« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 42 posts | 
by Primus on Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:25 pm
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
My question is to those Canon shooters who've switched to Nikon and my (?Quixotic) search for the ultimate in image quality prompted me to write this.

I have been a Canon user ever since my first DSLR in 2003, acquiring the usual gamut of bodies, lenses and accessories over the years. I have survived the numerous discussions over which is better and why. Until recently.

A good friend is a Nikon user and we often take trips together, sometimes standing next to each other shooting the same subject. He is a better photographer and yet I didn't envy his images, slowly developing my own technique and 'catching up'. We are both gear junkies in a way and have the best equipment from either company. 

On a recent trip he was using the new 80-400 f4/5.6 VR II lens on his D4s and I was using my 70-200 f4 IS on my 1DX. For the same scene, we shot in the same light, standing side by side and yet his images are much cleaner and sharper (we used pretty much the same settings too). He just came back from another trip and again used the same 80-400 lens for most of his images. They are truly outstanding, even up to ISO 6400. He tells me he will most probably not take his 600 on his next trip and definitely won't be using his 200-400 much after this.

Is it just the combination of this lens and the D4S or is the Nikon system truly superior? Looking at the DXO scores, Canon's first lens comes in at 109th position overall. 

Am I seeing something that is really not there? Switching to Nikon would be quite painful given how much I've invested in Canon so far. Given the lack of development in the 100-400mm range (I doubt they will come up with a new one because it will kill off sales of the 200-400 1.4x) I am a bit disappointed.

I suppose this too could become an endless debate, but I am really curious and the best answers probably can come from those who have shot with both systems extensively.

Pradeep
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:32 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
It is likely not the lens but the difference in the sensors.  Most Nikons have about a two stop dynamic range advantage on any camera Canon makes at least at base ISO although at higher ISOs they tend to be more equivalent.  By semiconductor technology standards, Canon's sensors are using about 2005 technology while Nikon sensors are using much more modern technology from Sony.  In every test of dynamic range, all Canon cameras suffer against just about any competition.  It may be the better shadow detail or overall tonal range that you are seeing.  There is much speculation and rumor that Canon will be introducing a new sensor technology in the near future which hopefully will get them back on track.
 

by Karl Günter Wünsch on Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:08 am
Karl Günter Wünsch
Forum Contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Primus wrote: Am I seeing something that is really not there?
Yes, you probably are. There are so many things that can influence sharpness or contrast in an image if two different systems are shot side by side - and most are down to the user or the additional equipment. Just some questions:
- Are you both using protective filters on your lenses?
- Which tripod are you using?
- Which tripod head are you using?
- Do either of you use MLU or LiveView?
- Do either of you use or don't use the provided lens hood?
- Which RAW converter are you using?
- Which manipulations do you apply in RAW conversion?

I could go on for quite some time, formulating questions which don't involve either Canon or Nikon but which in the end can make quite a big difference.
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 

by Karl Günter Wünsch on Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:41 am
Karl Günter Wünsch
Forum Contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
E.J. Peiker wrote:Most Nikons have about a two stop dynamic range advantage
False measurements that lead some to believe in this nonsense. The Nikon cameras still clip black values and that screws up the metric from DxO (they really should be a little scientific and investigate their claims when they turn out to be physically impossible). For the Sony sensors it's even worse, the recent crop of their sensors only write a heavily compressed RAW file - a lossy compression I may add, that incurs heavy losses of precision (and thus again lead to false signal to noise ratios, over-inflating the "measured" DR).
But let's assume (for the sake of the argument) that this is the reason for the differences the two photographers here are seeing, why then does the Nikon camera get described as more clean  and sharp - when a larger captured dynamic range would yield the exact opposite as a two stop larger dynamic range would yield more lack luster and less contrasty (and thus less sharp looking) images - unless the photographer has the balls to toss the excess dynamic range where it belongs: Into the bin. - In the important dynamic range of the mid tones both sensors are about as equal as they get.
So no, they are not seeing the differences in the sensor area, the reason IMHO must be sought outside the confines of the camera/lens system.
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 

by Neilyb on Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:07 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
Are you comparing full sized images or side by side at the back of the camera? Are you letting your friend post process your images how he processes his? To truly compare you would have to set all values to zero in (lets say lightroom) software and then compare RAWs.
 

