Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 1,277
Oh good god will this lad ever learn?
Is there an equivalency list between Canon and Nikon DSLR's?
- Thread starter ralv585
- Start date
No offence but do you deal with any of this in a professional capacity? Have you even used any of the cameras you've listed in order to properly list them? Or had to retouch files from any of them for print?
The 5DMKII is better than a D700 (Yes, even a D3S) for studio/controlled work because it produces superior images. You don't need a billion AF points, you don't need 11 frames per second, you don't need weather sealing or stratospheric ISO. There is a reason the 5DMKII is so popular amongst so many working professionals right this very moment, because for the money (and for even a lot more money) you can't beat the image quality.
Honestly sometimes I think the internet would be genuinely shocked at what happens in the real world
Its "slightly" better but canon make you choose, what if your a pro who wants to do both studio work and action photography ? You then have to buy two different bodies to get the same accuracy that the D3s or D700 offer. So laying down a blanket statement that "its better" is just pointless.
If you're a pro then the cost of pro cameras isn't "much" of an issue. You'll usually have (at least) one backup camera anyway so buying a 5DII and a 1D Mk3 won't be an issue. You then have two specifically designed cameras, designed specifically for what you want to use them for...
1) As a pro you need two bodies anyway. (any pro who isn't using two is just plain stupid
)2) Who says you need a full frame sensor for studio work. The 1DIV is a great studio camera. High-resolution. Studio work is don't at f/10 - f/14 so the shallow DOF is no advantage. Actually, thinking about it - the 1DIV is a BETTER studio camera than a D3s. Infact I have no idea what your on about the 1DIV is overall a more versatile camera.
Indeed.
Some do this but for me I just have two 1D's. They are fast. They are high-res. They produce the work. They work well in the odd studio session. They're capable of shooting nice landscapes. They are durable the ISO matches the 5DII. Nuff said!
The 1DIV is a new story altogether - it's really high-res, excellent high ISO - IMO the best all around camera today.
TBL:
a) Give me the areas that make a D3s a better 'studio' camera
b) Tell me what the D700/D3s has that will make me move over from canon to nikon? (What makes them more capable?)
Last edited:
1) As a pro you need two bodies anyway. (any pro who isn't using two is just plain stupid
2) Who says you need a full frame sensor for studio work. The 1DIV is a great studio camera. High-resolution. Studio work is don't at f/10 - f/14 so the shallow DOF is no advantage. Actually, thinking about it - the 1DIV is a BETTER studio camera than a D3s. Infact I have no idea what your on about the 1DIV is overall a more versatile camera.
Indeed.
Some do this but for me I just have two 1D's. They are fast. They are high-res. They produce the work. They work well in the odd studio session. They're capable of shooting nice landscapes. They are durable the ISO matches the 5DII. Nuff said!
The 1DIV is a new story altogether - it's really high-res, excellent high ISO - IMO the best all around camera today.
TBL:
a) Give me the areas that make a D3s a better 'studio' camera
b) Tell me what the D700/D3s has that will make me move over from canon to nikon? (What makes them more capable?)
We were on about D700 (which is what a D3 is essentially)(and therefore what a D3s is, with better iso performance, a crop sensor settings, aswell as all the D3 stuff like magnesium body and weather performance)) vs the 5dmk2, so im not sure why your now on about 1dmk*, you seem to have taken my comment out of context and be making out that i stated the D3s is better than the 1ds4.
You can use the D3s in the studio in full frame mode to the same effect as a 5dmk2 except the D3s will trounce it (and the 1dsmk4) when it comes to ISO, heres a proof of concept review
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-...mark-iv---which-ones-better-5097-article.html
and
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/why-the-nikon-d3s-is-the-low-light-king-4978-article.html
The D3s has more autofocus points than any canon camera, so it will autofocus quicker and more accuratly.
The main point is lenses, for example, Canon L series wide angles, you have a 14mm f2.8 prime, a 15mm 180deg f2.8 fisheye, and a 16-35mm f2.8, and a 17-40 F4, all canons best.
Nikon - 14-24mm is sharper than its 14mm and you have all that extra zoom, its pinsharp in the corners. then you have 17-35mm f2.8, 16-35mm F4 with VR, a 14mm prime that seems pointless because the 14-24mm is better and sharper than it, a 16mm fisheye, a 20mm f2.8 prime, etc.
So in the wide angle category you have 4 current canons to choose from, and 7 nikons...talk about flexibilty.
At the long zoom end, canon have a 100mm-400mm F5.6 lens whereas nikon have 2 versions of a 200mm-400mm VR/VR2 F4 lens....much faster and more flexible.
The only place canon seem to trump nikon is studio lens primes, 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 vs 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4, but then again .2 aperture isnt much at all!?
As for studio cameras, it seems that the higher pixels the better, in which case the D3X kills the 1dsmk3 and the 5dmk2.
Therefore more heres studio samples, studios are controlled environments, so plenty of light, therefore we can use controlled iso tests.
