Photography Thailand Forum

[agitlits]

Hello all,

I'm quite new to photography (been in love for just 2 years) and I bought into Nikon system. I've got D70 and was thinking of upgrading to D200 sometime soon. I've got a couple of pro or semi-pro lenses and I shoot mostly as a hobby. I try to put priotiy into buying pro glass rather than upgrade to a better body etc.

I also shoot freelance for a small press agency which helps me maintain my hobby. I earn my living in a totally unrelated profession.

The owner of the agency now tells me that I should convert to Canon if I want to be serious about this. He says Nikon cannot compete.

Now I have nothing against canon but but I like Nikon because I am familiar with it. Can I get your opinions whether you think there is such a stark contrast between the quality of photos coming out from the two system? Is Nikon really that much worse? Should I start selling up and move to Canon?

I know Marc shoots Canon and that's a great inspiration to move to Canon, but I also know togs who shoot Nikon.

Thanks for any help and recommendations

Alex

[Marc Schultz]

The Canon-Nikon debate is a never ending one and this thread can go on for a while if people get into all of their subjective observations between the two brands.

From a purely technical standpoint, Nikon can probably do close to 85% of what Canon can do. Canon lenses focus faster and Canon's full frame sensor DSLR are notably lower in noise than the D200 or D2X. And there are a few more subtle benefits to Canon, but if I keep going then I will end up building a comparison chart here.

The way you describe the way and what you are shooting though I would say there is no need to get into all the extra expense and switch to Canon at this point now that you are already familiar with and invested in Nikon. 

As for that guy's comment, it is a very general comment, and although I agree with him, I don't think it applies to your particular situation at this point. So don't give yourself any unnecessary stress about it and keep going on doing what you are doing and enjoying it.

If though you are interested to read an article about a professional photographer who sold off his medium format Hasselblad kit in exchange to go fully Canon digital you might find the following link of interest:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7883-7913

I myself shoot a fair amount of architectural interiors using a 24mm shift lens. For that I need a full frame DSLR in order to get a wide enough angle with some shift and those other after-thought extreme wide angle lenses made for crop sensor DSLR cameras would not work for me. So I do need a full frame DSLR, but if I was shooting lots of birds and action photography I might be happier with the extra zooming power of a crop sensor DSLR with a multiplier factor of 1.5 or 1.6 and the added 1 to 1.5 stops of DOF that goes with it. And in which case, a camera like the D200 might seem more interesting to me than some of the full frame Canon DSLR bodies.

[bjorn slis]

I think this will be the last time I post about the Nikon vs. Canon thing.
the owner of the agency should find a new job, that is the biggest b.s. I've ever heard.
there are plenty of pro photographers that use nikon, leica, fuji and other brands of cameras
Studying at the academy of fine arts about 10 yrs. ago one of my photography teachers told me that if I was serious about photography I HAD TO BUY A HASSLEDBLAD (:-) because I would never be a good photographer without it. I went trough five years at that school and graduating; for 4 yrs. with a secondhand praktika B100 and the last year with 2 very old FM2s (great cameras), if the fact that I didn't own a HB during studies (afterwards I bought, and sold one because I prefer to travel light) makes me a bad photographer then so be it.
What you need most is an eye for composition etc. And to know how your equipment works so that you don't have to think too much about technical details when you're working and you are not limited too much by it.
Canon makes great cameras, as does Nikon and a lot of other brands, go for what you think is the best tool for you to do your job.
And yes, glass is a lot more important then the body.

[gregoire]

Alex,

You're really just a victim of marketing if you see things in terms of Canon vs. Nikon. Marc does not simply shoot Canon, he shoots a Canon 1ds MkII that costs 250,000 baht and requires expensive L-glass (so does Galbraith). Are you thinking of trading up from your d70s to that?

If not, then what are you thinking of switching to? A 400D? You're way too good already for that one. A 30D? The d80 and d200 are better than the 30D on just about every count (trust me that's a LONG list) except that the d200 has more noise at high-ISO. But bodies are not the only thing that matters, there are lenses too. Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 10-22 are better and/or cheaper than anything in the Nikon lineup whereas Nikon has a fisheye for cropped sensors that Canon doesn't. Depending on which lenses you want, either brand could have the best selection.

Compare specific models and compare them including the lenses you plan on using with them. Don't compare Nikon to Canon--that makes little sense.

I ended up going full-frame (hence Canon, no other options there) for the 24-105 f/4 IS, 1600 ISO that blew me away, and the possibility to have a 50mm f/1.4 that looks like a 50mm (I love that focal length) and allows for shallow depth of field.

If my specs had been long telephoto lens (thanks to crop factor), fast frame rates, and a camera built like a tank, I would have gotten a d200.

There's no one answer but one thing I'm sure of is that "Canon or Nikon?" is the wrong question.

Oh and since Bjorn brought up the Hasselblad, I still think my Mamiya shooting film with an 80mm f2.8 is much better than my 5D with a 50mm f/1.4. Now I know Marc's not going to like that :P

And in the end, the 5D didn't make me a better photographer. No camera can. Bjorn's right about that. But with the 5D, it's the first time I'm never blaming the camera, only myself. Maybe that's what having the right camera is about.

