Reading mode: Light Dark

Going from Nikon To Canon

Go to last post
But I like the tonality, seemingly more detail (though the 5D shot could be out of focus or due to camera or lens shake) and film look of the D200 better.

I now understand what others are saying about washed out look of Canon's exposure curve characteristics does. Just look at Phil's tone curve at " http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp ". That bright end of the curve should be at the same slope the center as much as possible.

Just for the tone, perhaps if 5D was shot at ISO 50 or using neutral and contrast -4, it would be similar to D200.

Also, since Canon in general does not reflect ISO equivalent (seen here at " http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp "), would underexposing a bit would do it?
 
25,000 photos with my 5D and I never experienced banding OR excessive (e.g. out of the ordinary) dust. It's a great camera, but like any gear purchase don't do it if you can't afford it.

It would be shame to send it back, though, without taking a couple of photos to see exactly what 5D photographers have been bragging about.

Johnny

http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/
 
photomik said:
But I like the tonality,
Click to expand...
I don't see a whole lot of difference in tonality in the upper two images. Mind you, the upper 2 were created using ACR on both the Nikon and Canon RAW files, to achieve maximum comparability.

The lower two images were used with the manuf. software, so DPP for the 5D and NC for the D200. All detail settings (sharpening, contrast) sliders set to zero !! You see that NC boosts tone and sharpening, even though I didn't select that! I don't know what to conclude from that, but it would seem Nikon agressively handles their NEFs and of course if you sharpen, you see more detail.

For this discussion, let's just stick to the upper images.
photomik said:
seemingly more detail (though the 5D shot
could be out of focus or due to camera or lens shake) and film look
of the D200 better.
Click to expand...
These are 100% crops shot at 400 ISO. On my computer monitor, the 5D has the edge in detail. Just look at the door handle or the seat belt holder in the back. I'm not opinionated here, I'm really trying to see what you mean. Could you point out your findings?
photomik said:
I now understand what others are saying about washed out look of
Canon's exposure curve characteristics does. Just look at Phil's
tone curve at
" http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp ". That
bright end of the curve should be at the same slope the center as
much as possible.
Click to expand...
I will seriously check the curves later, just have no time right now.
photomik said:
Just for the tone, perhaps if 5D was shot at ISO 50 or using
neutral and contrast -4, it would be similar to D200.
Click to expand...
I'll get into that.

--
Selwin

Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2. Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007. Not interested in Dxxx because of noise and other IQ issues.
 
Selwin said:
photomik said:
But I like the tonality,
Click to expand...
I don't see a whole lot of difference in tonality in the upper
two images. Mind you, the upper 2 were created using ACR on both
the Nikon and Canon RAW files, to achieve maximum comparability.
Click to expand...
You can't see how washed out the white side of the car comparing the two?
Selwin said:
The lower two images were used with the manuf. software, so DPP
for the 5D and NC for the D200. All detail settings (sharpening,
contrast) sliders set to zero !! You see that NC boosts tone and
sharpening, even though I didn't select that! I don't know what to
conclude from that, but it would seem Nikon agressively handles
their NEFs and of course if you sharpen, you see more detail.
Click to expand...
I assume the bottom right image is D200's and the bottom left is of 5D...just directly above each previous respectived images, right.

