Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by coughlin's law, Apr 20, 2009.
It seems some Canon ISO's suffer from Color Noise, while Nikons are pretty solid...
2-3 years ago this would have been a completely different thread
The biggest difference is Canons say "Canon" on the front and Nikons say "Nikon."
nikon is the best
these days, it just comes down to how you like them to fit in your hands and how much money you're willing to spend.
Nikon has been using CMOS sensors for a good while now!
made by Sony, and putting Sony LCD's in the back of their cameras too
Can't go wrong either way.
I think Canon is better because it's faster, brighter, neater, more cooler.
There is really only one good way to determine which brand to use.
If your last name falls between A-M you must use Canons. If it's between N-Z you have to shoot Nikons.
whoops...guess I fucked that up
well, that works out for me.
No, it would have been exactly the same. People overestimating the teeny, tiny differences in image quality and blowing them out of proportion, followed by the voices of reason trying, unsuccessfully, to explain that the real difference is in ergonomics and that the image quality is roughly identical. Then of course it'll end with some people trolling about how one > the other, and someone taking the bait and angrily trying to defend their purchase.
This hasn't changed one bit.
Yes it has, Nikon's noise used to be bonkers outta control, Canon's was very noticeably better with the CMOS. This all changed with D300/D3 release
This is comming from a Canon shooter, it seems like Nikon keeps innovating and comming out with new tech while Canon is only doing enough to just keep up.
No it wasn't. No matter how much you'll decide to claim otherwise, no one in this forum or anywhere else could tell an iso 1600 shot from a d80 apart from an iso 1600 shot from a 30d unless they had both of them side by side and at 400%. The difference has been exaggerated on web forums and by computer geeks and consumers who spend more time dissecting reviews and not enough time shooting.
At any given point in digital photography, the high iso noise between competitors has been almost identical in real life scenerios. There has NEVER been a competitive edge that has been large enough that you would NOT be able to capture a usable shot with one companies body that you would have with the other, of course staying within the same tier of cameras. We're not comparing the d40 vs 5d2 here.
And for what it's worth, the noise control of the d300 is ONE STOP better than the d200. It's really not that big of a difference. Not nearly as large or dramatic as people want to believe. The real upgrades in the d300 are the AF, more FPS, EXSPEED, etc...
yes and no. 5d2 and 1d3 offered some new shit, consumer shit has been stationary.
you also have to take into account nikon isn't making the sensors
how it worked out for me
Phew! Dodged a bullet there. thought i was gonna have to sell my $2500 setup and make the switch. Nikon's controls/menus confuse the fuck out of me too
The only real true jump in ISO performance is in canon's 5d2. but it's still somewhat mediocre (or at least still at Par for the course) in it's other capabilities. It's HD video capabilities are severely limited by focusing, and ISO control, DoF control... rendering it ultimately as useful as a gimick. With the exception of ISO performance, even the 5d2 is still Par for the course against the rest of the Prosumer market. Once again it comes down to individual preference, which will wile away in ergonomics, and familiarity.
not really a gimmick, just not what you're use to. And a whole hell of a lot better than nikons