Nikon vs Canon - DPChallenge Forums

12/10/2007 04:30:11 PM · #1

Nikon vs Canon

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

12/10/2007 04:47:27 PM · #2

I'll check it out.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

12/10/2007 04:48:54 PM · #3

Oooh. Barbie dolls getting intimate with cameras!

Looks like a useful read. Thanks.

cloudsme

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

12/10/2007 04:55:24 PM · #4

I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions; that is that megapixels don't matter if you have very low noise.

ben4345

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/10/2007 05:10:13 PM · #5

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions; that is that megapixels don't matter if you have very low noise.

This part is just individual preference. Just like Nikon system to Canon system.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

12/10/2007 05:17:32 PM · #6

Pretty interesting review and the nikon seems to own the high iso's. One thing I don't understand about a lot of these reviews lately though is why they don't do a practical comparison. If you really need iso 26400 then only the Nikon has it and that's the end of the story. But if noise is a concern to you for general situations and you want to know which camera delivers, why not compare at iso 200/400/800. To me that would be relevant buy/don't buy info.

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/10/2007 06:18:19 PM · #7

Well, noise is one of those important issues. I'm very wary to take anything above 400 on my XT. Sure, there's always Neat Image, but if you you're making a living on your shots, you want the most information from the original shot possible.

Ken Rockwell agrees that the D3 does very, very well at high ISO, as I cited earlier. So if it's a game of noise, Nikon seems to have the upper hand in the high-end systems.

However, for the mere mortals (on the prosumer end), the 5D is still king of noise control. Not only that, but the 5D has whooped up in this since it came out... Therefore, you gotta assume Canon's going to come back with something for the high-end folks.

For those of us stuck in consumer land, who cares. We can't afford usable results in high ISO's. Use noise cleanup software ($50) and call it a day. =)

kirbic

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/10/2007 06:24:26 PM · #8

The D3 is certainly a top performer with respect to noise... well it should be, with a large pixel pitch, and two-plus years of R&D beyond the 5D. The 1Ds Mk III has nearly double the pixel count, and so I'd not expect it to hold top spot in low noise.
It's just nice to see Nikon competing, which *will* mean more and better features at lower price points for us, the customers.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/10/2007 06:32:14 PM · #9

Tell you what.... I have been getting into flash a lot recently and the Canon system just plain sux compared to what I see some Nikon guys do (that whole commander thing is far better then the canon version).

Oh well... competition is good for the user :-) so roll it on....

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/10/2007 06:40:03 PM · #10

i read recently ( can't remember where - but it was linked to from DPC ) that the nikon low noise was a result of 'neatimage' like filters applied to the files. if that's the case - to me - that isn't solving the noise problem, but actually going backwards.

so i can get a nice soft shot at ISO 12000 with no noise.

12/11/2007 06:45:01 AM · #11

Originally posted by soup:

It all depends on how much in camera noise reduction you use.(and from what I've seen from friends files, Canon's noise reduction essentially does the same thing) If you put it on high, you will notice it smoothing out the image. But if you have it on Low, or Off, it still performs beautifully. It is more dramatic on Normal or High with the D300 than the D3. Noise reduction on High in the D3 isn't as significant because there isn't as much noise to try to get rid of. I myself will shoot up to ISO 6400 with in camera NR on low of off and I'm more than pleased with the images.

cloudsme

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

12/11/2007 07:44:56 AM · #12

Low noise is a nice feature, and I think there has been an advance here, but I think resolution is the issue with this camera that is blown off. It is easier to get low noise with bigger pixels. For studio work, and most outdoor daylight work, where noise is not an issue, I think resolution becomes the issue. The solution in this article is to up res. I'm not satisfied with that answer.

kirbic

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/11/2007 10:02:13 AM · #13

Originally posted by soup:

For the D300 this is apparently at least partly true. For the D3, however, the noise levels are impressively low, even given 3rd-party RAW conversion with no NR.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

12/11/2007 11:08:25 AM · #14

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Because at 200/400/800, they're all good. Nothing much to compare.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

12/11/2007 11:38:49 AM · #15

Originally posted by annpatt:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Pretty interesting review and the nikon seems to own the high iso's. One thing I don't understand about a lot of these reviews lately though is why they don't do a practical comparison. If you really need iso 26400 then only the Nikon has it and that's the end of the story. But if noise is a concern to you for general situations and you want to know which camera delivers, why not compare at iso 200/400/800. To me that would be relevant buy/don't buy info.