If you got them switched...well somebody needs some teaching. ;-) I'm sure you're trying to show D200's banding on the bottom right, so that's another proof, it's of D200. Like I said I like the tone gradiation and film like grainy look of the D200 (banding issue aside). Nikon agressively handles?? or others don't do it right. I don't think so, they know their products better than anyone else. All the settings off my NEFs are transfered exactly over to NC. I've been using NC exclusively, no more CS2 or any other unless I need to PP (no I don't need to go).
Selwin said:
For this discussion, let's just stick to the upper images.
Selwin said:
seemingly more detail (though the 5D shot
could be out of focus or due to camera or lens shake) and film look
of the D200 better.
Click to expand...
These are 100% crops shot at 400 ISO. On my computer monitor, the
5D has the edge in detail. Just look at the door handle or the seat
belt holder in the back. I'm not opinionated here, I'm really
trying to see what you mean. Could you point out your findings?
Click to expand...
Same as above...bottom right is D200 and bottom left is 5D, if not - I don't want to call you names ;-)
Selwin said:
Selwin said:
I now understand what others are saying about washed out look of
Canon's exposure curve characteristics does. Just look at Phil's
tone curve at
" http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp ". That
bright end of the curve should be at the same slope the center as
much as possible.
Click to expand...
I will seriously check the curves later, just have no time right now.
Selwin said:
Just for the tone, perhaps if 5D was shot at ISO 50 or using
neutral and contrast -4, it would be similar to D200.
Click to expand...
I'll get into that.

--
Selwin
Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2.
Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007. Not interested in Dxxx
because of noise and other IQ issues.
Click to expand...
Do you really have to broadcast this message above? Are you trying to justify something? I don't believe real people care...or should I say real photographers care.
 
Bill, I've been using Nikon since the D100 first came out. I have a D200 that I have used extensively. I need better high ISO performance, and just acquired a 5D. I think the D200 ergonomics are better, as far as control layout and handling, but, the picture quality of the 5D is definitely worth the effort and expense of making the switch. As far as the ergonomics go, I am sure I will get used to, and see the logic of, the 5D's layout over time. After many years with Nikon, Canon takes getting used to. However the end result is what counts, and there is an immediate reward there from the 5D. See my thread "Hello" here on this forum. No dust, no regrets.
--
Mike Tichon
 
photomik said:
You can't see how washed out the white side of the car comparing
the two?
Click to expand...
Yes I agree there is a bit of a difference. The D200 shot was slightly darker exposed, probably thanks to the excellent 3D matrix metering that is still better than Canon's. It can be fixed in PP though.
photomik said:
I assume the bottom right image is D200's and the bottom left is of
5D...just directly above each previous respectived images, right.
If you got them switched...well somebody needs some teaching. ;-)
Click to expand...
why this comment? I know my stuff. Of course I didn't get them switched.
photomik said:
I'm sure you're trying to show D200's banding on the bottom right,
so that's another proof, it's of D200. Like I said I like the
tone gradiation and film like grainy look of the D200
Click to expand...
You mean you like the noise. That's a very personal thing. I absolutely dislike noise.
photomik said:
Nikon agressively handles?? or others don't do it
right. I don't think so, they know their products better than
anyone else. All the settings off my NEFs are transfered exactly
over to NC. I've been using NC exclusively, no more CS2 or any
other unless I need to PP (no I don't need to go).
Click to expand...
Ah so you're a Nikon shooter? Let me try to explain one more time. The upper 2 images (5D left, D200 right) are JPEGs made from RAW/NEF images using ACR for conversion. They show approximately the same exposure, sharpness and colour. This shows that both cameras are capable of achieving similar sharpness and detail , be it that the 5D images contain less noise. I still think the 5D is a tad sharper than de D200 image, but noone would ever see that in a full screen image (remember these are 100% crops).

The lower two images (again 5D left, D200 right) are JPEGs from the same RAW/NEF files, but now they have been converted by DPP (left) and NC (right) with all sliders (incl sharpening) set to zero. Now suddenly the D200 image is a lot sharper. This is because it's been sharpened by NC. there is no other way because the ACR converted D200 image has less sharpness. This is what I called "more agressive". I call it that because the software sharpens even though the user chose not to sharpen.

As for the rest, these are personal PP preference issues.
photomik said:
Same as above...bottom right is D200 and bottom left is 5D
Click to expand...
That is correct.
photomik said:
, if not
  • I don't want to call you names ;-)
Click to expand...
I see no need for that.

