Canon FF versus Nikon FF

[Ian]

Just been conversing with Danny "Camera Junkie" Chau

He's been comparing a Canon EOS-5D with a Nikon D700. Both these cameras are full frame and about the same 12MP mark resolution. They even have the same CMOS sensory type, though they are separated by almost three years development.

Danny feels that the Canon is still superior - at least to his taste. He feels the 5D is less contrasty and delivers more depth in dynamic range. This means he can do more with the images in post processing. Printing is Danny's expertise, so I would guess that he gets better looking prints with 5D images than the D700.

I know there are several 5D owners here - not sure if we have any D700 or D3 users here yet, but I'd be interested in views on this matter.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Just been conversing with Danny "Camera Junkie" Chau

He's been comparing a Canon EOS-5D with a Nikon D700. Both these cameras are full frame and about the same 12MP mark resolution. They even have the same CMOS sensory type, though they are separated by almost three years development.

Danny feels that the Canon is still superior - at least to his taste. He feels the 5D is less contrasty and delivers more depth in dynamic range. This means he can do more with the images in post processing. Printing is Danny's expertise, so I would guess that he gets better looking prints with 5D images than the D700.

I know there are several 5D owners here - not sure if we have any D700 or D3 users here yet, but I'd be interested in views on this matter.

Ian

I thought I would expand on this as nobody has yet joined in the debate. Danny prefers the lower contrast and flatter, wider dynamic range, of the EOS-5D over the Nikon FF models (D3 and D700).

In fact he's got to the stage of comparing the characteristics of different cameras to that of paint brushes, so he would use one for a certain effect and another for something different.

Anyone else feel in a similar way?

Ian

[ash]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Hi Ian, Im not saying 'I told you so' but this kinda reflects what I was saying on another thread about image quality over the past 3 or 4 years!

Ide love to be able to add some input into this thread but sadly I have not yet forked out for a d700 or d3.

However I have been using a d2x for the past 2 weeks or so and can see the difference over my d200 in the extra 2 megapixels it offers and the reasurance of the handling and speed of a camera of this calibre, you just no its going to deliver! Very impressed.

Ide love a d3 though

cheers
Ash.

[Josh Bear]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

hi ian

I did see a review comparing both cameras and the conclusion was the same. It shows that canon engineers got it right 3 years ago. I have no doubt that the nikon range is superb and in terms of new features eg sensor cleaning superior to the 5d but the dynamic range of the 5d has always been outstanding. In fact I have sometimes been asked whether a picture was hdr when it was a single exposure.

If the 5d performs so well then why am I upgrading to a 5d2? In summary the new features will be useful (even the movie mode) but ultimately having 21mp with better quality dr and iq than the 5d will give greater flexibility for cropping.

Ultimately it seems that most of the new dslrs are excellent cameras and choice will come down to glass quality and range, personal choice and perhaps the salesperson you talk to rather than massive differences in iq.

Best regards

Josh

[StuartR]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I'm pretty much a life-long Canon user so I'm biased (best to be honest up front!) and like many other photographers I'm not about to change marques because my investment in lenses and other ancillary gear would make it a costly exercise. Also, as I see it, the top manufacturers will be leap-frogging one another in the technology stakes for ever and a day. Take my 40D - "replaced" by the 50D a year after the 40D was launched. Massive improvement in technology or marketing ploy? bit of both if you ask me. Am I still happy with the images from my 40D - yup, will I buy a 50D? probably, am I a mug? no comment!

In terms of this thread, the only thing I can comment on is my perception of the image quality of the 5D and this is only formed from what I've seen on-line and in magazines. In short the 5D's IQ is the best I

[Patrick]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I'm pretty much a life-long Canon user so I'm biased (best to be honest up front!) and like many other photographers I'm not about to change marques because my investment in lenses and other ancillary gear would make it a costly exercise. Also, as I see it, the top manufacturers will be leap-frogging one another in the technology stakes for ever and a day. Take my 40D - "replaced" by the 50D a year after the 40D was launched. Massive improvement in technology or marketing ploy? bit of both if you ask me. Am I still happy with the images from my 40D - yup, will I buy a 50D? probably, am I a mug? no comment!

In terms of this thread, the only thing I can comment on is my perception of the image quality of the 5D and this is only formed from what I've seen on-line and in magazines. In short the 5D's IQ is the best I

Stuart is of course right its mainly marketing, yes the cameras have more technology. Its agreed the 5D gave top quality results, the Mk II on paper should be even better. How much improvement will the buyer upgrading from the 5D notice on his/her A4 print, none I suspect. If the user will be viewing solely on the computer monitor and not printing the results the camera will be a total waste of money.
The real value would be the printer regularly printing A2 prints, then a difference should be seen. The extra pixels will I'm sure give a better image when cropped, I personally try to frame my images so no cropping is necessary not always possible I know, but its a good habit to get into none the less.
The thinking I have read is that maybe the lenses available may struggle with the extra pixels in which case some of the advantages gained with the camera are lost with the glass.
Ian may be in a position to tell use more on this subject.

