new Canon vs Nikon D80

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

Most comments seem to revolve around the fact that there's a supposedly dramatic difference between any lens shot at f/1.8 and any other lens at f/8.

I know of course there's a difference between shooting a lens nearly wide open and closed down a few stops. Here you see my 50mm f/1.4 shot at f/2 (2/3 stops closed, like the Canon shot) and at f/8 while mounted on the D80. There's certainly a difference, but not a difference one would expect similar to when the amount of megapixels is doubled. Therefore IMO the f/1.8 argument doesn't hold too much water.

My comment about 'optimized for larger apertures' comes from the fact that when you compare the Nikon 50mm t/1.4 vs f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 vs f/1.8 you see that the f/1.4 lenses perform better when using the larger (more open) apertures while the f/1.8 lenses win when stopped down a few stops.

Then we have the Porsche vs Ford comment. If you know the popular BBC television show 'Top Gear' you'd know that they often do unexpected comparisons. To say that a comparison is invalid just because two items are 'in a different league' is closing your eyes for reality. If you race the two cars against each other and the Ford is running circles around the Porsche, surely something is wrong. You can of course just look at the amount of horsepower and say 'you can't compare them', but the smarter approach is to look why the Porsche performs that bad.

IMO, the only poster with a sensible reply is the one showing 5D examples. These look good and show good quality. I'd expect the shots from the new Canon to look even better than that for it has way more megapixels. Assuming the new camera does perform a lot better than the 5D it seems a very strange move from Canon to post this non-stellar studio portrait in order to show off the camera.

I was just curious how much better the new Canon was compared to my own gear and was surprised at the small difference. Although I can understand that people go into 'defense mode' regarding this topic I'd like to mention some people need to get a grip on themselves, for we're only talking about tools here.

--
Philip

Steven Noyes · Aug 21, 2007

and the impact of aperture. Shoot the D80 shoot at f1.0 and check back.

Steven

Flashlight said:
Hi guys,
you'll probably say I'm trolling, but I don't mind that much
considering the amount of Canon trolls in the Nikon forum whose
*$%!$@ I always have to read . FYI I've been shooting with Sinar,

Part of that is all the $%#%^ Nikon trolls that live over here.

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=24457692

Steven Noyes said:
Steven

Flashlight said:

Hi guys,
you'll probably say I'm trolling, but I don't mind that much
considering the amount of Canon trolls in the Nikon forum whose
*$%!$@ I always have to read . FYI I've been shooting with Sinar,

Click to expand...

Part of that is all the $%#%^ Nikon trolls that live over here.

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

--
Philip

booggerg · Aug 21, 2007

Flashlight, you just don't stop do you? This is hands down the MOST pointless thread I've seen in years. You should be embarrassed, because I actually think you're being serious with your post.

booggerg · Aug 21, 2007

DUDE, you don't know how far away the canon camera was to the model. How on earth can you compare the size of the eye between your son and the model?

Shoot both models from the same distance away at the same equivalent FOV and you'll see that the 21MP image kicks the D80 out of the water even when it's shot at f/1.8 vs your paltry f/8 Nikon lens...

Flashlight said:
My D80 photo (excuses for the strange smile, but it matched the size
of the Canon eye the best). It's a jpeg derived from a Raw nef file
using Capture NX v 1.2:
http://www.pbase.com/flashlight/image/84241358

AhSeng said:

Post Originals with Exif. No one knows how it is set up. Where is
your focus point? The Canon shot seems unfocussed.

Click to expand...

--
Philip

booggerg · Aug 21, 2007

NO, the argument is that you don't the distance between the model and camera in the Canon shot. You can't compare the size of the eye to your shot..

If i crop a wide angle shot of a crowd and find an eye in that crop, the eye will be tiny! Because it was a wide angle shot and I'm far away from that eye.

The 1DsMK3 was probably much further away from the model than you were from your son. Thus, the eye on the 21MP image was only marginally larger than the eye from your shot. Do you see now how stupid your argument was?

Flashlight said:
Most comments seem to revolve around the fact that there's a
supposedly dramatic difference between any lens shot at f/1.8 and any
other lens at f/8.

I know of course there's a difference between shooting a lens nearly
wide open and closed down a few stops. Here you see my 50mm f/1.4
shot at f/2 (2/3 stops closed, like the Canon shot) and at f/8 while
mounted on the D80. There's certainly a difference, but not a
difference one would expect similar to when the amount of megapixels
is doubled. Therefore IMO the f/1.8 argument doesn't hold too much
water.