--
Selwin

Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2. Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007. Not interested in Dxxx because of noise and other IQ issues.
 
If you have had already the Nikon system, you might consider the Fuji S5.

I saw approx. 1x2 m print which is shot by Fuji S5. And the result (detail, skin tone, sharpness ) is amazing.
Highly recommended !
 
Selwin said:
photomik said:
You can't see how washed out the white side of the car comparing
the two?
Click to expand...
Yes I agree there is a bit of a difference. The D200 shot was
slightly darker exposed, probably thanks to the excellent 3D matrix
metering that is still better than Canon's. It can be fixed in PP
though.
Click to expand...
You need to look at the links I've shown which probably explains why Canon's sensor responds a certain way.

Fixing a lot pictures is an issue for me. I've processed so many, I'm tired of it. I want the most accurate metering with 5D's high ISO performance, FF DOF effect and Canon's nice lens selection...that's why I'm here. Aside from those, other advantages are with other makers. I've played with a 5D but unfortunately, I didn't discovered the exposure and curve response during that time, so no test adjustments I could try. I'll do this next time.
Selwin said:
Selwin said:
I assume the bottom right image is D200's and the bottom left is of
5D...just directly above each previous respectived images, right.
If you got them switched...well somebody needs some teaching. ;-)
Click to expand...
why this comment? I know my stuff. Of course I didn't get them
switched.
Selwin said:
I'm sure you're trying to show D200's banding on the bottom right,
so that's another proof, it's of D200. Like I said I like the
tone gradiation and film like grainy look of the D200
Click to expand...
You mean you like the noise. That's a very personal thing. I
absolutely dislike noise.
Click to expand...
I like film-like noise but not so much though and Nikon is just right except very high ISO 1600 above. Exposed correctly not so much an issue. I know it's preference, but it's art for me not just snapshots. But even so with NC, it does a great job removing digital noise and seemingly converting that to film type noise.
Selwin said:
Selwin said:
Nikon agressively handles?? or others don't do it
right. I don't think so, they know their products better than
anyone else. All the settings off my NEFs are transfered exactly
over to NC. I've been using NC exclusively, no more CS2 or any
other unless I need to PP (no I don't need to go).
Click to expand...
Ah so you're a Nikon shooter? Let me try to explain one more time.
The upper 2 images (5D left, D200 right) are JPEGs made from
RAW/NEF images using ACR for conversion. They show approximately
the same exposure, sharpness and colour. This shows that both
cameras are capable of achieving similar sharpness and detail , be
it that the 5D images contain less noise. I still think the 5D is a
tad sharper than de D200 image, but noone would ever see that in a
full screen image (remember these are 100% crops).
Click to expand...
NEF file parameters are carried over to NC. Whether Nikon prevents others from reading them correctly is another thing. Nikon knows their stuff and will show what they want to project. NC is right others are wrong, period.
Selwin said:
The lower two images (again 5D left, D200 right) are JPEGs from the
same RAW/NEF files, but now they have been converted by DPP (left)
and NC (right) with all sliders (incl sharpening) set to zero.
Now suddenly the D200 image is a lot sharper. This is because it's
been sharpened by NC. there is no other way because the ACR
converted D200 image has less sharpness. This is what I called
"more agressive". I call it that because the software sharpens even
though the user chose not to sharpen.
Click to expand...
Same response as above. Plus you need to know how NC works too.
Selwin said:
As for the rest, these are personal PP preference issues.
Selwin said:
Same as above...bottom right is D200 and bottom left is 5D
Click to expand...
That is correct.
Selwin said:
, if not
  • I don't want to call you names ;-)
Click to expand...
I see no need for that.
Click to expand...
Because you confused me. Of the two bottom pics, the D200 overall look was sharper and slightly more detail than the 5D. But you said otherwise. What door handle detail??? I don't pixel peep. ;-) 100% crop is good enough, except for technical work.
Selwin said:
--
Selwin
Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2.
Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007. Not interested in Dxxx
because of noise and other IQ issues.
Click to expand...
You still have this silly message? Hehehe.
 
