Michael Reichmann compares Canon & Nikon

My point is not questioning how good the D3 is but the desire to embrace it as some sort of savior produced by a photography company, but as yet to undergo the same reviewer scrutiny, as the MKIII produced by an "engineering company".

My take on that is "enough already".

I got a chance to use the D3 with the fabulous 14-24-great combo and in terms of ergonomics, in many ways it felt better than my current MKIII/1DsMKIII. I only wish Canon had a 14-24 instead of their reworked 16-35. I did just buy the new 14mm II for my just received 1DsMKIII but honestly MUCH rather have a 14-24 in my arsenal. I can't comment on either the 1DsMKIII or the 14 as I have not shot with them as yet and I have not opened the files I shot with the D3.

Now I can't and won't claim, from my limited use of 1 day with the D3 or my just received 1DsMKIII to draw any valuable comparisons, other than to say that if the D3 holds up to scrutiny, they indeed, in my opinion have a winner. A recent review of the D3, from Bjorn Roselett at http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev00.html in my opinion, is a more sound review that espouses just how good the D3 is but also points out some limitations that I have been claiming, for a long time, that the D3 would pose-and now validated by this review and others. The limitations by the way that has been put forth by PIXMANTRA, who IMO, has taken a lot of unjust criticism that the review I cite now in many ways resurrects Pix's statements.

While there are those on this board that take the tact that the kind of reviews cited by the OP or the one I cite are "stamps of approval" of the D3 including the AF of the D3, no such scrutiny of the AF of the D3 has yet been done. I think, unfortunately, the MKIII has been damned. I was a proponent of the breakthroughs of the MKIII ("fanboy") then Canon's biggest critic in the way they dealt with the "fix". I still think they could have taken a PR mess and turned it into a big gain while capturing market share, but that is another story.

All things aside, the concept that Canon is an "engineering" company first, is nonsense and I am not sure what that even means. For a "photography" company, Nikon has surely not proven such until recently-even their so called flat field optics in scopes have become the laughing stock of those using Olympus. So I think THAT argument is nonsense and baseless. Nikon has many skeletons in their closet. The D1X for one.

Is the D3 the "do it all camera" with no need for a cropped sensor any longer?--I don't think that is the case. Is the D3 a great camera?--it appears that it is and I really enjoyed shooting with it. Is Nikon right around the corner in releasing a higher resolution FF?--I think that statement is premature. Are Nikon users getting some great new glass to go along with the D3?--absolutely. Can people ignore the jaded past of the MKIII?-NO WAY and unfortunately Canon is to blame here but the MKIII may, in a few months, be the best value on the market. Is Nikon somehow a "photography" company and Canon an "engineering" company?-this is part of my "enough already" comment as it is nonsense-review the history of these two companies and I don't think you would ever say that with a straight face. Are objective reviews not as important as subjective reviews?--come one now-this is another reason for my "enough already" comment-hopefully the AF of the D3 is free of problems, but I have yet to see the "objective" results in print that damned the MKIII.

Lastly, for mine and many peoples purposes, having both cropped and FF bodies in the bag are important. While I applaud and even "envy" some of the features of the D3 and new glass, for my purposes I don't see the Nikon releases as replacements (for me). If you doubt this statement read the Bjorn review, that I think is the best review to date regarding the D3-done by a photographer.

Shangrila said:

well written.
shows that canon has been fast asleep in some aspects.

Click to expand...

Canon was lulled into complacency by Nikon. Nikon gave no hints it was introducing a full frame. When it did, it went after the 1D series, instead of the 5D or 1DS. Nikon cannot possibly match the 5D in price, and it has not yet matched the 1DS in resolution. But Nikon has surpassed the 1DMKIII by offering a camera that is the same price, with similar fps shooting speed, more and larger pixels, a larger sensor and better high ISO performance.