My comment about 'optimized for larger apertures' comes from the fact
that when you compare the Nikon 50mm t/1.4 vs f/1.8 and the 85mm
f/1.4 vs f/1.8 you see that the f/1.4 lenses perform better when
using the larger (more open) apertures while the f/1.8 lenses win
when stopped down a few stops.

Then we have the Porsche vs Ford comment. If you know the popular BBC
television show 'Top Gear' you'd know that they often do unexpected
comparisons. To say that a comparison is invalid just because two
items are 'in a different league' is closing your eyes for reality.
If you race the two cars against each other and the Ford is running
circles around the Porsche, surely something is wrong. You can of
course just look at the amount of horsepower and say 'you can't
compare them', but the smarter approach is to look why the Porsche
performs that bad.

IMO, the only poster with a sensible reply is the one showing 5D
examples. These look good and show good quality. I'd expect the shots
from the new Canon to look even better than that for it has way more
megapixels. Assuming the new camera does perform a lot better than
the 5D it seems a very strange move from Canon to post this
non-stellar studio portrait in order to show off the camera.

I was just curious how much better the new Canon was compared to my
own gear and was surprised at the small difference. Although I can
understand that people go into 'defense mode' regarding this topic
I'd like to mention some people need to get a grip on themselves, for
we're only talking about tools here.

--
Philip

booggerg · Aug 21, 2007

The canon shot shows the full body of the model, while your son's photo is only waist up. This should tell you that the distance between the camera and model is different.

Heck, I can take my cellphone up to your son's eye and take a picture from 5mm away, which will result in a HUGE eye. Should I then say that 21MP is not much of an upgrade over my 2MP cell phone sensor?

booggerg said:
If i crop a wide angle shot of a crowd and find an eye in that crop,
the eye will be tiny! Because it was a wide angle shot and I'm far
away from that eye.

The 1DsMK3 was probably much further away from the model than you
were from your son. Thus, the eye on the 21MP image was only
marginally larger than the eye from your shot. Do you see now how
stupid your argument was?

Flashlight said:

Most comments seem to revolve around the fact that there's a
supposedly dramatic difference between any lens shot at f/1.8 and any
other lens at f/8.

I know of course there's a difference between shooting a lens nearly
wide open and closed down a few stops. Here you see my 50mm f/1.4
shot at f/2 (2/3 stops closed, like the Canon shot) and at f/8 while
mounted on the D80. There's certainly a difference, but not a
difference one would expect similar to when the amount of megapixels
is doubled. Therefore IMO the f/1.8 argument doesn't hold too much
water.

My comment about 'optimized for larger apertures' comes from the fact
that when you compare the Nikon 50mm t/1.4 vs f/1.8 and the 85mm
f/1.4 vs f/1.8 you see that the f/1.4 lenses perform better when
using the larger (more open) apertures while the f/1.8 lenses win
when stopped down a few stops.

Then we have the Porsche vs Ford comment. If you know the popular BBC
television show 'Top Gear' you'd know that they often do unexpected
comparisons. To say that a comparison is invalid just because two
items are 'in a different league' is closing your eyes for reality.
If you race the two cars against each other and the Ford is running
circles around the Porsche, surely something is wrong. You can of
course just look at the amount of horsepower and say 'you can't
compare them', but the smarter approach is to look why the Porsche
performs that bad.

IMO, the only poster with a sensible reply is the one showing 5D
examples. These look good and show good quality. I'd expect the shots
from the new Canon to look even better than that for it has way more
megapixels. Assuming the new camera does perform a lot better than
the 5D it seems a very strange move from Canon to post this
non-stellar studio portrait in order to show off the camera.

I was just curious how much better the new Canon was compared to my
own gear and was surprised at the small difference. Although I can
understand that people go into 'defense mode' regarding this topic
I'd like to mention some people need to get a grip on themselves, for
we're only talking about tools here.

--
Philip

Click to expand...

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

...wherever I post, it seems you're about the only one who does take me seriously

... Why don't you give it a rest? Company orders :-?

FYI, yes I seriously think that the image presented by Canon is not what you'd expect from a company showing off their new 20 MP flagship. I don't know what went wrong, but I seriously hope to see something better real soon, for we consumers can only win from fierce competition between the brands.