I also read the 40D is not yet to be discontinued at this time as it is in a different price point to the 50D. Time will tell.

Patrick

[Josh Bear]

[Patrick]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

[Josh Bear]

[Josh Bear]

[Patrick]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Interesting how we all see things differently.

21 megapixel,
Downside massive files something like 100mg in 16bit, with layers when working on an image file could get to a gigabyte, so the need to upgrade the computer to cope. More cost.

Sensor dust reduction,
An advantage I already have this with my 40D, possible improved for the 5D MkII

ISO 100 - 6400 calibrated range, ISO 50 - 25600 expansion,
Could be of great benefit if noise is well controlled as I beleive it is.

3.9 frames per sec,
Slow by comparison with the 40D's 6.5 but not surprising considering the file size, so in that respect very good.

Three custom modes on command dial,
I have some on 40D how extensive I haven't yet investigated, find I can do what I want without bothering.

3.0" 920,000 dot LCD monitor,
Very good resolution vast improvement, but how useful? just nicer.

Live view with three mode auto-focus (including face detection)
I have the live view but without auto focus never seen the value of face detection. I would only use live view for macro and manual focus is better for that anyway, in the studio auto could be useful, but not essential.

Movie recording in live view,
You either want it or you don't, I don't.

Water resistance: 10 mm rain in 3 minutes
This has got to be good, no argument. and if it keeps out water it will keep out dust.

All this does not mean I am against F/F quit the opposite I would love F/F just cant afford it. All my lenses will cover F/F if the day comes when I have the money.

My ideal would be.

F/F 15 megapixels, 5-6 frames a second (adjustable) some of the advantages mentioned above but no video, not because I see it as a gimmick, simply not interested and hate the feeling I am paying for something I wont use.

Patrick

[ash]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Ok guy's its all very well going into such mind bogling statistics with these cams we could have this discussion all night long.
The top and bottom of it is we have reached a point where the quality of the images that a dslr reproduces to date are acceptable throughout most fields! Pro or not.
I am the first to admit that ive sercomed to the temptation of new technology thinking that it will enhance my final image! but guess what, it wont!
Your better off spending your money on better glass, and really getting to no your cam inside out. I have come across so many people recently that have forked out so much money on a body and they have a 100 quid lens on it!
And then you have the job of trying to explain to them the 100 quid lens is pants!

I hope someone gets my drift, pic a cam that you like and feel comfortable with, stick with it and learn its functions inside out, its a good feeling when your out and you just conect with the camera, its like its part of you.
Ohh well there ya go another wiggy waffle!
And yes I still want a d3

[Patrick]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Ok guy's its all very well going into such mind bogling statistics with these cams we could have this discussion all night long.
The top and bottom of it is we have reached a point where the quality of the images that a dslr reproduces to date are acceptable throughout most fields! Pro or not.
I am the first to admit that ive sercomed to the temptation of new technology thinking that it will enhance my final image! but guess what, it wont!
Your better off spending your money on better glass, and really getting to no your cam inside out. I have come across so many people recently that have forked out so much money on a body and they have a 100 quid lens on it!
And then you have the job of trying to explain to them the 100 quid lens is pants!

I hope someone gets my drift, pic a cam that you like and feel comfortable with, stick with it and learn its functions inside out, its a good feeling when your out and you just conect with the camera, its like its part of you.
Ohh well there ya go another wiggy waffle!
And yes I still want a d3

Just So Ash but there is the power of markting getting us to buy something we don't actually need, just want.
We are all guilty one way or another.
I shall be sticking to my 40D for a long time to come, I don't have the cash to change, especially as a week ago I bought a Canon 300mm f4 L lens on ebay so the cupboard is bare.

Patrick

[Atlasman]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I've been using my 5D to cover hockey tournaments and high ISO performance is important, but sensor dust reduction, live view (face detection and silent mode), movie mode are triggers for upgrading.

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I've been using my 5D to cover hockey tournaments and high ISO performance is important, but sensor dust reduction, live view (face detection and silent mode), movie mode are triggers for upgrading.

I think your list of positives is very clear, but my questions are - do you need the extra resolution that the 5D Mark II offers and if it turns out that the 5D Mark II doesn't match the original 5D for its outstanding noise performance and dynamic range (because of the 5D Mark II's smaller pixel pitch) - would that still be acceptable?

Canon does say that it has improved the sensor microlenses and improved the efficiency in the photodiode coverage on the sensor but the plain fact is that they have squeezed almost twice as many photodiodes onto the sensor area and, logically, that must have some consequences on noise and dynamic range.

I'm personally surprised that Canon chose a sensor resolution higher than 16MP for the 5D Mark II. I could of course be proved wrong when reviewers get their hands on production samples.

Ian