| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2004 06:35:48 PM · #1 |
This is the first in what may or may not become a series of comparison tests between these two cameras (further tests being solely dependent on my enthusiasm and attention span, both of which come in limited supply at times).
The Tools:
1 Tripod
2 Cameras (dRebel with a Sigma 28-300mm lens, d70 with 18-70mm kit lens)
1 1GB Flash Card
1 Plant, name deleted from memory mere minutes after it was purchased
1 window, through which the sole light source shone
1 F-stop (F16)
1 Focal length (50mm, give or take with both cameras; didn't worry about accuracy too much, given the scope of the study).
The next part is complicated, so try to stay with me.
1. I placed the dRebel on the tripod.
2. Set the timer, depressed the shutter, waited.
3. Took the dRebel off the tripod. Placed the d70 on the tripod, and transferred the flashcard from one cam to the other.*
4. Repeated step 2.
5. Removed flashcard, inserted it into card reader, uploaded to 'puter, did some stuff in PS to make it look like it does**.
Here are the results:
 The Canon
 The Nikon
 Both together in one frame.
The little glowy thing is a 200% magnification of a randomly selected area. The crop is not exact, but the magnification is. The full size links are available below (huge files though, so i won't put them up here)
My thoughts:
Actually, Imma keep my thoughts to myself. You guys can judge for yourselves. The only thing I'll tell you is that the Nikon made a closer representation of the colour.
Please don't bother to tell me the practical and functional limitations of a study when the lenses are different, and the lighting conditions etc aren't mathmatically precise. i don't care. I did it for fun, and I think i learned a thing or two.
* Not sure why I only used one flash card for the experiment. I have about a dozen of them, it just seemed more scientifical to do it that way. And yes, I am quite aware scientifical is not a word.
** All photos were treated fairly; what i did to one, I did to the other. No photos were harmed during this experiment, though the plant feels he was somewhat emotionally neglected and treated as an object.
This study has been brought to you by the letter P. as in P-ness. as in His Royal P-ness (name credit due in part to His Royal kiwiness).
The full size Canon Version
The full size Nikon version
The full size comparison, prolly too darn big for your monitor to do any good anyway.
ps the files associated ith these links are Big Ass (a technical term). They're bigger than your monitor, and would take a month of sundays to download if you're on a dial-up. don't say you weren't warned.
Message edited by author 2004-05-03 18:38:42. |
|
|
|
05/03/2004 08:14:28 PM · #2 |
I,m looking into buying a dSLR pretty soon and your comparison is somewhat helpfull. If you do not want to judge on either one on the forum. Can you e-mail me your point of view, speed of recording and if you only had one to buy, wich one would it be.
Thanks for the help.
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 06:26:56.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 12:52:39 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by BruB:
I,m looking into buying a dSLR pretty soon and your comparison is somewhat helpfull. If you do not want to judge on either one on the forum. Can you e-mail me your point of view, speed of recording and if you only had one to buy, wich one would it be.
According to this I think I like the result of the Canon a bit more than the Nikon.
Thanks for the help. |
Actually quite the contrary. I prefer the Nikon. I just didn't want to sway opinions prior to judging the pics.
For image quality, I prefer Nikon's color rendering, metering, and low light noise (or lack thereof). Canon probably has the edge in sharpness (easily overcome with either in-cam settings or software) and clarity.
For storage, Nikon's buffering system rocks. With the canon I get backed up if I take too many hi-res shots in a row; i get way more out of the Nikon. The four-shot burst on the canon is nice, but you can get up to 12 with decent size images, and even higher with lower res images. I doubt it writes to the card faster though, as someone elose wrote in another thread (though i don't really know or care to find out - I care about the practical stuff: with the Nikon i take more pitchers :))
For features - just read the dpreview comparison. Nikon is the clear winner. The crippled features of the dRebel are no match. Even the 3-second start-up on the Canon gets irritating.
But let's be fair - I love both cameras. I haven't decided which will be my primary one yet, but I'm leaning toward the d70. It feels better, which means i can make better images with it. Time will tell.
Pedro |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 12:53:31 AM · #4 |
| Very helpful thread. Hope to see more. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 02:55:18 AM · #5 |
Nikon looks softer there looks to be more detail with the canon.
On my monitor anyway |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 03:05:59 AM · #6 |
Man, the Nikon really does look better.
I just bought my 300D Rebel today though. You're making me regret it!
But it's okay. I bought the 300D because I can use the same lenses with my Rebel ti. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:17:25 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by movieman:
I just bought my 300D Rebel today though. You're making me regret it!
|
Dont regret it movieman, it´s a great camera.
It´s an interesting comparison Pedro but it doesn´t tell us much about camera quality.