is when I have dramatically underexposed the image to near dark.....as for dust this issue is completely overblown & affects all DSLR's to a greater or lesser extent. The amount of hairs & dust I see on film scans & regular developed film pictures is breathtaking.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses, various MF.



http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/art
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/weddings1
 
Both Canon and Nikon can produce great images. i have a number of Canon DSLR cameras and one nikon D200 that I recently purchased. I don't shoot much above 400 so noise isn't a problem. as has been said all cameras get dust in them so that's not a big problem. It's a shame that Canon didn't put the 5d chip in a camera more unlike my 20D and quieten the shutter/mirror clack down a touch because to be honest that's the reason I got myself a D200. My ideal camera would I suppose be a 5d chip in the superb ergonomic D200 body. The lens choice from Nikon isn't as wide as Canon for sure but Nikon better lenses are good for sure and I must say that metering ,WB, AF has to go to Nikon. If Canon put the 5D chip in an Eos 3 type body then Nikon really would have to pull one out of the bag to keep up but as it is IMHO other than my 1Dsmk2 and the acclaimed 1Dmk11/111 Canon need to work on the ergonomics and feel of the bodies when you consider that a 5d is near to twice the price of a D200.

Remember, I'm not knocking Canon, because I own lots of Canon Gear but I must be true to myself and state the pros and cons. I never thought for a minute I would own another Nikon till I picked one up and felt it.

The choice is yours I'm afraid.
--
I feel so much better now that I've given up Hope
 
photomik said:
You need to look at the links I've shown which probably explains
why Canon's sensor responds a certain way.
Click to expand...
Ok I will.
photomik said:
Fixing a lot pictures is an issue for me. I've processed so many,
I'm tired of it. I want the most accurate metering with 5D's high
ISO performance, FF DOF effect and Canon's nice lens
selection...that's why I'm here. Aside from those, other
advantages are with other makers. I've played with a 5D but
unfortunately, I didn't discovered the exposure and curve response
during that time, so no test adjustments I could try. I'll do
this next time.
Click to expand...
So have you purchased any Canon yet? Or are you contemplating getting one and not quite figured out which one it will be?
photomik said:
I like film-like noise but not so much though and Nikon is just
right except very high ISO 1600 above. Exposed correctly not so
much an issue. I know it's preference, but it's art for me not
just snapshots. But even so with NC, it does a great job removing
digital noise and seemingly converting that to film type noise.
Click to expand...
So it is the noise issue that brings you to Canon?
photomik said:
NEF file parameters are carried over to NC. Whether Nikon prevents
others from reading them correctly is another thing. Nikon knows
their stuff and will show what they want to project. NC is right
others are wrong, period.
Click to expand...
OK have it your way. I don't really care either because I don't own a Nikon dSLR. I just wanted to share my experiences when I did a comparison test at a local reseller.
photomik said:
Because you confused me. Of the two bottom pics, the D200 overall
look was sharper and slightly more detail than the 5D. But you
said otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I confused you, I see that that's true. But if you read my post securely, I did not say otherwise. I stated over and over again that one should look at the top images for a good comparison. You, on the other hand, are comparing the bottom images, where Nikon has the edge in detail because NC sharpened them even though I set it not to do so. This is really all I'm going to say about this.
photomik said:
What door handle detail??? I don't pixel peep.
Click to expand...
Apparently you do, because you make comments about slightly more Nikon detail in 100% crops. No one ever looks at images at 100% crop except for testing, so all this is a non issue.
photomik said:
photomik said:
Selwin
Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2.
Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007. Not interested in Dxxx
because of noise and other IQ issues.
Click to expand...
You still have this silly message? Hehehe.
Click to expand...
I agree it's silly. Unfortunately, it was necessary because some people in my other posts keep thinking that I'm only in this forum because I want to spread the word that Nikon rules and is better than Canon. Well, firstly I'm not a guy who wastes his time on useless issues. Secondly, I'm here because I was disappointed in Nikon sensor technology (colour noise and even noise in shadows). So although i have a bunch of top quality Nikkors and an F6, I still plan on switching to Canon for digital. I'm here to learn from the pros and advanced amateurs and also to share my findings.

