CANON vs NIKON debate with the 20D, Mark2, 1Ds

When publishers contact me regarding news or sporting event coverage, one of the initial questions to me other than availablity is: are we digital, and how soon can the images be uploaded !!!

tkd_maniac said:

In the meantime, street PJs are using film with their trusty Leica
Ms and National Geographic Pros are out there with their trusty
Nikon F series film cameras doing what matters most, getting the
picture that matters.

Henry Cartier Besson (who just passed away, hope I did his name
justice by spelling it right) never fussed about his equipment and
took great pictures. He only used a Leica M with 50mm lens. He used
one type of film, never used flash and never cropped his photos.

Click to expand...

--

James L Wilson, Digital Imaging Systems enterprise, http://www.BocaRatonDigital.com , Raton, Florida, Director and Principal Officer

Kodak stopped making imagers with DCS-700 series cameras, from the 14n forward the imagers are from third parties, similar to Nikon's fate.

Sony is a world leader, however it decided years ago to not jump into the DSLR still image market. They arfe so "propriatory happy" they would not likely consider a J/V with others making major visable components. With the F828 Sony introduced this camera that would use both the CF card and their stupid stick, a big move for Sony.

jlw

john kemps said:

Kodak makes also very good censors.

Who knows, what will happen in the next 20 years from now!

Regards

William Karoly said:

john kemps said:

Regretfully Nikon a distant 3rd
place.

Click to expand...

Pentax? Sigma? Kodak?
Just wondering...

Canon is clearly the leader today but who knows where they'll be 20
years from now. I would not count Nikon out.

Bill

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

James L Wilson, Digital Imaging Systems enterprise, http://www.BocaRatonDigital.com , Raton, Florida, Director and Principal Officer

That wasn't the point. =S Nevermind if you didn't get it.

James L Wilson said:

tkd_maniac said:

In the meantime, street PJs are using film with their trusty Leica
Ms and National Geographic Pros are out there with their trusty
Nikon F series film cameras doing what matters most, getting the
picture that matters.

Henry Cartier Besson (who just passed away, hope I did his name
justice by spelling it right) never fussed about his equipment and
took great pictures. He only used a Leica M with 50mm lens. He used
one type of film, never used flash and never cropped his photos.

Click to expand...

--
James L Wilson, Digital Imaging Systems enterprise,
http://www.BocaRatonDigital.com , Raton, Florida, Director and Principal
Officer

Click to expand...

James L Wilson said:

YOU are quite correct, and these Canon EOS Lenses date back to
1980, a 24 year series of uniform lens mount/focus architecture.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you constantly keep getting 1980 from. The first EOS camera, 650, was introduced in March 1987, along with lenses such as EF 50/1.8 Mk I and EF 35-70/3.5-4.5.

In any case, I indeed like the EF lens system better. And I like the look of the Canon bodies better I haven't handled larger Nikon bodies than the cheapest film models, but at least those didn't feel as nice as equivalent Canon bodies.

Even so, I just might've gone for D70 instead of the 20D if I hadn't already had 420EX, 24-85 and 85/1.8 for Canon. But who can tell for sure... what matters is that I should be getting my 20D as soon as Top-Foto gets some 20Ds and ships one to me, and I'm the third in line there

--
Teppo @ Finland
http://th.joroinen.fi

James you blow my mind, why are you obsessed with this canon better than nikon thing! For God's sake you sound like a kid(mine is better then yours mine is better than yours). Yes James you are right canon makes a
better product, but they are also a much bigger company with much more

capital resources than nikon. Having said that, what is even more amazing is that nikon is very close in terms of quality given it's size compared to canon!!! James in terms of glass, more specifically L glass I venture to bet that if I shot 20 slides, all things being equal, 10 with 300mm L glass and 300mm nikkor glass, not in a million years would you be able to tell the ten that were shot with the L glass! James your a sports photographer not an artist, and your rant is testiment to that. You sit at the end of a field shoot at 8 frames per second or whatever till you get the shot, what an artist!

James canon rules, there the best, no one can touch them, there the new gods. James its all about capturing a moment in time, thats all dude, nothing else matters. If you could ask all the great photographers of the past they would tell you the same thing.

it doesn't hurt to have the best tools...but just because one buys/possess the best tools...doesn't mean the results will be professional and anything near professional.

A great chef will most certainly cook up a fabulous feast even using mediocre equipment...and a mediocre cook will not produce better results with better equipment...it may just make it easier and quicker to make a mediocre meal!

Likewise for photographers and their equipment...

James McPeak said:

Typically, the best craftsmen choose to use the best tools if they
can. And the best chefs like to use the best knives, pots, and
pans, too. Sure, you can get by with the cheap, inferior stuff.
But picking the best tools for the job certainly doesn't hurt.

Click to expand...

The exception falls with james. Canon currently offer a better camera primarily targeted at sports photo journalism, the Mk II. What a beast of a camera it is, especially with its AF drive and the best sharpeneing alogarithms found in any digital camera. For james this is a better option than the current d2h. Nikon's response to canons threat with the d2h was half hearted and since then Nikon payed the price and continued to loose pro shooters.