[Gary Dublanko]

You're getting good advise here and a search of the web will show you how heated the debate is and how pointless it all is. Comparing Canon to Nikon is essentailly a case of splitting hairs. They are both excellent systems with loads of options, pluses and minuses. If you are already invested in Nikon, it makes no logical sense to move to Canaon and vise-versa, full frame or not. There are weaknesses and limitations to both systems and in many cases the limitations can be overcome with the appropriate software and post processing techniques. So unless you plan to specialize in only one very specific area of photography that requires a unique set of equipment in which one company has an overwhelming advantage, it's a mute point.

Today it may be Nikon, tomorrow it may be Canon, and next year it may be Sony. The leader will always be changing as it has for years. But if you're using Nikon and like it, then it's probably wise to stick with it. Best of luck.

[Marc Schultz]

I think Gregoire raises a very good point here. Rather than looking at Canon and Nikon as just brands, you need to decide which of the models you would consider buying from both brands and then compare them against one another for their pros and cons in terms of what you want to do with your photography.

At the top end Canon has gone further than Nikon in terms of technology, that is a simple matter of technological fact and I think even most people who like to go round and round on this debate would have trouble arguing that one. But in the consumer to prosumer DSLR range, they are very much neck and neck and some models from Nikon win in some areas and some Canon models in others.

So better to compare apples and apples as Gregoire suggested and then you are making a much better comparison in terms of which camera best delivers what suits you.

And yes, a lot of it comes down to being a good photographer as others have mentioned here, but without the right gear it’s hard to sometimes really show your best side.

But as I said, I still think if you are already well invested in Nikon and you are getting what you need out of the cameras then no reason to switch boats.

[bjorn slis]

@gregoire I prefer a cambo, but my camerabag is just not big enough (neither is my wallet)  :P

[gregoire]

Bjorn, maybe I would too if I ever tried one. So I'll try not to (try one).

I'm sorry I'd skipped the part about the agency somehow. I agree with Bjorn the guy sounds off his rocker.

Did he complain about anything specific?

The only issue I would have with someone shooting a d70 is noisy high-ISO pics (my bro has a d70s, and it is very noisy at 800-1600 range, I find). If that is your problem, the d80 has greatly closed the gap with Canon's 350D/400D/30D (according to reviews, haven't checked) on this issue and it's quite a cheap camera considering what it packs.

[David Procter]

It's the man...or woman...and NOT the tools!
end of story.




...how much are those 5Ds again?

[agitlits]

Thanks a lot guys. I guess I knew the answer to this problem, I just wanted reassurances. The agency's guy view is simply simplisitic :-). The biggest problem he complained about is noise at ISO higher than 800 which is apparently less likely in canon. I wonder how D2X compares to 1D in terms of noise...

Thank you for all your input guys. You reassurances made a lot of difference to my confused mind today :-)


Cheers
Alex

[Marc Schultz]

The D2X Sensor is an APS sensor (Crop-Factor sensor) and all APS sensors are typically higher in noise than Full Frame sensors, especially if the camera has 10MP or more crammed in an APS sensor because at that resolution they are pushing into very small sized pixel pitches. The pixel pitch on the D2X is 5.5 microns, far below the optimum pitch of 9 microns. The pixel pitch of the 1DS Mark II is better at 7.2 microns and the 5D is even more ideal at 8.2 microns.

If the part about pixel pitch is alien to you then you can read this aritcle about "Understanding Sensor Design" and get up to speed on pixel pitch, sensor receptor sites, and all that good stuff: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/sensor-design.shtml

I think ultimately the answer to your question though Alex lies within the above equation I gave you.

And for all you guys who keep emphasizing “It's Not The Camera, It's the Photographer”, I think you should definitely read this brief but pointed article:

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/many-factors.shtml

[agitlits]

Thanks very much for the articles, Marc. Interesting reading.

Thanks for all your help, guys.

Alex

[bjorn slis]

There are plenty people very serious about photography that just can't afford a D2X or that EOS thing  :P

[David Procter]

So, the next time someone hauls out that old cliche that It's Not The Camera, It's the Photographer, whack them upside the head and tell them to stop being such a simplistic dolt.

Thanks for that link Marc,

I know if you have better stuff the aesthetic value will obviously be bettered as well as the ability to capture a wider range of scenarios. But photographers can seriously fall into the equipment side of things, you know the types who post pictures of their equipment or sharpness paranoia: recently a friend of mine was worried about how sharp his 24-105 L lens was and borrowed my 24-70 for a series of tests.
Sometimes it's best to be a simplistic dolt and concentrate on subject matter, composition and decisive moments. Are we artists or technicians?
Saying all this yes you have to know the rules to break them.
..and other old cliches!

[Marc Schultz]

You are right David. If put in that way, I agree with you that there are lots of budding photographers out there who knock themselves out, and empty their bank accounts in the process, by buying all the latest and greatest gear only to find out there pictures are not getting any better and only their files sizes are becoming bigger and more difficult to store. So yes, there is that point and it is a very real one. But to believe that you can always get great results out of a great lighting and subject situation by having only a clunky old camera and one 50mm lens to capture it is not going to work either.

So maybe the right approach is that you need better equipment if and only when you feel there are technical limitations to the equipment you presently have and you feel you could be doing more by going to the next level. But if your problem is for example that your pictures are always flat, lack contrast, drama, or interesting lighting, then changing the camera is not going to help one bit and you are better off studying some books about lighting and composition instead.

The artist/technician theory is actually something I had covered a bit as an aside towards the end of many of the talks I have given on photography and I feel it is a very significant part of the overall appraoch.