by Karl Günter Wünsch on Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:15 am
Karl Günter Wünsch
Forum Contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Neilyb wrote:To truly compare you would have to set all values to zero in (lets say lightroom) software and then compare RAWs.
That would yield the usual screwed up comparison that DxO also provides - RAW files from current cameras aren't that raw anymore and the choice of development process in LR would prejudice against the camera which has the least preprocessed file...
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:54 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
With the exception of the 100-400mm by Canon, IMO, Canon long lenses are better, Nikon bodies are better as a general statement.
 

by dougc on Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:56 am
User avatar
dougc
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1567
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:Most Nikons have about a two stop dynamic range advantage
False measurements that lead some to believe in this nonsense. 
Oh my, this should get interesting in a big hurry!!!
 

by Steven Major on Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:30 am
Steven Major
Forum Contributor
Posts: 324
Joined: 5 May 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ
Yes, pointless.
 

by pleverington on Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:42 am
pleverington
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Pradeep I know you know how to take pictures and your technique is good, so I have to believe it's probably sensor technology. Big rumors that there will be new canon sensors utilizing a new revolutionary technology--not just evolutionary tech as we have seen for a long while now. I would at least wait and see what the last quarter of this year, or first quarter of next year brings. I'm hoping for the camera I have always dreamed of myself.

Paul
Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"
 

by Andrew Kandel on Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:09 am
Andrew Kandel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 881
Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Location: Missoula, Montana
As a Nikon owner the two things I don't like about the system are:

1. The mechanical aperture set up. I don't go a year without sending a body and/or lens into Nikon with some type of aperture problem. This ends up being an additional ownership cost of several hundred dollars a year when the equipment is out of warranty. Fortunately there is a 5 year warranty on lenses.

2. While improved with recent bodies I'm still not satisfied with how Adobe products render Nikon raw files, which I believe is due to Nikon encrypting some data for their own proprietary use only.
[url=http://www.andrewkandel.com/]Website[/url] - [url=http://wherebuffaloroam.wordpress.com/]Blog[/url] - [url=https://plus.google.com/112207995176022333771/posts]Google+[/url]
 

by Primus on Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:24 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
Primus wrote: Am I seeing something that is really not there?
Yes, you probably are. There are so many things that can influence sharpness or contrast in an image if two different systems are shot side by side - and most are down to the user or the additional equipment. Just some questions:
- Are you both using protective filters on your lenses?
- Which tripod are you using?
- Which tripod head are you using?
- Do either of you use MLU or LiveView?
- Do either of you use or don't use the provided lens hood?
- Which RAW converter are you using?
- Which manipulations do you apply in RAW conversion?

I could go on for quite some time, formulating questions which don't involve either Canon or Nikon but which in the end can make quite a big difference.
Hi Karl, thanks for the reply.

Just for the record, neither of us used tripods and we are both equally steady (or not) with our hands, his camera/lens combo if anything was heavier.

No MLU or Liveview, these were shots of action, speed at least 1/1000, f stop identical in most instances (we compared notes since as I said, we were standing next to each other).

Both used lens hoods

Both using ACR (latest version) through lightroom 5.

These are unprocessed images except for cropping at most. (in fact I saw his immediate image captures as they came into LR and subsequently).

I also tried to get the best out of my images using PS CC and I believe I am reasonably proficient at it (did beta testing for CS5 and CS6). 

But then again, maybe there is no difference and I am just seeing things that aren't there.

Pradeep
 

by Primus on Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:39 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
Neilyb wrote:Are you comparing full sized images or side by side at the back of the camera? Are you letting your friend post process your images how he processes his? To truly compare you would have to set all values to zero in (lets say lightroom) software and then compare RAWs.


Yes, these are full sized images. we both have 30" monitors that are calibrated. He just bought 4K Sharp monitors and if anything the images now look a bit too sharp.

We have been shooting together for so long that we have now developed somewhat identical processing and printing techniques.

Having said that we each have our own end-point in processing and our own 'vision' of how the image should look. That is ALWAYS going to be different for every individual.

My concern is simply with the combination of the current Nikon camera/lens vs Canon and the differences that I perceive. But then it is entirely possible that I am simply not as thrilled with what I am getting at the end of my workflow - which may be a good thing in a way that it compels me to keep improving my technique from start to finish.