D3s
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/nikon-d3s/nikon-d3s_ISO100.jpg
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/nikon-d3s/nikon-d3s_ISO12800.jpg
5dmk2
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/canon_5D_mk2/canon_5d_mk2_ISO100.jpg
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/canon_5D_mk2/canon_5d_mk2_ISO12800.jpg
Notice how much grainier the 12800 5dmk2 sample is.
D3s
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/nikon-d3s/nikon-d3s_ISO100.jpg
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/nikon-d3s/nikon-d3s_ISO12800.jpg
5dmk2
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/canon_5D_mk2/canon_5d_mk2_ISO100.jpg
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/images/reviews/canon_5D_mk2/canon_5d_mk2_ISO12800.jpg
Notice how much grainier the 12800 5dmk2 sample is.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
While I have a lot of love for Nikon's CAM3500 AF system, that's only selectively true, Canon's high end AF has more cross type sensors than Nikon so they aren't directly comparable. I 'feel' in use the CAM3500 (D3, D700, D300 all use variants) work better for me but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 1DIII AF system.
I gather the 1DIV has 39 cross type points out of 45, the D3x has 15 of 51 - in which case it's going to very interesting to see test results.
On the other hand there's a lot wrong with the 5DII AF system, which means, in my opinion, if you shoot things which move the D700 is a better bet.
It used to be true of the mid range too but the 7D has pretty decent AF, it's on a par with a D300s in my experience (thanks again to a greater number of cross type sensors)
It's also worth noting that despite sharing the same AF system, the D3x and D700 perform differently with the D3x being a shade quicker and I think a shade better at tracking movement. I'm guessing it's got more processing power. Same applies to the D300s, which has another CAM3500 derivative and is again a shade slower than the others...
End of the day though, you need to be damn good before the AF is going to be letting you down with any frequency...
Bad comparison unfortunately, the 100-400L is price and performance wise a rival for the Nikon 80-400 VR, which is terrible. The 200-400 is several times the price and exotic oddity with no real comparison (I think everybody, Canon or Nikon wants one of these lenses). I think the old VR version is also being superseded, so there aren't really two versions available today...
21.1 vs 24.4? It's hardly a huge thing in my mind. I'd still take the Nikon myself but I don't think it's massively superior in any way...
I was saying a 1DIV (not 1Ds) is a better studio camera than the D3s. Better low-Iso, better resolution etc.
The 5DII is still a better camera inn the studio, high resolution, better ISO.
In a studio you don't need weathersealing. If you do - the 5DII and 7D are sealed to a comparable level to the Nikons, but I'd never trust a D700/D300/5D/7D in the rain like I would a 1D/D3. If you need weathersealing you buy the PRO bodies. Not the D700/5D.
You don't need full frame in a Studio.
1DIV & 5DII have better low-ISO. High ISO wise the 1DIV has the same noise performance when both files are the same size. (We tested them - in all fairness the Nikon was 1/3rd of a stop better after 2500 and 2/3rds after 6400. But by 8000 they were both too noisy).
1DIV has more cross point's. 1DIV has better high-contrast AF (the D3S hunted in high-contrast & backlit situations - very poor performance). In everyday lighting both gave epic hit-rates, but in low-light the nikon had a slight edge.
So to conclude that, the 1DIV seemed to AF marginally better in my hands, marginally worse in the Nikon users hands. I.e equal.
? The 16-35L is a fine lens, perfectly suited to any task, granted you have a 14-24, but I'd still have the 16-35 for it's more workable range (for my purposes).
They are not comparable lenses. Ones a £££££, 5kg behemoth. Ones a carry everywhere multi-purpose zoom. Your 80-400 is the comparable one - and it's poo.
As for 200-400mm - I don't see many people shooting with it at the sidelines/circuit. Thats because the primes Canon and Nikon make are better.
400mm f/2.8 IS = win.
[jk]At this range telephoto compression means the subject size changes minimally so the lack of zoom isn't a real issue.
35L, 50L, 85L, 135L. Yeah, we rule the prime world.
D3x is the 1DsIV competitor really. (2mpixels makes very little difference)
That's a no to my questions then. OK.
1) If you're a pro who happens to do both studio and action photography, you have multiple bodies, one for each purpose, because they call for different requirements in a camera.
2) Everyone makes you choose. Nikon make you choose a D3X if you want anything higher resolution than 12mp. That's not a large price jump, right?
Phase don't even give you an option for speed, they just give you IQ. Are they bad cameras? No.Know anyone shooting ISO12800 in the studio? Thought not. Have you even been in a studio?
No you can't, because one is 12mp, and one is 21mp. This is not using them to same effect, this is one having a clear resolution advantage over the other. And again, you're under the impression high ISO performance matters in the studio. IT. DOES. NOT. I know the marketing departments have both been shoving high ISO performance down our throats for the past couple of years but it is not the be all and end all of a camera (I won't go into downressing a 5DMKII file to 12mp and how good it looks then, either).
Er, price? 5DMKII, £1680, Nikon D3X, £4830. No point to be made here, it should be better.