If Canon is smart, it should be working day and night to replace the 1DMKIII with a full frame model, even though this camera is still fairly new. It is better than to wake up one day and find that it has lost the sports shooters market to Nikon. As Reichmann pointed out, once a pro switched to another system, he/she is reluctant to switch again for quite a while. But switching they will do, if there are compelling reasons. The D3 is compelling.

mfurman said:

mfurman said:

you do realize that even nikon states VR only works for 10 feet and farther ...

Click to expand...

Could you please help me to find a link to this information? Thank you.

Interestingly, I found out that IS on 70-200 f/4.0 L IS does not work
well at 200 mm and MFD of 1.2m either.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm
out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

Click to expand...

Nikon does not state that the 105 VR vibration reduction only works at distances of 10 ft or more. What is true is that it reaches it peak effectiveness of around 4 stops at around 10ft. It slowly loses effectiveness as you approach macro distances. It is of minimal value at macro distances. However, I don't know of anyone taking true macro photos without a tripod or other support. Even if the VR would work, the depth of field is to shallow to hand hold. At close-up ranges the VR is quite effective. Frame filling flower shots are easy with the lens. It is also an excellent portrait lens.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

Cultured Vulture said:

At close-up ranges the
VR is quite effective. Frame filling flower shots are easy with the
lens. It is also an excellent portrait lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That is what I am interested in.

--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

For all of Nikon's vaunted lens compatibility, it is far more complicated than Canon's.

Nikon clearly seems to be leaving its aperture-ringed days behind, which means buying older lenses or used equipment if you have a Nikon FM3, FM, FE, F3, N2000, etc. Some F4 functionality isn't there either.

Of course if you have a D40, even the relatively modern screwdriver AF lenses don't AF.

Finally, if you have a crop body, your Nikon lens from the film days isn't the same effective focal length for which you purchased it so you have to hope the 1.5X factor turns it into something halfway useful.

Canon has a couple of EF--S lenses that don't mount on FF or 1.3 bodies. Big deal. I don't want those lenses anyway.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

Phil Flash said:

For all of Nikon's vaunted lens compatibility, it is far more
complicated than Canon's.

Click to expand...

Phil Flash said:

Of course if you have a D40, even the relatively modern screwdriver
AF lenses don't AF.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the thing I just recently learned ... unless I misunderstood.

That is to say, the Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 D ... their $405 85mm f/1.8 lens ... it's never been "updated", and so if you buy this lens, say, tomorrow, it won't work in a D40.

On the Canon side, at least some university student getting his or her first DSLR, they can get the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 and not worry about whether it will work in their new Canon EF DSLR.

I used to think the issues for Nikon lenses were just their older lenses that people bought years ago ... but it's more serious an issue than that, I see now.

No doubt there were plenty of Canon FD owners that were upset, many years ago, but sometimes a clean break with the past is better.

mfurman said:

Cultured Vulture said:

At close-up ranges the
VR is quite effective. Frame filling flower shots are easy with the
lens. It is also an excellent portrait lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That is what I am interested in.

Click to expand...

most reviews have pegged VR usefulness at around 1-2 stops at 3m (10feet), and progressively worsened as you get closer to 1:1 macro. flower heads are atypically 1:3 to 1:4 which a IS tele/macro could do. not why you're purchasing a 900 lens ..

just think about how much that VR / IS element would have to shift to deliver VR at 1:1 .. if it's even possible to shift that much and maintain some simbalance of size / weight / cost ratio.

Most nikon folks use the 105mm macro as an alternative longer focal portrait lens, so thus that lens is more of a dual purpose - and arguably you pay for it. nikon's own statements are that it will have 3 to 4 stops of VR at infinity focus. so YMMV.

canon has another portrait lens which is far more suited (and I can imagine is slated for IS even if it's the new generation of lessor expensive IS as seen in the new 18-55).

so if you're shooting pure macro - it's about 400 bucks versus 900 bucks against the two brands. take the money savings and invest it into a MR-14 or MR-24EX, or a macro head. you'll be far far better off for pure macro. bang for the buck, you're thinking of a 900 lens which will do very little more over an equivalent 450 lens, and still leave you with the same "infrastructure" related purchases of flash and/or macro heads.