Because the sig is kinda silly I will change it back as soon as it has served its purpose.

--
Selwin

Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2. Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007. Not interested in Dxxx because of noise and other IQ issues.
 
Dave Chilvers said:
Both Canon and Nikon can produce great images. i have a number of
Canon DSLR cameras and one nikon D200 that I recently purchased. I
don't shoot much above 400 so noise isn't a problem. as has been
said all cameras get dust in them so that's not a big problem. It's
a shame that Canon didn't put the 5d chip in a camera more unlike
my 20D and quieten the shutter/mirror clack down a touch because to
be honest that's the reason I got myself a D200.
Click to expand...
Really? Well that's good to know, haven't heard that one so far. I really like silent shooting, in churches for instance. That's one of the aspects I like about the 1D3: live view. You can lockup the mirror once and then keep on shooting (you'll only hear the click and cocking of the shutter) until you're finished.
Old Timer63 said:
The
lens choice from Nikon isn't as wide as Canon for sure but Nikon
better lenses are good for sure
Click to expand...
If Nikon were to design a APS-H or FF sensor camera, Nikon would have excellent lens choices. What to think of the great 17-35/2.8? The 20/2.8 is very good as well. A 70-200VR and a 28-70/2.8? Not to mention their superb 300/2.8 AF-S VR.
Old Timer63 said:
and I must say that metering ,WB,
AF has to go to Nikon.
Click to expand...
Yes that's one of the things that I dislike when switching to Canon. Maybe the 1D3 will bring improvement to metering, we'll have to see. It certainly has a highlight safety mode.
Old Timer63 said:
If Canon put the 5D chip in an Eos 3 type
body then Nikon really would have to pull one out of the bag to
keep up but as it is IMHO other than my 1Dsmk2 and the acclaimed
1Dmk11/111 Canon need to work on the ergonomics and feel of the
bodies
Click to expand...
I would get a Canon body even if it handles like a banana if I can get the image quality it offers. I don't think there are many well observing users that are drawn to Nikon just for handling, and then getting high noise in their images.
Old Timer63 said:
when you consider that a 5d is near to twice the price of a
D200.
Click to expand...
In the netherlands it's actually 1,5 times the price of a D200. But really that is a non issue, because if you step from one brand to the other, the cost of the camera pales compared to the cost of the bunch of new lenses you need to buy.
Old Timer63 said:
Remember, I'm not knocking Canon, because I own lots of Canon Gear
but I must be true to myself and state the pros and cons. I never
thought for a minute I would own another Nikon till I picked one up
and felt it.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I really like the D200 handling. It's so much similar to my F6, including the controls. Yet I feel I would be doing the wrong thing getting one, because I want to shoot at high ISO a lot and I know I will be frustrated with it. That's why I'm going for Canon.

--
Selwin

Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2. Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007.
 
Selwin

Most of your comments I agree with. There was a time when I would hang upside down from a tree to get the image and use a banana type camera:-) but I'm over 60 now and have got my priority right and want comfort and enjoyment and will forgo a touch of noiseless images to come back with a smile on my face. Unlike most people that swap makes I haven't sold anything from my Canon collection so can chose when I need the ultimate noise control.

BTW I use my 1dsmk2 in silent mode( the mirror lifts and the picture is taken and the mirror stays up till you let go the release.) It's not silent but better and it feels kinda nice.

I must admit that I used to buy cars for performance alone but now i need ergonimics.