Both are decent cameras (I asume) and the Nikon has some more possibilities (and costs more). Under most circumstances the image quality depends mostly on what lens you are using. I don´t know about this 18-70mm lens but I think the Sigma 28-300mm is not the best though it has a great zoom range. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:20:30 AM · #8 |
| Don't forget also that the Rebel is a reasonable amount cheaper. Nikon and Canon will always play leadfrog. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:31:10 AM · #9 |
Whatever i'm reading in here or on dpreview. I stall can't make up my mind :) mais I never thought that shopping for a camera would be that difficult.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 08:24:39 AM · #10 |
@ andelaine - yes, without any additional sharpening the Canon is sharper. I also have mine set at +2 sharpening in cam, and haven't done the same with the Nikon (I never said it was a controlled study :))
@ Movieman - no regrets, bro. Sorta the point of this thread: those images are SO close, I fail to see how one can be called appreciably better. 1 minute in Photoshop, and I could make them identical.
@ Garlic - you are exactly right about the lenses, but I think it tells us a lot about camera quality; it tells us that with random lenses and a poorly run study, the quality of both cameras is pretty darn awesome (just look at the uncompresed image links at the bottom and view them full size if you don't believe it :))
@ frogs - I bought my Rebel in December, the d70 on saturday; the cost was within $30 of each other. So if you think the Nikon is too expensive, wait about 4 months :)
@ BruB - go hold both of them. It's amazing what the feel of a camera will do to boost your confidence in it.
P
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 08:25:43. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 08:44:35 AM · #11 |
When I went shopping for my dSLR I was going to either get the 10D or Fuji S2. I went to the camera store and held and test shot both. They put near same lenses on both and I did some focusing test around the store to see which locked on my subject the best. The Fuji was edging over the 10D, but it was big and bulky in my hands. I really liked the 10D but the layout of the controls was so different from my current Fuji 602, that it didn't feel intuitive. I'm sure in time, I would have learned the layout of the controls, but the focusing just seemed to take a lot longer on it. As I hemmed and hawed, the I saw the D100 on the shelve an inquired about it. The moment I picked it up I knew it was the camera of choice. It was not as new as the Canon, but the features were similar, and the controls were almost identical to the 602. The camera felt right to me. So, the long and short of this is... with todays technology in the camera market, you can't go wrong with anything that's been released in the last couple years. Go hold them, fire some test shots, and see how it feels to you. If you're not already into a lens system, then that's your biggest decission anyway! I've spent much more in glass than I did in the camera itself.
Good luck and happy shooting!
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 09:25:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
@ Garlic - you are exactly right about the lenses, but I think it tells us a lot about camera quality; it tells us that with random lenses and a poorly run study, the quality of both cameras is pretty darn awesome (just look at the uncompresed image links at the bottom and view them full size if you don't believe it :))
|
Agree with you Pedro. Just pointing out that it´s hard to judge on you comparison which is better.
BruB, I think crabappl3 has a point there. Go to a camerastore and fit them in you hand. Wether they are Canon or Nikon doesn´t matter that much, both are high quality. Think Sigma and Pentax also have a decent DSRL. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 08:33:58 PM · #13 |
What I had noticed, is that the nikon had picked up more significantly more detail in the highlighted area than the canon.
That was the very first thing I noticed. Pretty much, the only thing too. The sharpness looks the same to me though, even though you guys said that the canon is sharper. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 09:26:28 PM · #14 |
I'll lsiten to you guys. Great point of views and good comments thx
|
|
|
|
05/05/2004 09:51:24 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by movieman:
What I had noticed, is that the nikon had picked up more significantly more detail in the highlighted area than the canon.
That was the very first thing I noticed. Pretty much, the only thing too. The sharpness looks the same to me though, even though you guys said that the canon is sharper. |
In the full size image the Canon looks a little sharper to me, but hardly perceptible. not noticable on prints at all, and like i said: a little USM and the difference is gone.
As a little update, I did some outdoor shots last evening and found that the Canon's metering system seems to be a little more accurate than the Matrix meter on the Nikon. Of course, I typically only use spot or centre-weighted metering on the Nikon, but i thought it was an interesting difference since the Canon gets picked on for not have a true spot meter sometimes.
The Nikon underexposed a little, since the matrix meter was trying not to blow out the sky. it was easy to salvage since i shot raw images and could adjust the exposure, but good on Canon for that.
I'll keep throwing up more things I notice as I notice them if y'all are interested.
P |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 03:15:29 AM · #16 |
I haven't decided yet either. It's giving me a headake since I havn't got an slr and once you start buying lenses It's one way so don't want to regret it later.
Things that put me off the Nikon so far: Lenses option not so good (Canon's EF mount and lenses looks good for the future), Moire problems, Traffic light effect at high shutter speeds, ISO200 lowest, still not convinced about Nikon's superior image quality (must be my eyes), inferior CCD taken from Sony's F828
Things that put me off about the 300D, chopped manual settings, platsiky feeleing, not so fast as the D70?, error99 can even happen with Canon EF lenses?
I am thinking of either waiting till Xmas (see what minolta do or see what canon does)or maybe save up and get the Canon 10D (not full proof but does not have the put offs of the other two cameras
Message edited by author 2004-05-06 03:18:32. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 05:45:35 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by zeus68:
I haven't decided yet either. It's giving me a headake since I havn't got an slr and once you start buying lenses It's one way so don't want to regret it later.
Things that put me off the Nikon so far: Lenses option not so good (Canon's EF mount and lenses looks good for the future), Moire problems, Traffic light effect at high shutter speeds, ISO200 lowest, still not convinced about Nikon's superior image quality (must be my eyes), inferior CCD taken from Sony's F828
Things that put me off about the 300D, chopped manual settings, platsiky feeleing, not so fast as the D70?, error99 can even happen with Canon EF lenses?
I am thinking of either waiting till Xmas (see what minolta do or see what canon does)or maybe save up and get the Canon 10D (not full proof but does not have the put offs of the other two cameras |
As mentioned before; go to the store and feel them in you hand. Either way you go you are having a good quality.
About D70: Think ISO200 is pretty smooth with a good sensor and I think you are not going the have the same sensor problems as is with the Sony.
About 300D: Unless you are very advanced you will have hardly no use for thous additional manual settings. For my opinion it does feel quite solid and I dont get a feeling of cheepo plastic toy. I´ve not been using it for a long time, few weeks now, but I´ve never had error99.
But if you aren´t in a hurry waiting for few months is probably wise though I´m not sure if it makes your problem less complicated. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 07:53:57 AM · #18 |
i think the test should have been done with the canon kit lense, seeing as you used the nikon kit lense - and both on their default settings.
i'm at 5900 frames with the rebel -w/o a single problem.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 08:21:39 AM · #19 |
Anyone who is worried about Nikon's lens selection for the future probably shoudn't be. Unless Nikon bails out of the dSLR market, I don't see Canon keeping this market share forever. Unless Canon has a specific lens you need right now I'm pretty sure Nikon will catch up.
--Clara
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 08:31:04 AM · #20 |
I looked at the title, and I thought guys with D70s and D300s were going to compare their manhood.
We all know that they guys with 10Ds would win.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 08:34:54 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by zeus68:
I haven't decided yet either. It's giving me a headake since I havn't got an slr and once you start buying lenses It's one way so don't want to regret it later.
Things that put me off the Nikon so far: Lenses option not so good (Canon's EF mount and lenses looks good for the future), Moire problems, Traffic light effect at high shutter speeds, ISO200 lowest, still not convinced about Nikon's superior image quality (must be my eyes), inferior CCD taken from Sony's F828
Things that put me off about the 300D, chopped manual settings, platsiky feeleing, not so fast as the D70?, error99 can even happen with Canon EF lenses?
I am thinking of either waiting till Xmas (see what minolta do or see what canon does)or maybe save up and get the Canon 10D (not full proof but does not have the put offs of the other two cameras |
I can only comment on the 300D
I don't think it feels plasticy at all.
I haven't had the need for additional features yet, and I've shot weddings, portraits, movie stills, etc...
Have had only two error 99s and they were due to things I did, not lenses.
Haven't had a huge buffer problem unless shooting continuously in RAW.
I have shot about 10,000 pics by now, not too many problems to speak of at all.
I did have a shutter problem, that Canon fixed, but haven't heard of anyone else having that happen yet.
Noise level on the canon is fantastic by the way, I shot several pics on 1600 by mistake and you can't even see noise.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 10:28:49 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by soup:
i think the test should have been done with the canon kit lense, seeing as you used the nikon kit lense - and both on their default settings.
i'm at 5900 frames with the rebel -w/o a single problem. |
I didn't buy the kit lens with the dRebel. And as I've mentioned a few times, it wasn't meant to be a controlled study. Go to dpreview.com if you want silly little details like accuracy and reliability. I did this to make a simple point - the cameras, even in an uncontrolled setting are strikingly similar in image qualtiy, so the real purchasing decisions are (should be) price, features, and feel.
For the record, neither feels particularly plastic, although they are both plastic. I think those comments mostly came from 10d users who are used to their bulky metal manhood replacements (like my boy Jacko, f'rinstance)
I'm at about 2000 frames on my Rebel, and 500 on my D70 with no problems in either case. Those numbers may not be fair since the d70 shots have come in 42-shot bursts...can't do that with my Rebel ;). Of course, I have no idea where one would use such a thing. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 10:36:27 AM · #23 |
I am wondering if this comparison might be more meaningful if you used a more comparable lens on the two bodies. For instance use a Sigma 28-300 on both bodies or maybe have a 50mm f/1.8 on both bodiesâ€Â¦ Based on my experience the Sigma 28-300 is a pretty bottom of the barrel lens and the Nikon kit lens is supposed to be pretty good. Also it might be nice to see the comparison at a more reasonable aperture like f/5.6 or f/8.
Just some suggestions,
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 10:38:59 AM · #24 |
A direct quote from the original post:
Originally posted by Pedro:
Please don't bother to tell me the practical and functional limitations of a study when the lenses are different, and the lighting conditions etc aren't mathmatically precise. i don't care. I did it for fun, and I think i learned a thing or two. |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 10:39:33 AM · #25 |
Just question Pedro. Why do you have both the D70 and the 300D? For the combined cost you could have a 10D (or other brand equivalent) plus glass. Just curious. :<)
|
|