Canon amputated its base with the FD/EOS switch, perhaps having the foresight to know they would need a whole new, bigger lens mount for the future.

Nikon, having arrived at the future after a hodge podge of screwdriver focusing mechanisms, AFS motors, and G aperture ringless lenses, and older AIS lenses that simply don't meter on a lot of bodies, now has a mess on its hands for all but the most well-heeled photographers who can afford to keep up with the latest and greatest.

Yes, you are right. That student D40 owner is out of luck if they want a 50mm 1.8 AFD lens to take some portraits unless they manually focus, which is no fun on a tunnel-vision crop viewfinder.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

David Mazeau said:

Phil Flash said:

For all of Nikon's vaunted lens compatibility, it is far more
complicated than Canon's.

Click to expand...

David Mazeau said:

Of course if you have a D40, even the relatively modern screwdriver
AF lenses don't AF.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the thing I just recently learned ... unless I
misunderstood.

That is to say, the Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 D ... their $405 85mm f/1.8
lens ... it's never been "updated", and so if you buy this lens, say,
tomorrow, it won't work in a D40.

On the Canon side, at least some university student getting his or
her first DSLR, they can get the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 and not worry
about whether it will work in their new Canon EF DSLR.

I used to think the issues for Nikon lenses were just their older
lenses that people bought years ago ... but it's more serious an
issue than that, I see now.

No doubt there were plenty of Canon FD owners that were upset, many
years ago, but sometimes a clean break with the past is better.

Click to expand...

canon's produced over 30 Million EF lenses in the last 21 years (2006 announcement). nikon's produced 40 Million or so in it's entire lifetime since the 50's (2007 announcement). this is less of a problem than what most nikonians bring up. add on to the fact that probably another 4 million EF lenses were sold in 2007 or more, then those numbers are far far closer. EF mount was a groundbreaking, tactical success for canon - and literally slaughtered nikon's complete dominance of professional photography for PJ and sports. Even more telling when you think that canon has sold pretty close to the same amount of EF lenses as nikon has .. but in around 1/3 of the time.

back to the D40 .. not only do you have to concern yourself over AF compatability, there's a mydrid of related issues and variations on metering with the F mount lenses.

also any lens prior to late 70's must have a distructive change performed on the mount pre-AI to AI (I think .. I can never keep the letters straight). from a collectability standpoint, distructive changes are kind of a no-no.

I can mount and use any MF nikkor lens (except fisheyes), contax lens, M42 lens, Olympus Zuiko OM1/2 lens on the EF mount .. from a historical objectivity standpoint, I don't think canon's EF mount is lacking MF lenses from a capabilities standpoint. the EF mount can be used with arguably 10's of millions of lenses out there sitting in basements.

This is a really well balanced and structured text, full of "bon sens" let say smart thinking. Really thanks for your time. Even if English is your mother tongue, I know the time it takes to write such words.

Sadly I'm 99% sure Nikon AF works as advertised, we'll hear from some pros one of those days, I still can't understand why Canon not only did such a mess with the AF issue but actually "released" a faulty cam. Do they know what QC means ?? On field test ?? Probably not and that's wierd...

Back to the D3 I'm more than happy Nikon took the plunge and shaked the tree where Canon sits since many years. Some will fall (the AF team...) some others will be scared to death and that's overly good for us all, the photographers because Canon will react. It will take years and not months like I read on many threads but things will change and the prices will drop. Good.

Hope the lens dept will also start producing more lenses and maybe create some beauties out of the classic timeframe of the bodies launch.

Ultimately and because I'm un "emmerdeur" sorry, can't translate, just tell me why on earth Phil doesn't test the AF of the cams. I've started a thread of a very simple idea, why not using a simple shooting gallery under precise lighting conditions (variable thanks to dimmers in terms of brightness and color temperature) shooting on moving targets, the target coming at you of from you, once again at precise and variable speed.

And tell me also how can Phil can compare different electronics not using the very same lens with an adapter. The same brand at least. The sharpness test, the CA test, many tests are flawed because of the influence of the lenses...