I really shouldn't have brought the 5D because to be quite honest my 1dsmk2 is so much nicer to use and(with my cameras) I can extract more detail from the 1 series. I use the mk2 mainly in my studio and I must admit it will take something very special to topple it(although I haven't tried the D200 in the studio under controlled lighting conditions)

enjoy the mk111 when it arrives it looks like being one hell of a camera.
--
I feel so much better now that I've given up Hope
 
Thousands of happy 5D users vs a bunch of collector-type amateurs that freak out about dust spots in their pixel-peep test images.

Dont worry if youre a real photographer.
 
even though I gave you a hard time ;-) I like to equalize zealots like T3 and some others. Apparently you're not that kind of person -a die hard for his brand. You're cool.

I'm still looking for the next DSLR. Like others are wishing for - a Nikon D200 body with 5D sensor. But to mount Canon lenses, Nikon need to enlarge their light box mount opening. I been hearing this rumor for a long time now, probably won't happen.

Oh yeah, I prefer Nikon's system flash better. No manual settings for me during shooting. Other than that the new wave of techno stuff like in camera IS is a nice feature. But then, I've lived without it...it's a maybe. Canon's already addressed the dust, so perhaps the next gen flash...and 5DII will make me jump over. ;-)

Have a good day.
 
Hi Dave,

Thank you for your comments. It's very nice to meet people in this forum that know their stuff and priorities, that know how to enjoy their equipment and get the most out of it to fit their personal needs and likes.

You're that kind of person. Keep enjoying and maybe we'll meet again on this forum.

--
Selwin

Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2. Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007.
 
photomik said:
I'm still looking for the next DSLR. Like others are wishing for -
a Nikon D200 body with 5D sensor.
Click to expand...
That would be very nice.
photomik said:
But to mount Canon lenses, Nikon
need to enlarge their light box mount opening. I been hearing this
rumor for a long time now, probably won't happen.
Click to expand...
I don't get it. Why would you want to mount Canon lenses on a D200 w/ 5D sensor if there are so many excellent nikkors around?
photomik said:
Oh yeah, I prefer Nikon's system flash better. No manual settings
for me during shooting.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think there are several Nikon qualities that I will miss when stepping over to Canon:
  • excellent 3D matrix II
  • flash exposure balance
  • ergonomics of body and controls
  • good lens quality in wide angle range
  • good LCD screen readability in bright light (D200 e.a.)
Still it's IQ that's most important to me. I talked to a very good friend of mine yesterday. He's a photographer too, like me he too has a bunch of Nikon lenses and he got himself a D200. When I said I decided not to get a D200 because I like to shoot high ISO with low noise he said he rarely shoots at high ISO himself. Quite frankly if I would not need high ISO, I would not even consider going to Canon and I would get a D200 rightaway. In my test the only real IQ difference is the noise in high ISO range. Sharpness of the D200 is just as good for my purposes anyway.
photomik said:
Other than that the new wave of techno
stuff like in camera IS is a nice feature. But then, I've lived
without it...it's a maybe. Canon's already addressed the dust, so
perhaps the next gen flash...and 5DII will make me jump over. ;-)
Click to expand...
You know the one thing that gets to me sometimes is that technology advancements in the digital camera range is going so fast, that you feel you're using outdated equipment within a year. In the film era it was different. People that got themselves a nikon F5 in 1996 will still have the feeling they have a current technology camera (the F6 I have added just a few extras). That's 10 years ago.

If I get myself a 1D3 this year, based on the specs I reckon it will be able to fulfill my needs for at least 10 years. However, the "out-of-date-hammer" will hit it probably 4 to 6 times during that period. Well, as long as it takes great images, I guess it's not a big problem.

I wish you all the best choosing your next equipment.

--
Selwin

Currently still enjoying film SLR, film scanner and Photoshop CS2. Switching from F6 to 1D3 (or 5Dii) in 2007.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top