If, I say if and it seems very unlikely, this image should prove to be the best they can do with the camera I see no reason for Nikon to do their stinkin' best at the camera I will possibly buy. I had expected something that would go a long way towards the new Hassy 39 MP offering, instead I see something only marginally better than my consumer 10 MP camera.

Again, phone your friends at Canon at tell them to show us something better.

booggerg said:
Flashlight, you just don't stop do you? This is hands down the MOST
pointless thread I've seen in years. You should be embarrassed,
because I actually think you're being serious with your post.

--
Philip

Steven Noyes · Aug 21, 2007

You are comparing two different shots taken in totally different conditions and with completely different PP. You pushed the sharpness on the D80 too high IMO. That is an option with ANY camera. If you want the 1Ds Mk III shot sharper, add sharpening. Simply, right?

You are comparing f1.8 to f8.0. Wide open VS the typical peak of a lens. Also, you ignore DOF.

In short, a mostly worthless comparison where nothing is controlled wouldn't you say?

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

Steven,

when I went from the Nikon D1 (2.7 MP) to the Nikon D1x (5.4 MP) one could instantly see the huge difference between any shot of the cameras, regardless of lens or shooting conditions. It was very obvious. I had the idea that going from 10 MP to 20 MP would be roughly similar, although a little less obvious due to physical optical limitations. Now I begin to think I was wrong in that assumption. I was anticipating something a good deal towards the Hassy 39MP back, not something slightly better than my 10 MP consumer camera needing scientific testing to be made visible.

Steven Noyes said:
You are comparing two different shots taken in totally different
conditions and with completely different PP. You pushed the
sharpness on the D80 too high IMO. That is an option with ANY
camera. If you want the 1Ds Mk III shot sharper, add sharpening.
Simply, right?

You are comparing f1.8 to f8.0. Wide open VS the typical peak of a
lens. Also, you ignore DOF.

In short, a mostly worthless comparison where nothing is controlled
wouldn't you say?

Steven

--
---
Summer 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

--
Philip

Jamie H. · Aug 21, 2007

I've seen this post in three different places in the past five minutes, and I'm not even looking hard.

Maybe if he yells loud enough, he'll be taken as credible.

Hopefully not though.

This worthless comparison has been debunked in probably half a dozen different ways. You love your D80, we get it, we dont care. FYI, you could do the exact same damned thing with a Rebel XT and a Nikon D2x and say... "Who needs to pay all that money for a D2x when a Rebel (insert worthless apples to cantelopes comparison here) does almost as good". Do you see the point now?

The Nikon people sure are bitter and delusional these days. "Just you wait... the new camera is going to beat anything canon has ever dreamed of... Just you wait. I mean it... Just wait... its coming"

"Just you wait..." Nikonians do a lot of waiting these days.

--

http://archive.jmhphoto.net

shaktipalooza · Aug 21, 2007

You took a picture of a FLAT object requiring the absolute minimum DOF. You're also still comparing unsharpened vs sharpened images.

Yes the canon has way more megapixels. This would be very obvious if you took both shots with the same FOV. The CROPS you are comparing are nearly identical in size, pixel for pixel, but that's lost on you too.

You could have compared Canon VS Canon or Nikon VS Nikon and would have torn apart much the same. You're comparisons are a joke.

You aren't a troll. Trolls generally don't make themselves look this ridiculous.

Flashlight said:
Most comments seem to revolve around the fact that there's a
supposedly dramatic difference between any lens shot at f/1.8 and any
other lens at f/8.

I know of course there's a difference between shooting a lens nearly
wide open and closed down a few stops. Here you see my 50mm f/1.4
shot at f/2 (2/3 stops closed, like the Canon shot) and at f/8 while
mounted on the D80. There's certainly a difference, but not a
difference one would expect similar to when the amount of megapixels
is doubled. Therefore IMO the f/1.8 argument doesn't hold too much
water.

My comment about 'optimized for larger apertures' comes from the fact
that when you compare the Nikon 50mm t/1.4 vs f/1.8 and the 85mm
f/1.4 vs f/1.8 you see that the f/1.4 lenses perform better when
using the larger (more open) apertures while the f/1.8 lenses win
when stopped down a few stops.

Then we have the Porsche vs Ford comment. If you know the popular BBC
television show 'Top Gear' you'd know that they often do unexpected
comparisons. To say that a comparison is invalid just because two
items are 'in a different league' is closing your eyes for reality.
If you race the two cars against each other and the Ford is running
circles around the Porsche, surely something is wrong. You can of
course just look at the amount of horsepower and say 'you can't
compare them', but the smarter approach is to look why the Porsche
performs that bad.