Priaptor, I could go on and on, sorry, I'm passionate as you can imagine, so sorry for my poor English and thanks again for your time

Ludo from Paris
Tankers of tools, thimbels of talent
BestOf http://ludo.smugmug.com/gallery/1158249

auksnapper said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml

Click to expand...

Here's an example of the power of this feature. Imagine that you're walking down the street on a sunny day photographing people in the shade as well as bright sun. The camera is set to ISO 200, an appropriate sensitivity setting for the situation.

All of sudden you look into the dark doorway of a building and see something worth photography. Maybe it's a simple still life tableau, or possible a murder under way, (Pulitzer prize here I come). With the Nikon you simply frame and shoot. If the camera needs to run the ISO up to 1600 or 6400, whatever is needed to give a usable exposure, you've got the shot. With the Canon and no auto-ISO, you need to take the time to judge what ISO setting might be required, to set it, and then to take the shot. Auto ISO is available on both the D300 and D3.

Although Auto ISO is a nice feature, I doubt it is a make or break feature for anyone who has a moderate investment in Canon glass.

landmarks4711 said:

auksnapper said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml

Click to expand...

Here's an example of the power of this feature. Imagine that you're
walking down the street on a sunny day photographing people in the
shade as well as bright sun. The camera is set to ISO 200, an
appropriate sensitivity setting for the situation.

All of sudden you look into the dark doorway of a building and see
something worth photography. Maybe it's a simple still life tableau,
or possible a murder under way, (Pulitzer prize here I come). With
the Nikon you simply frame and shoot. If the camera needs to run the
ISO up to 1600 or 6400, whatever is needed to give a usable exposure,
you've got the shot. With the Canon and no auto-ISO, you need to take
the time to judge what ISO setting might be required, to set it, and
then to take the shot. Auto ISO is available on both the D300 and D3.

Click to expand...

You may be right about the AF on the D3 and the more people I hear from the less it seems that there are any AF issues. That notwithstanding, AF is ONE of those areas where an objective comparison makes sense.

By the way your English is just fine and your points are loud and clear and concise.

As I said in another post, to me the glass is what pushes me to a system, and one of the main reasons I love my Canon equipment is because of the 400 DO, a lens that has been much maligned by people who have never used it. While I am a relative newbie to wildlife, I recommend you look at some of the posts by AARIF (think that is his screen name) with his MKIII/400DO combination and you will see the capabilities of this combination-they are as good as I have seen from any camera.

Having said that, I enjoyed the 14-24 SO much, that if my main interests were still landscapes, I would love to have a D3 with that lens. That lens, from the limited use I had with it, was great-quite frankly, I have not been so enamored with a piece of glass in a very long time. Of all the gear Nikon has just released, the 14-24 is the one I can honestly say I has caused me to develop much Nikon Envy-however, I am sure my new 14mm II locked onto the 1DsMKIII will help mitigate that.

In fact, if you read the review I posted done by the Bjorn, he was the one that pointed out that the D3 is not a replacement for all cameras and the responses to his review by Nikon owners is what I am referring to; and NOT speaking on behalf of "millions of Nikon owners"-G-d help me, I would never do that.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying. He gave rave reviews to the D3 and it appears by all who have used it (including me) that it is a great camera, but falls short in some areas-something that is actually no surprise. Read his review, the response of the Nikon Board to his review and people's posts regarding their own experience.

Sorry to get your gonads in an uproar over my perception, but it is not a slight of the D3.

Never mind a dedicated MLU button - just an extra, user-programable (customizable) button would be fine - better even. Put a stylized 'C' on it and call it the 'Canon' button - perhaps that would make the Marketing department happy. But whatever it was called, we could program it to do MLU if we want, or any of the other features we use frequently. Give us the option of having different options programed for different pre-registered set ups. It could really expand the flexibility of the camera.
--

At the very begining, I found photography simple: Point the camera and push the button. After several weeks of practice, I discovered I could achieve even better results by turning the camera on and removing the lens cap.



http://alterego.zenfolio.com/

"NT" means no text.

