December 07, 2016, 07:35:23 AM

Author Topic: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...  (Read 35677 times)

RustyTheGeek

  • Buy and Sell
  • 1D X Mark II
  • ********
  • Posts: 1626
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2013, 09:51:41 AM »
OK, things are getting a little weird now.  I have never heard anyone say the 10D had better IQ than any other Canon camera.  The way I have heard it, the 20D was a massive improvement to the 10D and then things just got better and better until the 50D arrived which was a step backward in terms of IQ due to excessive pixel density.  I have consistently heard many people rave about the 40D (and the 5Dc) both being some of their favorite cameras that Canon every made.  I am one of those people.

I realize this thread has gone off topic a bit into opinions on history so I'll drop it here but I just gotta say that trashing most of the Canon line is not really helping the OP's question much and it makes me wonder why some are still shooting Canon if it's such a poorly improved system for over 10 years.  I agree that Canon has begun to take advantage of their dominance with increased prices and a few disappointments on some individual issues (like low light 5D3 AF issues, etc) but I have never considered the entire line to be as bad as some seem to think.

koolman - as you have read through the 7 pages of posts on this topic, you probably really appreciated the posts from folks that have used both Nikon and Canon.  Did you see the other thread about 6D vs d600?  If not, go here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11985.0 and read through.  The essence of some of the more lengthy posts went into great detail to discuss ergonomics of the Nikon/Canon menus, build quality, etc.  As this thread has gone off topic a bit I just want to remind you that there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor.  And as a 6D owner who has used many Canon bodies, I can assure you that the 6D is a fine camera, esp for someone new to FF coming from a 550d.  I would highly recommend the 6D kit to you with the bundled 24-105 lens.  I also use the SunPak RD2000 flash (w StoFen diffuser) as a small substitute to a pop up flash on my FF cameras.  It's not my only flash and it's not meant to replace a full size flash but it's great for simple fill needs in all environments and it will pivot.  Also - the 6D refuses to recognize a 3rd party battery so you need to get a genuine Canon extra battery.  The 3rd party battery works, the camera just doesn't show any status.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 09:54:22 AM by RustyTheGeek »
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2013, 09:51:41 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20021
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #76 on: January 03, 2013, 10:13:26 AM »
The only people that need high FPS are those that "spray shoot". Lots of FPS because you don't know if something will happen that you want to capture and it costs less to get an image of something that you don't care about than it does to not get an image of something that you do care about. Mostly this is professional photographers. There are also amateurs that "spray shoot" brick walls, etc, but that's because they don't have any technique to speak of, nor an understanding of what they're shooting.

Seriously?  So...anyone who buys a camera with a fast frame rate is either a pro or a clueless buffoon with no photography skill.   Talk about having no understanding...

Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.

Hmm, that's not really clear to me.

If I look at the reviews on photozone.de, the 24-85 has less distortion at 24mm and appears to be sharper at every step. The 24-85 looks worse because the center is so much higher so what the graphs show is that the 24-105 has a center that isn't that much different to the edge whereas with the Nikon it is. Feel free to interpret the information in another light.

The 24-105 has more barrel distortion (40% more, relative to the 24-85) at the wide end as a result of it being a 4.4x zoom vs. 3.5x zoom.  But the 24-85mm has more pincushion distortion at the long end - 83% more relative to the 24-105.   So across the zoom ranges, the 24-85mm actually has more distortion than the 24-105mm. 

You can't directly compare the MTF graphs directly - maybe you missed Klaus' blue banner stating, "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems."  Canon FF tests are on the 21 MP 5DII, Nikon FF tests are on the 24 MP D3x and will therefore give higher values for lw/ph across the board.  The 24-85mm is sharper in the center (excellent/very good) but worse in the borders and corners (good to fair, and down close to poor in the 24mm corners), whereas the 24-105mm is very good to good throughout the field and range, dipping down into fair only in the 70m corners.  So, I'd say that for overall sharpness, the 24-105L is the better lens.  The CA on the 24-85mm is also pretty bad, but that seems fairly typical for Nikkor lenses.