As ive mentioned b4 in other threads, Nikon have no choice but to fight back big time or they risk loosing even more of the market share. Overall as you mentioned, seriously, someone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a canon and a nikon shot. Its canon's brand dominance and exception to the clause of "the photographer makes the shots not the equipment" because in his line of work 8fps and a top notch motor drive makes all the difference. Some say its just a press the shutter and let the camera do the work but theres is technique and skill involved which also requires great understanding of the particular sport. Thats the difference. Whilst i dont disagree with anything said im just adding my oppinion to this.

Nikon have no choice but to come up with something exceptional this september with new pro bodies and glass. They need to be unique not just following canon like a flock of sheep. They need to do their own R&D, come up with something different, something exciting, something that exceeds expectations and make people go wow to win back that support. Not just an equal match to the Mk II.

Canon do currently have a better range of cameras much more marketed at the pro lineup, especially sports and photo journalism. Then they have the amateur range. THey make the most money from their IXUS products and the 10d falls into the perfect multi-purpose camera with the 20d proving its 1 step up. Their R&D is phenominal and thats what gives them the edge because they have the capacity to exceed demand and come up with the goods, thats what Nikon needs.

As mentioned, the difference in size between the two companies is big and Canon have much more scope on electrical development to dedicate time and more money on digital. They know its the future and they are using this to their advantage. I think Nikon dont know where their support lies. They are obviously loosing pro sports shooters from their d2h and the d1x is nothing to go by for a standard pro body, they dont have a hi-res camera for portrait or commercial work either. That will change this september. Maybe its too late.

--
D70 Knowledge Base, curve downloads, my galleries
http://www.pbase.com/oldskoo1/the_curves
http://nikond70.tk

James,

I like the information you present here. It's very helpful to me as I am considering entering into digital photography.

One question though. The main reason I have waited has to do with resolution. I have shot and continue to shoot Kodachrome 64. I believe that a 35mm frame of K-64 contains approx. 60 million pixels (+ or -). If this is the case, how is it possible for an 8mp sensor to surpass the resolution of K-64? Even with the best sharpening algorythms, it would seem that digital SLR sensors would have to evolve much further in order to surpass the best of what film still has to offer.

I'm probably missing some obvious, important piece of information as I am knew to the digital realm.

Best wishes,

Brad

James L Wilson said:

So what's up with the 8MP imager, why 7, 8, or 9 ? The 8Pm is the
threshold where the digital imager has passed the resolving power
of the highest resolution 25-ASA 35mm film, according to KODAK
engineers. And 8MP will not be the end to the pixel evolution,
becase the news and print industry and their clients require the
need for full bleed 12x18" (thats a double page 9x12") at 300 dpi,
that converts to 3600x5400 pixels at 300dpi, which equates to 19.44
MP. Once the 19MP imager is achieved then, then medium format will
be all but eliminated, and the digital imager war will turn to:
high ISO low noise performance, and frame rates.

The images that I get from the Mark 2 and those I've seen and
printed at 12x18" from the 20D are terrific, sharp, clear, and
accurate. If the 20D performs as good one may expect, where 5 fps
is enough, and the Mark 2 will be left to only the very best
financed pros. I personally would rather have a modestly good
camera like the 10D or the 20D, but have the best "L" lenses, and
save my camera $$ for the sugsequent model replacing the 1Ds, where
high image resolution is a must, like fashion, science, forensic,
product, and medical photography; where frame rate and weather
proofing is not an issue.

Backdoctor said:

If they come out with a 8mp 5fps D200 with the metering that the
D70 has, and a bigger buffer and faster flash sync, I wouldnt mind
it at all. If they dont, I still have a blast with my D100.

CptnJustc said:

Backdoctor said:

dont see how I belittled people here. Asked why they are so
concerned about gear more than technique or other aspects of
photography. That sort of focus seems to mask a deep set insecurity
in my opinion.

Have you not been to the D100 forum and seen the posts by folks
from here such as hue, and James Wilson, and others? Talk about
insecurity.

Click to expand...

That's assuming these people are 'from here'. Most of them just
seem like trolls and/or newbies. That hue character has posted
something like two messages on Canon boards and 70-some on Nikon,
so I wouldn't say he's from here, exactly.

We are rather gear-obsessed here, that's true, but it's a
gear-based forum with a lot of new gear to chew on. So there you
go. I don't see an extraordinary amount of cross-brand comparison
here anymore; people rarely mention Nikon except to say they hope
the competition picks up. Perhaps it's the luxury of being on the
'winning team', but there's actually been a whole lot of
magnanimity going around. The situation could easily reverse in a
year or two and you could find some triumphalist Nikonians and
hypersensitive, nail-biting Canonites, but then, as now, I'm sure
they'll be only a few percentage of the total (and probably
represented mostly by trolls and newbies).

Click to expand...

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

Click to expand...

--
James L Wilson, Digital Imaging Systems enterprise, Boca Raton,
Florida, Director and Principal Officer

Click to expand...