I didn't, you seemed to have a good go at trying though. Someone made a list, you rebutted it on the 'Canon fanboy' angle, made a list I told you wasn't necessarily correct on the grounds of differing requirements from different photographers, citing an example that a 5DMKII is a better choice for 'studio/controlled' work than a D700, even a D3S, because it holds a resolution advantage over both cameras, and the advantages the D700/D3S hold over the 5DMKII are largely irrelevant in a studio/controlled environment.
I could pull apart more of your posts for inaccuracies and downright blatant brand loyalty but I would imagine it's getting pretty clear to everyone you don't actually know what you're talking about by now.
Fantastic, so when exactly do you plan to use ISO 12,800 in a studio environment? Other than when testing ISO performance of course
Fantastic, so when exactly do you plan to use ISO 12,800 in a studio environment? Other than when testing ISO performance of course
Indeed. D3x should be the best/better camera, look at it's cost! The 5d2 is an immense studio camera, though. As said 2bl, you don't NEED FX/FF in the studio. It comes down to requirements too.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Well, I'd be tempted by the Nikon 135 f/2 DC, it's supposedly the best portrait lens ever made for 35mm according to some people and the DC system is patented and (I'm assuming) unique to Nikon. It sells fairly badly though (about 15,000 units in 15 years apparently) and I suspect Nikon may drop it one day (which makes me tempted to buy one at $1400 or so and sell it on as the price will surely shoot up once it's discontinued).
Aside from that, yes, Canon do rule the prime world. Nikon's 50mm's are still optically pretty good but build quality has taken a hit on the new f/1.4 compared to the old metal version.
TBL when comparing lenses you seem to have missed the long primes out...
Think Canon have Nikon beat there (300 f/4, f/2.8, 400 f/5.6, f/4 DO, f/2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4, 800 f/5.6) off the top of my head... So that makes it all square really...
Think Canon have Nikon beat there (300 f/4, f/2.8, 400 f/5.6, f/4 DO, f/2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4, 800 f/5.6) off the top of my head... So that makes it all square really...
TBL when comparing lenses you seem to have missed the long primes out...
Think Canon have Nikon beat there (300 f/4, f/2.8, 400 f/5.6, f/4 DO, f/2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4, 800 f/5.6) off the top of my head... So that makes it all square really...
Nikon essentially have the same set too...
There was a post by willis recently asking about the 24mm 1.4 because he was taking portraits of models in dark environments and needed a quicker lens.
Well if your camera has exceptional high iso performance you wouldnt need to go out and buy a faster lens, you can just use higher iso with the same lens.
Not to mention you can alter/improve your depth of field by using a higher iso.
As an example of this chase jarvis was using a d3s in the sunshine and the snow at iso 400 (wierd, right?) so that he could get a better depth of field whilst using 1/1000 instead of iso 100 and 1/250.
Well if your camera has exceptional high iso performance you wouldnt need to go out and buy a faster lens, you can just use higher iso with the same lens.
Not to mention you can alter/improve your depth of field by using a higher iso.
As an example of this chase jarvis was using a d3s in the sunshine and the snow at iso 400 (wierd, right?) so that he could get a better depth of field whilst using 1/1000 instead of iso 100 and 1/250.
Essentially yeah, but a couple are missing... and as the difference between wide lenses was so small (yet TBL reckoned Nikon destroyed Canon) I think that suggests Canon destroys Nikon at the long end.
Indeed. The f/1.4 is to throw the background out of focus not just for low-light.
The high-iso can improve the DOF, but for me I tend to want the least DOF anyway so low-ISO is better.
I'd like to see more ISO's like 25 (or even 12) incorprated into cameras actually, so we can shoot slow shutter speed landscapes and capture motion blur at wide apertures without sacrificing light for the AF sensor.
[1DIV will out perform a D3s at ISO's between 250-1600
]Essentially yeah, but a couple are missing... and as the difference between wide lenses was so small (yet TBL reckoned Nikon destroyed Canon) I think that suggests Canon destroys Nikon at the long end.
A few are missing but yet canon is missing the 200-400 (long end zoom) so what do you have to say about that. Someone replied that its not used because its not a prime...this is wrong.
Say your panning at the nurburgring where where you can sit isnt flexible and you want to get the car in the frame on every shot on the track you can see.
You can use a 200mm prime and get it when its close but when its far away you would have to crop it, reducing image quality.
You can use a 400mm prime to get it when it is just about to go out of view but then your 400mm prime is too long for when the car is closer.
or you can sit with your 200-400mm zoom and get the car in every single shot, at 9fps.
Where is Canon's flexibility here ? Do you think you would have time to change lenses or even move to another body in the 3 seconds that the car has gone past ? I think not.
Then you can take this same camera back to your studio and shoot all day either full frame or in crop mode.
Well if you're going to have a 400mm prime, you'll have a second camera with a smaller lens. If i was doing professional shots of cars etc, I'd want at least two bodies, and using primes.
Yes, but it also comes down to not having to use proper portable lights with generators (which a lot of people do), similar to what Joey L does.