attempt that part of your answer in layman's terms. If you're feeling really helpful, my interest will not be cityscapes. I'll leave that to the big boys. Mine will be more personal, family moments and kid's sports. THAT is what keeps me leaning to Canon 30d. A little more emphasis on fast focus, quick shots and low light.

READY FOR A MAJOR LAUGH? I am in the parking lot surfing online as I'm about to FINALLY BUY SOMETHING! Checked one more thing and your response gave me that last, uh oh... moment. Eagerly awaiting any possible follow up.

leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 6:31 PM   #43
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 41

Leeraff the 30D is a great camera I know a couple of people with them and they are very happy.

Nothing I have said here really applies to this as it's also a 2/3 sized sensor. I think the 30D should be able to manage just fine with long distance subjects. I think it lies between the Nikon D70s and the D200 if your budget does too then there is no better camera I expect.

My only concern is that if you want to upgrade and keep any Canon lenses and accessories you acquire you may struggle if you go fullframe.

As for long range detail that is a factor of resolution (not always the same as pixel count or ISO but they both come into it). Lenses play a big part here, but on the whole I doubt like for like there is much to chose between them. A 1Ds has got better resolution than a Nikon D2xall things being equal but they seldom are. A D200 might just edge out the 30D but lenses are more important.

Ihaven't compared but, according to the reviews, in terms of low light performancethere is nothing between the 30D and the D200, the D200 does focus more quickly and has more accurate metering but whether that is worth extra to you only you will know.

VinnyP! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 7:01 PM   #44
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529


Now I understand where you're coming from - purely from a depth of field perspective. In that case, you are absolutely right that a 1.5 crop body has shallower DOF than a full frame body with the same ACTUAL focal length lens - ie a 50mm lens on both bodies the 1.5 crop sensor has a shallower DOF.

But, if that were the sole logic involved in making a decision - the Canon 1.6x crop bodies (e.g. 30D) have an even shallower DOF. So, following that logic the 30d is the best camera because it has the shallowest DOF for a given focal length. That's why it's dangerous to make generalizing statements like this. Also the reason, IMO, Canon is focusing on both areas - the full frame sensor for landscape and wedding type work where the full frame sensor is more beneficial. And, the 30D with the 1.6 crop factor and low ISO 3200 noise profile which is beneficial to the wildlife and sports photographers.

But, say your a sports shooter and shoot indoor sports. Then shutter speeds are a premium as well as other characteristics. If your in the Canon camp this means the 30D because of the burst rate and ISO3200. In the Nikon camp you need to use D200 because of need for ISO 3200. Then the noise comparison goes to the Canon from what I've seen. Although I will admit Popular Photography found the exact opposite to be true. But that seems to contradict every other review I've seen - most of which seem to claim the D50 has better noise performance. That's the tradeoff with more mp in the sensor it seems. I will also say, from viewing people's work that the D50 and 350 seem to be about on par with noise performance. So, I honestly wish the D200 had the same level of performance - it would give Canon a kick in the butt and it really is the only area where it appears the 30d bests the d200 - in every other aspect (as I've readily claimed) the d200 is the better camera. So, the morall is -what is the features that are most important to you that would drive which of these excellent cameras is the right one for you.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2006, 7:40 PM   #45
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 41

Yes the 30D is a close match for the D200 it was the upgrade path 5D vs D200 where the full frame came into it. I think most reviews seem to agree the D200 wins out butthe 30D shades itwith ISO 3200 but up to there (once you turnin camera reduction off) the D200 retains more detail.I haven't compared them personally but with it turned off then using Noise Ninja it's pretty good at 1600, 3200 for me is a last resort in low light in good light it's not too bad but why use it in good light :?
VinnyP! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2006, 9:58 AM   #46
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52

It is my understanding that the D200 is slightly behind the Cannon d20/d30 in high iso noise, but not by much. Some reviews have even listed it as superior. The D200 is behind the D50 as far as high iso noise is concerned. This is a byproduct of the higher resolution. In order to get higher resolution they must put more photo receptor sites in the same space. Since there is a limited amount of space the photo sites get smaller. Since there is the same amount of light is the same and the photo sensor sites are smaller the noise increases because the signal needs to be amplified more to get the same level of signal. Kind of like when you turn your stereo up distortion (think digital noise) gets very high. This is why the DSLR has so much lower noise than point than shoots with tiny sensors. This is also part of the reason why the D2H is so loved as it's 4.1 mega-pixel sensor is very noise free. This is also one of the big advantages of full frame sensors; they have more space to work with. Some people seem to think the number of pixels is king, but not really as important as the total package. My opinion is that the D200 is at the edge of noise/resolution. I am waiting to see the noise performance of the D80 but I am most likely going to go with a D50. But the features of the D80 are so tempting.

It seems the D50 is King of low noise.

labrat99 wrote:
I'm really surprised by your post because I think noise at higher ISO ratings are one are where it is generally accepted that Nikon has an advantage over Canon. That is one of the BIG reasons I chose a D50. I shoot concerts using existing light at ISO 1600 and noise is not an issue.

Did you shoot with both of these cameras personally? Could it be that you weren't familiar with the D200 and didn't have it set up properly?

I think both companies make fine cameras - pick whichever brand suits you and use it often. That is the best way to get nice results, not endlessly fretting over specs.

volchonok wrote:
Can't really speak for your area, but I'm in Alaska. During the winter, the ISO is a big issue, but only when I'm trying to cut down on the flash effect (when I'm shooting at ISO 800 or 1600). The Canon took sharp photos, the d200 took... crummy photos (OK, but really noisy). Add in the flash & it's OK, but I really don't like the inline flash effect, so I try to keep that down. Using an external flash was much better, but I wouldn't go below ISO 400.

Now, during the summer I can easily take ISO 200 shots indoors, when ambient light from the sun is strong, so I'm liking it a lot more right now.

A side note: the only people I know who use NIK Multimedia's sharpener are Nikon people. The canon folks generally say "who?". Link: http://www.niksoftware.com/sharpenerpro/usa/entry.php?
miatapaul is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:44 AM.