Not even close. The highest limit I come up with would be with Kodachrome 25, scanned at 5,000 dpi. It would be about 35 mp. But in the real world, there is more to it than that. 6mp dSLR's surpassed 35mm film above 64 ISO in image clarity. One of the primary reasons is noise. dSLR's have very little, film has a lot. A 6mp image from a dSLR will go to 20 x 30 with execellent quality, approximately the same as 35mm at 11 x 14. I've compared them, and there's no contest.

The 8mp cameras will do even better. Frankly, most people who've actually used the equipment compare dSLR's (6mp and up) to medium format, not 35mm. 35mm is obsolete for the pro in all but a few circumstances.

diehard-chrome-fan said:

I like the information you present here. It's very helpful to me
as I am considering entering into digital photography.

One question though. The main reason I have waited has to do with
resolution. I have shot and continue to shoot Kodachrome 64. I
believe that a 35mm frame of K-64 contains approx. 60 million
pixels (+ or -). If this is the case, how is it possible for an
8mp sensor to surpass the resolution of K-64? Even with the best
sharpening algorythms, it would seem that digital SLR sensors would
have to evolve much further in order to surpass the best of what
film still has to offer.

I'm probably missing some obvious, important piece of information
as I am knew to the digital realm.

Best wishes,

Brad

James L Wilson said:

So what's up with the 8MP imager, why 7, 8, or 9 ? The 8Pm is the
threshold where the digital imager has passed the resolving power
of the highest resolution 25-ASA 35mm film, according to KODAK
engineers. And 8MP will not be the end to the pixel evolution,
becase the news and print industry and their clients require the
need for full bleed 12x18" (thats a double page 9x12") at 300 dpi,
that converts to 3600x5400 pixels at 300dpi, which equates to 19.44
MP. Once the 19MP imager is achieved then, then medium format will
be all but eliminated, and the digital imager war will turn to:
high ISO low noise performance, and frame rates.

The images that I get from the Mark 2 and those I've seen and
printed at 12x18" from the 20D are terrific, sharp, clear, and
accurate. If the 20D performs as good one may expect, where 5 fps
is enough, and the Mark 2 will be left to only the very best
financed pros. I personally would rather have a modestly good
camera like the 10D or the 20D, but have the best "L" lenses, and
save my camera $$ for the sugsequent model replacing the 1Ds, where
high image resolution is a must, like fashion, science, forensic,
product, and medical photography; where frame rate and weather
proofing is not an issue.

Backdoctor said:

If they come out with a 8mp 5fps D200 with the metering that the
D70 has, and a bigger buffer and faster flash sync, I wouldnt mind
it at all. If they dont, I still have a blast with my D100.

CptnJustc said:

Backdoctor said:

dont see how I belittled people here. Asked why they are so
concerned about gear more than technique or other aspects of
photography. That sort of focus seems to mask a deep set insecurity
in my opinion.

Have you not been to the D100 forum and seen the posts by folks
from here such as hue, and James Wilson, and others? Talk about
insecurity.

Click to expand...

That's assuming these people are 'from here'. Most of them just
seem like trolls and/or newbies. That hue character has posted
something like two messages on Canon boards and 70-some on Nikon,
so I wouldn't say he's from here, exactly.

We are rather gear-obsessed here, that's true, but it's a
gear-based forum with a lot of new gear to chew on. So there you
go. I don't see an extraordinary amount of cross-brand comparison
here anymore; people rarely mention Nikon except to say they hope
the competition picks up. Perhaps it's the luxury of being on the
'winning team', but there's actually been a whole lot of
magnanimity going around. The situation could easily reverse in a
year or two and you could find some triumphalist Nikonians and
hypersensitive, nail-biting Canonites, but then, as now, I'm sure
they'll be only a few percentage of the total (and probably
represented mostly by trolls and newbies).

Click to expand...

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

Click to expand...

--
James L Wilson, Digital Imaging Systems enterprise, Boca Raton,
Florida, Director and Principal Officer

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

I've been told by two pro photo sources that Kodachrome 64 (and 25 obviously as well) do contain that many pixels. It's likely that scanning, in essense duplicating, does decrease resolution substantially. However, I wonder how enlargements made from 4x5 internegatvies of K slides compare to state of the art DSLR technology.
Any thoughts or experiences?

I've got to look at some large digital prints. Do they hold up in the low contrast areas, ie. sky at 20x30?

Brad

stephenmelvin said:

Not even close. The highest limit I come up with would be with
Kodachrome 25, scanned at 5,000 dpi. It would be about 35 mp. But
in the real world, there is more to it than that. 6mp dSLR's
surpassed 35mm film above 64 ISO in image clarity. One of the
primary reasons is noise. dSLR's have very little, film has a lot.
A 6mp image from a dSLR will go to 20 x 30 with execellent quality,
approximately the same as 35mm at 11 x 14. I've compared them, and
there's no contest.

The 8mp cameras will do even better. Frankly, most people who've
actually used the equipment compare dSLR's (6mp and up) to medium
format, not 35mm. 35mm is obsolete for the pro in all but a few
circumstances.

Click to expand...