Pradeep
 

by Primus on Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:41 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
pleverington wrote:Pradeep I know you know how to take pictures and your technique is good, so I have to believe it's probably sensor technology. Big rumors that there will be new canon sensors utilizing a new revolutionary technology--not just evolutionary tech as we have seen for a long while now. I would at least wait and see what the last quarter of this year, or first quarter of next year brings. I'm hoping for the camera I have always dreamed of myself.

Paul
Thank you Paul. 

I too am waiting, as I said in the beginning, perhaps in a quixotic way.  :)

Pradeep
 

by Craig Browne on Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:56 am
Craig Browne
Forum Contributor
Posts: 173
Joined: 10 Jan 2012
Location: Hudson Que,Canada
Pradeep would love to see a couple of these photos for us to compare. I use Nikon and canon cameras, I find the Nikon raw files to be cleaner and sharper with more dynamic range also, but like Karl said it maybe Nikon raw files have a bit more in camera processing.
 

by signgrap on Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:01 am
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: 1 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
Craig Browne wrote:Pradeep would love to see a couple of these photos for us to compare. I use Nikon and canon cameras, I find the Nikon raw files to be cleaner and sharper with more dynamic range also, but like Karl said it maybe Nikon raw files have a bit more in camera processing.
I think some of this difference can be attributed to the more aggressive AA filter that Canon uses. 
Dick Ludwig
 

by Primus on Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:04 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
Craig Browne wrote:Pradeep would love to see a couple of these photos for us to compare. I use Nikon and canon cameras, I find the Nikon raw files to be cleaner and sharper with more dynamic range also, but like Karl said it maybe Nikon raw files have a bit more in camera processing.
Hi Craig, then I am perhaps preaching to the choir! You are one of the people I wanted to hear from, having used both systems. If you find the Nikon files to be better, then that is a difficult argument to refute. 

 Actually, I am planning to borrow my friend's D4S and the 80-400 lens and compare that myself with my 1DX and 70-200 at the same settings. That would be the ultimate test. Will post those images.


Pradeep
 

by John Guastella on Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:13 am
John Guastella
Forum Contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
But then again, maybe there is no difference and I am just seeing things that aren't there.
A distinct possibility.

In fact, the only way for this thread to be even remotely useful (as opposed to just being another Nikon vs. Canon thread) is for you to post images from both cameras of the same subject -- taken at the same time -- so that all of us can see what you're talking about.

John
 

by Primus on Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:54 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
John Guastella wrote:
But then again, maybe there is no difference and I am just seeing things that aren't there.
A distinct possibility.

In fact, the only way for this thread to be even remotely useful (as opposed to just being another Nikon vs. Canon thread) is for you to post images from both cameras of the same subject -- taken at the same time -- so that all of us can see what you're talking about.

John
I agree John. As I said, I am planning to borrow the Nikon system and test it. FWIW, even were I to post such images, there may not be universal agreement that one is better than the other, 'better' being quite a subjective opinion.

However, right in the beginning of my OP I had said that I am seeking a response from those who have either switched from Canon to Nikon or used both systems extensively. That would be a much better collective answer. 

I understand that this is no different from the usual Mac vs PC debate, however in any such discussion while there are never any winners, the responses do allow individuals to decide what it is that appeals to them within each system.

nothing is perfect, nothing ever will be, that is a given for any man-made device. The idea is to use what is, to an individual, the most useful/productive/pleasing/acceptable of the available choices. Having been a Canon shooter for a long time, I am simply trying to determine if changing 'sides' if you will, makes any sense or not.

Pradeep
 

by Karl Günter Wünsch on Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:03 pm
Karl Günter Wünsch
Forum Contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Andrew Kandel wrote: 1.  The mechanical aperture set up.  I don't go a year without sending a body and/or lens into Nikon with some type of aperture problem.   This ends up being an additional ownership cost of several hundred dollars a year when the equipment is out of warranty.  Fortunately there is a 5 year warranty on lenses. 
It happens that often? When I was the one to uncover that some of the D600 bent their aperture lever all too easily (while the people at Borrow Lenses were investigating a marked difference in exposure between the D600 and Canon 6D: http://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/2012/1 ... -exposing/ ) I thought this was something isolated to the D600 and it's new ability to control the aperture in live view which possibly doesn't retract the aperture lever when removing the lens.
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
42 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group