Overall, the 24-105L is better lens, and Klaus, at least, agrees...which is why it gets a half-star higher rating in all categories.  Importantly, the 24-105mm gets a better price/performance ranking, despite being a much more expensive lens.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

Many of your posts here are consistent with the idea that the sensor in a camera is the sum total of that camera's performance, and sensor-based IQ is the only important thing to consider.  Much like beer-goggles can make repugnant members of your gender-of-preference seem attractive, DxOMark-goggles can blind one to meaningful differences in cameras
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2064
    • AW Photography
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #77 on: January 03, 2013, 10:24:30 AM »
From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

What absolute garbage. The 20D had the worst IQ of just about any Canon DSLR - worse than the 10D it replaced. The 30D was a massive upgrade even if only for the rear screen that was actually usable. The 40D wasn't "marginally better" it was significantly better in both operational and IQ terms. Night and day better. Every camera since has had massively better IQ - only the 50D has been a bit of a lemon on the IQ front, and then only because of terrible high ISO performance.

Congratulations!

You're the first person I've ever seen say that the 30D is better than the 20D in terms of IQ and that the 40D was significantly better again.

I never owned the 20D, but I owned both the 10D and 30D and shot with photographers who had the 20D when I had the 10d.... From what I could tell, the 10D and 20D's image quality was good in comparison of 8x10 prints (at least from my perspective at that time in the beginning of the digital revolution)... The 30D's quality was marginally better...  cant say it was leaps and bounds, but at low ISO's, it didn't leave me wanting... of course, the difference was in ISO's... the 10D was pretty damn near what I was used to with film grain for the same size of print... an 8x10 at ISO 400 had the same size of grain I would expect from an ISO 400 film camera printed at that size... ISO 800-1000 was getting rather ugly... I didn't care because I was just coming off of film cameras so I didn't expect it to be buttery clean...  The 30D was usable up until about 800... 1600 was pretty bad and 3200 was horrid but I didn't have that expectation at that time... I leapfrogged the 40D and jumped to the 50D... I've shot with 2 50D's... I hate both cameras... I shoot product photography with one of them (a clients camera)... I get noise in ISO 100 shots in certain conditions... it's just not that good of a camera...  I've heard good reviews from the 40D, but i didn't shoot with that camera so I dont know... I then moved up into the 7D's and 5d2's and now 5d3's and couldn't be happier...  The 7D, to me and how I shoot, appears cleaner than either of the 50D's i've shot with... I've heard others who had similar experiences as I've had and others who prefer the 50d over the 7d... From each camera jump (with the exception of the 50D and the 5d2's AF) i've seen improvements with IQ and high ISO... Some were subtle to say the least such as the 10D to the 30D...  and each camera I upgraded to (except the 50D and 5d2) I thought was the best camera I worked with up to that point... 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #78 on: January 03, 2013, 10:43:53 AM »
So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......
7D (MkI) / EF-S 10-22 / 16-35 f4L IS / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20021
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #79 on: January 03, 2013, 10:54:52 AM »
So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......

Yeah, I caught that, too.  All L-series lenses come with a hood and pouch/case, including the 70-200/4 IS.  A small number of non-L lenses also include the hood/pouch, such as the 70-300 DO and the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses. 

That's in North America and Europe.  In some markets in Asia, a hood and pouch/case are included with all lenses, even the lower end like the 40mm pancake and the 50/1.8 II.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RustyTheGeek

  • Buy and Sell
  • 1D X Mark II
  • ********
  • Posts: 1626
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2013, 11:21:38 AM »
I'm researching how I will use the 6D WiFi for tethered shooting and I found this write up about 6D Battery Life.  He details how he set it all up and shoots continuously every 3 seconds with WiFi and GPS active.  Wow.  Impressive!  (Internal WiFi tethered shooting was one reason I got the 6D.)

http://www.p4pictures.com/2012/12/eos-6d-battery-life-with-wifi-gps/

Quote from article...

Some hours later…

2895 pictures on a single LP-E6

I used one of my well used LP-E6 batteries for the test, it shows two green squares in the health section. I’m simply stunned to find that nearly 3,000 actuations and almost two and a half hours later the camera shut down and stopped sending files. I checked the mac, all the files up until then had transferred and had GPS info in them.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2064
    • AW Photography
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #81 on: January 03, 2013, 11:37:35 AM »
So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......

All L lenses include a hood and case... although the pouch/case leaves a lot to be desired compared to sigma's cases that they include with their lenses...  I think lens hoods should be included in all lens purchases but what do i know... dont want to bankrupt canon =)
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #81 on: January 03, 2013, 11:37:35 AM »

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #82 on: January 03, 2013, 12:34:32 PM »
The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

5d2 IQ certainly was and still is a problem for many people.
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

5d3 did little to fix the IQ problem but certainly presented a much better overall camera for event shooters.  Good for them.