Because at 200/400/800, they're all good. Nothing much to compare.

I'd still like to see it. You still see noise on the 5D at i800, even though it isn't much to get worked up over. Is the d300 (or d3) noise free? That would be interesting to know.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

12/11/2007 11:55:59 AM · #16

Originally posted by soup:

If I remember correctly from a white paper put out by the manufacturer, Canons also use noise reduction on their files, but do it on-chip before DA conversion resulting in cleaner files and no smudging of detail.
This is not done with software but rather electronically.

Message edited by author 2007-12-11 12:00:21.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

12/11/2007 12:27:58 PM · #17

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by annpatt:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Pretty interesting review and the nikon seems to own the high iso's. One thing I don't understand about a lot of these reviews lately though is why they don't do a practical comparison. If you really need iso 26400 then only the Nikon has it and that's the end of the story. But if noise is a concern to you for general situations and you want to know which camera delivers, why not compare at iso 200/400/800. To me that would be relevant buy/don't buy info.

Because at 200/400/800, they're all good. Nothing much to compare.

I'd still like to see it. You still see noise on the 5D at i800, even though it isn't much to get worked up over. Is the d300 (or d3) noise free? That would be interesting to know.

On the D300, there's some noise at 800, but nothing much to get worked up about. I'd assume the D3 is much better, but I don't have access to one to find out. The D300 has great noise performance when compared to my D70, but nothing extraordinary for the price range. Compared to the 5D, I think it's pretty similar.

I'll post a D300 sample when I have time. It probably won't be until the weekend, though. Maybe somebody else will have time before then.

msieglerfr

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

12/11/2007 01:16:50 PM · #18

the D300 has great noise performance when compared to my D70, but nothing extraordinary for the price range

I am not very much surprised about that statement. I persist to believe that the noise issue is somehow irrelevant when it comes to middle-high class camera (i.e., D200, D300, 40D, 5D). I personally like shooting in B&W at ISO 1600 mainly because of the grainy artifact.

Both picture were taken with the D70 at ISO 1600

What about the AF performance regarding the D300 compared to that of the D200?

Message edited by author 2007-12-11 13:17:32.

12/11/2007 08:06:05 PM · #19

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I'd still like to see it. You still see noise on the 5D at i800, even though it isn't much to get worked up over. Is the d300 (or d3) noise free? That would be interesting to know.

Here is an ISO 800 Shot:

100% Crop:

No post work accept resizing and saving for wed, In Camera NR was set to either low or off. I honestly don't remember, but I tend to use one of those two settings.

12/11/2007 08:16:47 PM · #20

Originally posted by cloudsme:

But this Camera is not marketed to photographers of that shooting style. It's marketed to sports/photojournalist/low light photographers. (Not that it can't be more than capable of doing studio work) For most of that kind of work, 12MP is plenty.

If Nikon follows their own trend, they will release a D3X that will be geared towards the studio type photographer. It's already heavily rumored.

Message edited by author 2007-12-11 20:19:32.

12/11/2007 08:18:39 PM · #21

Another shot with basically the same parameters. No post and in camera NR was either on low or off.

ISO 3200:

100% Crop:

zxaar

12/11/2007 08:34:52 PM · #22

thank you guys for this thread. When I wanted to buy Sony R1 there were two main things for which this camera got lot of bashing.
1. Low light autofocus
2. ISO noise.

While low light focus is really not so good, but it seems that till ISO 800 R1 performs on par with the cams you people are mentioning. I always used to think that if I had dSLR than may be high ISO noise was not much of an issue.

So once again thanks for this discussion.

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II