Nikon vs. Canon

[JrdBen]

These days does it really matter?

Take comparable bodies that stack reasonably well (although most don't) from each, stick them in a bag and tell a person to pick one. Id bet my gear, that as long as it was free no one would complain about the one they got.

I went Canon due to their lens line up. For what I do I felt they had better and more options in the area that was most important to me. That said while there are differences between the two lineups, I don't think it matters much.

1Dmkiv and way too much glass

[Ryan]

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

[MarkoD]

Originally Posted by Ryan

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

mega pixels and image stabilization are unrelated. image stabilization is important when the light is low and you need to use a longer shutter speed.

also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography. generally when shooting action a high shutter speed is used. and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

[Delphinus]

I like (and have) both.

Although I wish that were true of DSLR's. Only have a Nikon DSLR, and that's because I've got lenses going back to 1990 or so when I bought my first Nikon SLR, back then a 35mm. The lenses work fine for me and would cost a fortune to replace them all to Canon. So I'm "stuck" with Nikon but I don't mind it in the least.

Do wish I had the FX sensor though. One day .. one day.

[Ross]

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography.
... and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

[MarkoD]

Originally Posted by Ross

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

Yeah the crop factor is the focal lenth.

100mm lens on a 1.6 is 160mm focal length. So 1/160

[JrdBen]

Lol, I wasn't expecting to jump into the forums so fast. Still reading tons of threads while I wait for my tank to arrive . However photography is near and dear to me.

Originally Posted by MarkoD

mega pixels and image stabilization are unrelated. image stabilization is important when the light is low and you need to use a longer shutter speed.

also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography. generally when shooting action a high shutter speed is used. and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

Very true.
When IS/VR was first becoming more mainstream (incorporated into more lenses and bodies) I used to get a chuckle at the marketing ads. They often portrayed moving subjects and the "claim" clearer/sharper images. The one I remember most was of a dog (Border Collie I think) jumping into the air and the shooter capturing the hang time
No "IS" sample showed an image of a leaping dog suffering motion blur
With "IS" sample showed a tack sharp dog.
wonderful marketing play to peoples heart strings to open their purse strings. I hope that marketing exec got a good bonus that year

Originally Posted by Ross

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Yeah the crop factor is the focal lenth.

100mm lens on a 1.6 is 160mm focal length. So 1/160

Not "technically" accurate but yes true enough. The resulting image gives you the "same" field of view as though shot with a focal length of 160mm, which isn't quite the same as if it were shot at 160mm. If your at the back of a room, 30 feet from a large window (full frame sensor) and someone then removes the larger window and installs a window half the size (a smaller sensor) all thats changed is how much you see through the window (hence "cropped")...the window itself is still 30feet away. A crop sensor really just has a smaller frame and doesn't "increase" focal length in the most common understanding ("magnification")

To the original comment by Ryan.
Depending on the body itself, it could very well be newer technology as to why it takes as good or better images. Too many people get caught up in MP counts. Canon (and I believe Nikon as well) have finally come to realize that more isn't always better. The flagship "PnS" the G series, they've reduced the MPs from 12MP (G10 I believe) back to 10MP (G11) understanding that there are limits and that you can get a cleaner/better image, especially when dealing with even smaller sensors as found in PnSs.

While not entirely accurate (there are subtle benefits to more MP) for the most part, the average person really doesn't need more than 8MP. Ive got 19x13 prints from my "old" 8MP 1Dmkii that stand up very well against my 17MP files. For the average person who would most likely most often print nothing larger than 8.5x11 and 8MP file is plenty. I have more covers shot with my MKii (8MP) than I do with my mkiv (17MP).

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Someone mentioned the D700, just a heads up, the new (D800?) will be coming out in spring 2012 and probably be in the same price range, maybe a few hundred more. I wouldn't buy a D700 right now unless its used. I think there is a big shortage anyways because of the Tsunami in Japan. I know the Tsunami delayed the D800 (if that is the new model number as expected).

For what I like to call an almost professional Nikon body, the D7000 is amazing. I don't think you can beat it with a Canon for performance AND price ($1099 body only). I haven't seen a Canon in that price range that can compete. I hate the comparisons it always gets to the D700 because its like comparing apples and oranges. The D700 is FX and D7000 is DX BUT I have seen them compared side by side and was very impressed. The D7000 starts to loose out in lower light though.

One advantage of the D7000 is the glass cost. DX lenses are much cheaper.

My wife uses the D7000 as a back up body (professionally) and I use it for fun...I accidentally had it the other day shooting my aquarium when she was suppose to have it on set for a shoot lol. Luckily she didn't need it. I'm not allowed to touch her expensive body.

LOL I just realized how that sounds...

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Ryan

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

Agree with Mark, image stabilizers will do absolutely nothing in relation to a moving subject and the MP relation makes no sense. You need a new camera guy