IMO, the only poster with a sensible reply is the one showing 5D
examples. These look good and show good quality. I'd expect the shots
from the new Canon to look even better than that for it has way more
megapixels. Assuming the new camera does perform a lot better than
the 5D it seems a very strange move from Canon to post this
non-stellar studio portrait in order to show off the camera.

I was just curious how much better the new Canon was compared to my
own gear and was surprised at the small difference. Although I can
understand that people go into 'defense mode' regarding this topic
I'd like to mention some people need to get a grip on themselves, for
we're only talking about tools here.

--
Philip

--
5D sample gallery: http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/2539780#137075551

sergey1968 · Aug 21, 2007

expect from this guy? "Sorry - I was trolling?" It's too late, he used too much steam and done some "research". These forums are much better tools for psychology study than even for gear info - saying nothing about photography.

Old Galbraith (sp?) forum was perfect - because it was softly moderated. But then they overdid it - and alas...

--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

There are two threads, one in the Nikon forum and this one.

If you read my OP above carefully you'll see that I say:

"I wonder what is wrong, for I doubt that the D80 seriously outperforms 10 MP Canon cameras."

Sorry you're so blinded by your fanboyism that you forget to read.

Jamie H. said:
I've seen this post in three different places in the past five
minutes, and I'm not even looking hard.

Maybe if he yells loud enough, he'll be taken as credible.

Hopefully not though.

This worthless comparison has been debunked in probably half a dozen
different ways. You love your D80, we get it, we dont care. FYI,
you could do the exact same damned thing with a Rebel XT and a Nikon
D2x and say... "Who needs to pay all that money for a D2x when a
Rebel (insert worthless apples to cantelopes comparison here) does
almost as good". Do you see the point now?

The Nikon people sure are bitter and delusional these days. "Just
you wait... the new camera is going to beat anything canon has ever
dreamed of... Just you wait. I mean it... Just wait... its coming"

"Just you wait..." Nikonians do a lot of waiting these days.

--

http://archive.jmhphoto.net

--
Philip

terryfn · Aug 21, 2007

Phil, my D200 w 50/1.8 @f1.8 completely beaten in overall sharpness by my old, dumbed-down 300D w 50/1.8 @f8 ! And both was soft compared to a closeup portrait made by my Fuji f31fd @f8..That was my only complaint of my beloved D200.. I should try D80 then to see what happen..

C'mon let's wait for Aug 23rd.. see what Nikon has in store for us.. I hope it's a killer.. I love healthy competition, the consumer wins!

Anyway, let's wait if the new Canons run into AF problem, etc.. and we'll have some fun!

heheh...just kidding, guys..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
terryfn.deviantart.com

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

shaktipalooza said:
You took a picture of a FLAT object requiring the absolute minimum
DOF. You're also still comparing unsharpened vs sharpened images.

The images are from a mannequin doll as you find in clothes shops.

shaktipalooza said:
Yes the canon has way more megapixels. This would be very obvious if
you took both shots with the same FOV. The CROPS you are comparing
are nearly identical in size, pixel for pixel, but that's lost on you
too.

In my OP, the first set of images represent both at 100%, in the second set I uprezzed the D80 file to 20 MP. The idea is that in the second set the eyes are about the same size. Admittedly the eye in the D80 shot is slightly larger.

shaktipalooza said:
You could have compared Canon VS Canon or Nikon VS Nikon and would
have torn apart much the same.

If the Nikon had a 20 MP camera, maybe. If the quality would be as shown in the Canon shot I wouldn't buy it.

You're comparisons are a joke.
They could be more precise indeed, but 'a joke' is nonsense.

shaktipalooza said:
You aren't a troll. Trolls generally don't make themselves look this
ridiculous.

Take care and try to look at the world with an open mind. As I stated before, I don't think either Canon or Nikon is better, I'm just surprised at the relatively low resolution of the 20 MP camera.

shaktipalooza said:
Flashlight said:

Most comments seem to revolve around the fact that there's a
supposedly dramatic difference between any lens shot at f/1.8 and any
other lens at f/8.

I know of course there's a difference between shooting a lens nearly
wide open and closed down a few stops. Here you see my 50mm f/1.4
shot at f/2 (2/3 stops closed, like the Canon shot) and at f/8 while
mounted on the D80. There's certainly a difference, but not a
difference one would expect similar to when the amount of megapixels
is doubled. Therefore IMO the f/1.8 argument doesn't hold too much
water.