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Uh, no, you said screwdrive is just as fast and almost as quite as USM, I re-iterate and revise my earlier quote...please don't give me anything you've been smoking
"almost as quite" compared to what??
USM is overrated...again, what the?

You take the one exception (the 85 1.2 which is the slowest USM on the planet) and use it as an example of USM?

BTW Tuvok, I have used both screwdrive and USM and micro USM and no....It's not that I don't 'believe" you, it's that I don't agree with you.
Anyways, whatever you are just plain wrong
Cheers

Tuvok said:

thatkatmat said:

Wow, screw drive is just as good as USM, give me some of what you are
smoking man, that's delusional.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said that in the case of the Canon 85/1.2
and the Nikon 85/1.4, the USM doesn't give it any advantage in AF
speed. And, it doesn't. Don't believe me? Try them for yourself.

I also said that screw drive suffers little or no speed disadvantage
with a [nikon] pro body compared to USM. I should clarify that
statement....The context I am talking about here is with small primes
like the 85/1.8 etc. Obviously, with big glass there is simply no
contest. AFS/USM is streets ahead.

I should also point out that many of Canon's small primes don't have
real USM, they have stuff like MM/microUSM and AFD. And compared to
these, there is absolutely no advantage over screw drive. You've just
move the motor from the body to the lens, with no advantage of speed
or noise.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.mattsimages.com

Priaptor said:

In fact, if you read the review I posted done by the Bjorn, he was
the one that pointed out that the D3 is not a replacement for all
cameras and the responses to his review by Nikon owners is what I am
referring to; and NOT speaking on behalf of "millions of Nikon
owners"-G-d help me, I would never do that.

Click to expand...

D3 is a great body for nikonians .. finally they get FF and some good high ISO performance. 'bout time. kind of funny to see nikonians trip all over themselves about FX / FF being groundbreaking ..

however, I have to agree with you - it's not a "wonder camera" for me personally when if I look through my photos in the last year, it couldn't have done 30% or so of them.

15% of my photos were at ISO 50 (studio and daytime long exposure). 15% of my photos were long exposure astrophotography. I'll give some benefit of the doubt to D3's ISO 100 - or it would be closer to 45%. in the race for high ISO improvements, I sincerely hope that canon does not change it's "range" of usable ISO, which is still - market leading - something I consider just as important as high ISO.

Numfar said:

Never mind a dedicated MLU button - just an extra, user-programable
(customizable) button would be fine - better even. Put a stylized 'C'
on it and call it the 'Canon' button - perhaps that would make the
Marketing department happy. But whatever it was called, we could
program it to do MLU if we want, or any of the other features we use
frequently. Give us the option of having different options programed
for different pre-registered set ups. It could really expand the
flexibility of the camera.

Click to expand...

I actually mulled that one over .. it gets complicated quickly. a single button on the back of a camera body that would switch modes would be too easy to be pressed accidentially while even just walking around, or tossing a body into the camera bag, so it would have to be a two finger / two hander button toggle - which really isn't that handy at all ... I actually prefer the 40D's method of C1-3, where I can set up a macro mode on bank 3 - tweak C1 and C2 for how I'm going to shoot / what I'm shooting that day (ie: landscape, C2 is HDR mode, C1 is normal mode atypically). makes it darn handy and I don't even have to take my eyes off the viewfinder to switch the camera into another entirely different mode of operation. I'm looking forward to the 5DMarkII - and that's one of the important reasons actually. MLU is one option I could care less if it's buried. and actually on the DIII's and 40D's .. set button takes you into liveview / MLU mode.

but with the 40D's C1-3 banks, MLU, AF mode, ISO, Av/Tv/M, drive mode, EC, FEC, RAW/JPG/sRAW, etc all change with a single click of the dial, . can't get any better than that. and it doesn't change if I toss it into the bag, nor if I'm walking around with two or three bodies on neck straps. with the D300's banks, not all features / functionality is supported in it's banks, and is only accessible via menu. not nearly as handy. not sure if the D3 is the same way ..