For those of us who want the best IQ, in preference to overall system performance, the 5d2 is a failure. It has worse (pattern) noise character than my 40D.
The 5d3 is no improvement for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance.

The 6d might actually be the viable alternative for unsatisfied 5d2 owners who don't need to pay extra for the unneeded speed and AF of the 5d3 and aren't ready or willing to move to another platform. 
I haven't yet tested it myself but from what I've gathered so far it seems the 6D's IQ does improve noticeably over the 5d2's AFA banding noise issues + it has much improved hi ISO and low light AF ability for those times it's required.



neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20021
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #83 on: January 03, 2013, 12:37:04 PM »
...for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance

For them, no dSLR (not even the D800E) will suffice. 

EDIT:  but wait, I just checked DxOMark, and the D800E has a better sensor than the Phase One IQ180.  Now I'm the one who's confused...   ::)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 12:38:44 PM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #84 on: January 03, 2013, 12:43:59 PM »
The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

5d2 IQ certainly was and still is a problem for many people.
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

5d3 did little to fix the IQ problem but certainly presented a much better overall camera for event shooters.  Good for them.

For those of us who want the best IQ, in preference to overall system performance, the 5d2 is a failure. It has worse (pattern) noise character than my 40D.
The 5d3 is no improvement for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance.

The 6d might actually be the viable alternative for unsatisfied 5d2 owners who don't need to pay extra for the unneeded speed and AF of the 5d3 and aren't ready or willing to move to another platform. 
I haven't yet tested it myself but from what I've gathered so far it seems the 6D's IQ does improve noticeably over the 5d2's AFA banding noise issues + it has much improved hi ISO and low light AF ability for those times it's required.

Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #85 on: January 03, 2013, 12:44:59 PM »
...for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance

For them, no dSLR (not even the D800E) will suffice. 

EDIT:  but wait, I just checked DxOMark, and the D800E has a better sensor than the Phase One IQ180.  Now I'm the one who's confused...   ::)

Funny, i KNEW you were going to make a snide reference to an MF camera. :P

Chuck Alaimo

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1050
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #86 on: January 03, 2013, 01:50:26 PM »
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?


Ypu know, I am just gonna reply to this OP without reading because --- it's really such a silly statement!!!!!   Comparing a new model to a refurb?  Then saying the trollish "Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?"   Really man?   I have seen a few refurb and used 5dmk3's in the low 2k area!  It's a rfurb, and you know what, by the time you wait for there to be replies to this q that refurb will be bought cause the d800 is still new!!!!   Refurbs on any of these newer bodies are few and far between, and ususally scooped up by folks that know enough to know they won't be around in a few hours!!!!

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the wording of this is so trollish...   if you had asked about the 6d vs the d600 and aren't invested in glass then we are in an actual conversation.  But this is just silly, like wondering why a used car is less expensive than a used one...
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 824
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #87 on: January 03, 2013, 02:02:20 PM »
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

seriously, show me how to reproduce this in actual shooting. I've never seen anything remotely like banded skies in any of my 5D Mark II shots.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #87 on: January 03, 2013, 02:02:20 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20021
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #88 on: January 03, 2013, 02:30:04 PM »
seriously, show me how to reproduce this in actual shooting. I've never seen anything remotely like banded skies in any of my 5D Mark II shots.

I thought everyone knew. 

  • Set your camera to M mode
  • Point it at the sky
  • From the metered exposure, reduce by 4 or more stops (note, some cameras do not properly display this on the meter in the viewfinder, so you may need to be an experienced enough photographer to calculate a 4-stop underexposure in your head)
  • Take the picture
  • During post-processing, raise the exposure by 4 or more stops (note, some RAW converters do not allow you to adjust exposure by that much, notably, Canon's own DPP is restricted to just 2 stops - and of course, that's by design, because Canon knows that their sensor performance breaks down when pushed by 4 EV, so they are taking steps to mask their own inadequacies...but I digress).
  • Now, look at the image - you'll notice the banding

Once you know the steps, it's easy to be affected by this horribly common problem that destroys the IQ of the 5DII.  That's why I sold that piece of crap camera.  All that horrible banding in the skies when I underexposed my images by 4 stops.



Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 824
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #89 on: January 03, 2013, 02:35:11 PM »
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D

guess it's just not my preferred way of shooting, but I learn something new everyday  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #89 on: January 03, 2013, 02:35:11 PM »