My comment about 'optimized for larger apertures' comes from the fact
that when you compare the Nikon 50mm t/1.4 vs f/1.8 and the 85mm
f/1.4 vs f/1.8 you see that the f/1.4 lenses perform better when
using the larger (more open) apertures while the f/1.8 lenses win
when stopped down a few stops.

Then we have the Porsche vs Ford comment. If you know the popular BBC
television show 'Top Gear' you'd know that they often do unexpected
comparisons. To say that a comparison is invalid just because two
items are 'in a different league' is closing your eyes for reality.
If you race the two cars against each other and the Ford is running
circles around the Porsche, surely something is wrong. You can of
course just look at the amount of horsepower and say 'you can't
compare them', but the smarter approach is to look why the Porsche
performs that bad.

IMO, the only poster with a sensible reply is the one showing 5D
examples. These look good and show good quality. I'd expect the shots
from the new Canon to look even better than that for it has way more
megapixels. Assuming the new camera does perform a lot better than
the 5D it seems a very strange move from Canon to post this
non-stellar studio portrait in order to show off the camera.

I was just curious how much better the new Canon was compared to my
own gear and was surprised at the small difference. Although I can
understand that people go into 'defense mode' regarding this topic
I'd like to mention some people need to get a grip on themselves, for
we're only talking about tools here.

--
Philip

Click to expand...

--
5D sample gallery: http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/2539780#137075551

--
Philip

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

terryfn said:
Phil, my D200 w 50/1.8 @f1.8 completely beaten in overall sharpness
by my old, dumbed-down 300D w 50/1.8 @f8 ! That was my only
complaint of my beloved D200.. I should try D80 then to see what
happen..

Hi Terry,

nice to read some friendly comments, guess I stepped on a few toes here

. Anyway if basic photographic theory learns that a 10 MP camera @ f/8 is always outperforming a 20 MP camera @ f/1.8, I do lag behind! Somehow that seems a bit too easy...

terryfn said:
C'mon let's wait for Aug 23rd.. see what Nikon has in store for us..
I hope it's a killer.. I love healthy competition, the consumer wins!
Anyway, let's wait if the new Canons run into AF problem, etc.. and
we'll have some fun! heheh...just kidding, guys..

Yeah, well, I wish the people using Canon all the best, just wish they'd be a little more open to debate. Take care.

terryfn said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
terryfn.deviantart.com

--
Philip

cameraman12 · Aug 21, 2007

when they get so fed up with all the Canon posts in their forum about new canon gear (usually by people with Nikon cameras, though.) They come over here and try to stir the pot and rain on the parade. Just look at the first line of his post:

"you'll probably say I'm trolling, but I don't mind that much considering the amount of Canon trolls in the Nikon forum whose *$%!$@ I always have to read ."

He's just frustrated.

Personally, I find it funny that someone is taking two totally different photos, taken at totally different times, at two totally different aperatures, with two totally different models, with two different lenses at different distances, with two different types of lighting and trying to compare the quality of both. The only thing similiar in these photos is that both photographers are anonymous.

Erik

Flashlight · Aug 21, 2007

Not frustrated at all. I was curious to compare a 20 MP file to my own 10 MP files. Surely the comparison is not scientific. Still, if I look at any shot I took with my old 35mm film cameras and compare them with any of my 6x6cm shots, I see an immediate difference in quality. Clearly that's not the case looking at the 10MP vs 20 MP shot.

cameraman12 said:
when they get so fed up with all the Canon posts in their forum about
new canon gear (usually by people with Nikon cameras, though.) They
come over here and try to stir the pot and rain on the parade. Just
look at the first line of his post:

"you'll probably say I'm trolling, but I don't mind that much
considering the amount of Canon trolls in the Nikon forum whose
*$%!$@ I always have to read ."

He's just frustrated.

Personally, I find it funny that someone is taking two totally
different photos, taken at totally different times, at two totally
different aperatures, with two totally different models, with two
different lenses at different distances, with two different types of
lighting and trying to compare the quality of both. The only thing
similiar in these photos is that both photographers are anonymous.

Erik

--
Philip

Kabe Luna · Aug 21, 2007

...and the 5D apparently totally unsharpened and are trying to draw conclusions? Sharpen the 5D shot appropriately, then we can have a discussion about the relative performances of these cameras.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/

new Canon vs Nikon D80

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts