A Rebel, a d70, and a P-ness Comparison

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

05/06/2004 10:48:49 AM · #26

"CLoser Representation of Color" :-)

you're bringing up a can of worms. First you have to know that "color" isn't a property of light, it's in your brain.

Edwin Land's Experiment

Canon has a tendency to shift to the green, while Nikon is more neutral. Thus, shooting Canon on foliages makes it look BETTER than Nikon. Accuracy? Color Accuracy argument is a joke :) You simply can't see the same color in front of you versus what the camera sees. You see "more" than the camera does.

Dhry

Nikon D7200

05/06/2004 10:54:48 AM · #27

orussell: Alternately, he could get rid of the 300D and still wind up owning a better camera than the 10D. *8-)

dadas115

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

05/06/2004 11:02:27 AM · #28

Then why bother posting it at all?? I guess you are just demonstrating that cameras can take boring pictures of some plant? Well, glad to see that you are receptive to suggestions.

Greg

Originally posted by Pedro:

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 11:03:38 AM · #29

Originally posted by orussell:

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. :<)

I've had the rebel since the beginning of December, before the d70 existed. Then I bought the Nikon so I could play with both and sell whichever i didn't like. I'm doing some paid gigs now, so I like having the backup. I'll prolly keep both.

I really enjoy both of them for different reasons.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/06/2004 11:10:47 AM · #30

Originally posted by dadas115:

Then why bother posting it at all?? I guess you are just demonstrating that cameras can take boring pictures of some plant? Well, glad to see that you are receptive to suggestions.

Greg

Chill out, Greg. I was making the point that I'm perfectly aware that the study wasn't even close to controlled. I set out to prove a point to myself, and anyone who cared to listen, that in my opinion people are focused on the wrong things when wrestling with which cam to buy.

While there are slight differences between them, they're both very good cameras. Again, my opinion is that image quality should not really be a deciding factor, and this was enough proof for me. Obviously the plant was not a particularly intersting subject, but that's completely irrelevant.

And yes, I think I successfully proved that cameras can, in fact, take boring pictures of a plant. I wasn't sure about that before, but now I am.

Now, for the record: you are 100% correct the test would have been more appropriate with identical lenses etc. I just don't have those things, nor was that within the scope of what i was trying to learn. I wasn't going to go buy the stuff either, when i could find that info done properly on dpreview anyway.

This was more of a lark than anything, but given the amount of positive feedback I've received from people reading it, I'd say it was worth doing.

lykofos

Canon EOS-40D

05/06/2004 11:14:11 AM · #31

Originally posted by orussell:

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. :<)

Hehe, good question! I was wondering the same thing! Thnaks, for the non-scientific comparison though. I'd say image quality is equivalent, just depends on what you're looking for in price/features.

I've actually been debating between the two and decided to go with the 300D after months of sitting on the fence. I really loved the feel of the D70 in my hands, but there are other things I like about the Canon better. It's cheaper (I'm poor and have a ton of student loan debt) and I like the EF lens lineup/technology better (thinking long term here). I also want a decent telephoto, and can get the 70-200 f/4 L for $600. I looked and Nikon does not have a similar quality lens in the same price (the 28-200 @ f3.5 $300 and the 80-200 f2.8 @ $900). The 28-200 is cheaper, but not as good and the 80-200 is better but way more expensive. I like the fact that Canon has more midrange (price wise) lenses..

I'm actually going to get my 300d today at Best Buy! I can't wait to start shooting with it. I'm getting the kit lens too, just so I can use the cam until I decide on which lenses I'm gonna order from B&H. So far, I think I'm going to get the 70-200 f/4 L, 28-135 f/3.5 IS, and the 50 f/1.4 to start out with. That'll pretty much cover the ranges I usually shoot in.

05/06/2004 11:14:33 AM · #32

Originally posted by paganini:

"CLoser Representation of Color" :-)

you're bringing up a can of worms. First you have to know that "color" isn't a property of light, it's in your brain.

Hey Tony,

Here's the science involved with my comment: I looked at the plant, then I looked at the pictures on my monitor (which is likely calibrated accurately, but possibly not since I haven't done it in a few months). The colour fron the Nikon picture looks (to my brain) more like the real life plant (also as perceived by my brain).

I'd heard Canon tended to lean towards the greens so expected the opposite, but it wasn't the case. It's just an observation.

ellamay

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/06/2004 11:22:12 AM · #33

I do feel like the rebel body is not very strong, only with the 100-400mm L tho. It just seems to heavy and creeks on it, (she says with hopes that mark II will be here very soon) : )

dadas115

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

05/06/2004 11:43:23 AM · #34

The two that I have had so far donâ��t have any trouble at all supporting the 100-400 IS. In fact I have been carrying it around by the hand grip with the EF 400mm f/2.8 frequently with no problems at all. I think the Rebel is just perceived to be less sturdy because of the outer casing. In reality it is a very sturdy body.

Greg

Originally posted by ellamay:

I do feel like the rebel body is not very strong, only with the 100-400mm L tho. It just seems to heavy and creeks on it, (she says with hopes that mark II will be here very soon) : )

daisy77

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

05/06/2004 11:52:03 AM · #35

from my comment on the combined photo itself:

thanks pedro. i for one find the comparison very interesting. i doubt this will change anyone's mind about the camera they own but it might help someone who is looking to buy one of these cameras.

i am very pleased with my d70 but am still trying to figure out how to use it to best advantage!

ellamay

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/06/2004 11:53:19 AM · #36

I am sure you are right dadas, it just sounds like it is going to break--lol

where are you mark II shots??

paganini

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

05/06/2004 12:06:09 PM · #37

It is more green -- if you saturate the green, you'll get a lighter color of green. Try it -- Canon is doing that, slightly "brighter" green. I actually like it better that way.

Originally posted by Pedro:

Originally posted by paganini:
"CLoser Representation of Color" :-)

you're bringing up a can of worms. First you have to know that "color" isn't a property of light, it's in your brain.

Hey Tony,

Here's the science involved with my comment: I looked at the plant, then I looked at the pictures on my monitor (which is likely calibrated accurately, but possibly not since I haven't done it in a few months). The colour fron the Nikon picture looks (to my brain) more like the real life plant (also as perceived by my brain).

I'd heard Canon tended to lean towards the greens so expected the opposite, but it wasn't the case. It's just an observation.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/06/2004 12:10:04 PM · #38

Originally posted by paganini:

It is more green -- if you saturate the green, you'll get a lighter color of green. Try it -- Canon is doing that, slightly "brighter" green. I actually like it better that way.

That makes perfect sense. it still looks less like the real thing to my eyes though, which is all i was commenting on. My preference tends to make me shift my hues towards green as well, unless I'm shooting people.

Brooklyn513

Sony DSC-F505

05/06/2004 12:31:09 PM · #39

Originally posted by Pedro:

My preference tends to make me shift my hues towards green as well, unless I'm shooting people.

Although that might be just the thing in a seasick challenge. ;)

Kali

Nikon D7100

05/06/2004 03:32:34 PM · #40

Arrggg... I was dead set on upgrading to a 300d but since doing my own comparisons with online info I'm now up in arms as to what will *fit* me. I like the fact that the 300d uses a CMOS sensor whereas Nikon uses CCD. I also like that Canon is the sole maker of the camera... Nikon uses Sony parts and such.
With Pedro's pic comparison I'd say the Nikon pic is slightly better, but upon viewing the full size pix the hotspots on the leaves of each are quite interesting. 1) the Canon seems sharper and 2)the transition between light and dark is smoother than on the Nikon pic.

I wish I could come over and test them for myself :(
Thanks Pedro for doing this you've singlehandedly simplified AND complicated my decision.

"** 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."
LMFAO!

ccraft

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

05/06/2004 03:46:14 PM · #41

//www.imaging-resource.com/
This site allows you to do a point-by-point comparison of any two or three digital cameras based on scientific tests conducted in their lab.

bledford

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/06/2004 03:55:22 PM · #42

Originally posted by Kali:

2)the transition between light and dark is smoother than on the Nikon pic.

I was going to say the same exact thing. The black level on the Nikon shot appears to be crushing some of the dark details, yet there is some overexposure on the leaves. The Canon, however, doesn't appear to be going down quite as black, but the range from light to dark appears smoother. Pedro, could you comment? Do you see any of that?

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/06/2004 05:06:30 PM · #43

I must be blind cos they both look the same to me :P

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

05/06/2004 05:34:20 PM · #44

Originally posted by Konador:

I must be blind cos they both look the same to me :P

Personally, from the web sized images, the Nikon's pics look better (sorry tean Canon). But that could possibly be a function of the lenses. If say you used two Sigma lenses of similar specs, would the Nikon still look better? Maybe, maybe not.