Nikon better lenses, Canon better sensors?

[sfnikon]

I'm an old nikon user now with young photogenic kids and recently took the plunge into DSLR. I did some research and purchased the D50 and 70-200VR to complement my 15 yo 35-70 f/2.8. My general plan is to get the D200 replacement in a couple of years and add 85/1.4 and 12-24.

I could have been misled but the impression I got was that the Canon sensor technology is in general superior but Nikon lenses have better MTF numbers when done by independent sources. It was pretty close and there are exceptions where the Canon equivalent was superior but I'm talking in general and I have to admit I was selective in the lens classes I looked at closely. For example (and what sealed the deal for Nikon) was the the 70-200 VR which seemed clearly superior to the Canon 70-200 IS version. The 17-55/2.8 version seemed equally excellent but Nikon had an edge in the 28-70/2.8 zooms. 85 f1.2 vs 1.4? I wont open up that can of worms here!

So why did I choose the superior glass company over the superior sensor company? I have not doubt that sensor technology will continue to improve dramatically in the years to come. It is unlikely that lens technology will change as dramatically. Hence the limiting factor in IQ will soon be the lens we have in front of the sensors. I therefore placed my bet on the company that in my humble opinion made better lenses. It also follows that the FF arguement will soon become mute since even the smaller sensors will eventually out-resolve even the best pro lenses.

BTW I am blown away by the 70-200 VR and extemely happy with my choice

Jake in SF

 

[ImolaRed345428]

The only thing that Canon does better is high ISO.

I've owned both systems. Canon might seem better to some because of their "look". You can pick out a Canon portrait almost every single time, they have a very odd skin tone and things look punchy and pleasing at first but once you compare them side by side to Nikon I noticed that they looked un natural

That's just my feeling on it which will vary to everybody else.

--
Save $5 at smugmug use this coupon code

 

[nachkebia]

Exactly my thoughts....
--
http://www.photo.net/photos/Nachkebia

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I'm an old nikon user now with young photogenic kids and recently
took the plunge into DSLR. I did some research and purchased the
D50 and 70-200VR to complement my 15 yo 35-70 f/2.8. My general
plan is to get the D200 replacement in a couple of years and add
85/1.4 and 12-24.

Not a bad plan. Might I suggest the 85mm f1.4 sooner than later?

A) that lens loves photogenic kids, in a way that few other lenses can match.

B) once you master getting it to actually focus on what you want in focus, shooting wide open at f1.4 or down a stop at f2 have motion stopping ability that you will find invaluable with the kids, unless you've had them stuffed and mounted.

I could have been misled but the impression I got was that the
Canon sensor technology is in general superior but Nikon lenses
have better MTF numbers when done by independent sources.

Are oranges generally superior to apples? Canon excels at low light shooting, but it's more trouble to coax realistic looking colors out of a Canon than a Nikon, and I find Canon processing to have a strange "smoothed" look. Some call it plasticky.

Now, as far as those "independent" MTF numbers, they're horrid.

Photozone is a bit better than photodo, but not much better. Here's something I wrote a while back about photodo.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=19177443
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=19178010

It was
pretty close and there are exceptions where the Canon equivalent
was superior but I'm talking in general and I have to admit I was
selective in the lens classes I looked at closely. For example
(and what sealed the deal for Nikon) was the the 70-200 VR which
seemed clearly superior to the Canon 70-200 IS version. The
17-55/2.8 version seemed equally excellent but Nikon had an edge in
the 28-70/2.8 zooms. 85 f1.2 vs 1.4? I wont open up that can of
worms here!

OK, now we're getting somewhere. If you're talking individual lenses that may suit your particular style of photography, then yes, you will find winners and losers.

Canon tends to win in shift lenses and long fast glass for sports and wildlife. I agree with you that Nikon wins in the event shooter class with the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 17-55mm f2.8. I'd give Nikon the portrait class, but that's close.

So, which is "better", sports or event photography? Which is better, more low light capability or better skin tones?

So why did I choose the superior glass company over the superior
sensor company? I have not doubt that sensor technology will
continue to improve dramatically in the years to come. It is
unlikely that lens technology will change as dramatically. Hence
the limiting factor in IQ will soon be the lens we have in front of
the sensors.

Actually, that's not bad logic. But I still don't think there's such thing as a "superior glass company". Even if you compared Nikon or Canon to Zeiss and Leica. Which is "superior", having 10 really sharp lenses, but no wide angle past 21mm and no autofocus telephotos, or having a line of 35 mostly competent lenses?

I therefore placed my bet on the company that in my
humble opinion made better lenses. It also follows that the FF
arguement will soon become mute since even the smaller sensors will
eventually out-resolve even the best pro lenses.

BTW I am blown away by the 70-200 VR and extemely happy with my
choice

I felt the same way about mine.

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[El Taino]

I chose Nikon for the glass quality, inside and out. Sensor/noise is not an issue to me. I seldom go beyond ISO 400 and if I need more, in those rare ocassions I carefully use noise reduction software. I preffer the glass over the sensor. How fast a 300, 400, 500 & 600 can auto focus compared to each brand? I haven't been able to test but I'd love to know....If VR or IS makes no much sense in action photography, I don't know then why the hype for IS in sports??

I shot this comparison during a recent shooting, I wouldn't trade my 17-55 for the other one, not even IS will lure me. I love the 17-55 really much considering I have thousands of E100 VS shot with a 17-35 AF-S F/2.8 and a F5.

 

[chi lo]

Ans I will second this as well.

I started off With the Nikon D1 and D100 ten changed to canon 1D, 10D and 20D but eventually I come back with the D1H, d50 and now the D200, why? I miss the quality of the Nikkors and the colours of the Nikon sensors. They may be noisy but I don't always need over ISO1600 so I can live with that.

Just my experience.

 

[PerL]

I'm an old nikon user now with young photogenic kids and recently
took the plunge into DSLR. I did some research and purchased the
D50 and 70-200VR to complement my 15 yo 35-70 f/2.8. My general
plan is to get the D200 replacement in a couple of years and add
85/1.4 and 12-24.

I could have been misled but the impression I got was that the
Canon sensor technology is in general superior but Nikon lenses
have better MTF numbers when done by independent sources. It was
pretty close and there are exceptions where the Canon equivalent
was superior but I'm talking in general and I have to admit I was
selective in the lens classes I looked at closely. For example
(and what sealed the deal for Nikon) was the the 70-200 VR which
seemed clearly superior to the Canon 70-200 IS version. The
17-55/2.8 version seemed equally excellent but Nikon had an edge in
the 28-70/2.8 zooms. 85 f1.2 vs 1.4? I wont open up that can of
worms here!
So why did I choose the superior glass company over the superior
sensor company? I have not doubt that sensor technology will
continue to improve dramatically in the years to come. It is
unlikely that lens technology will change as dramatically. Hence
the limiting factor in IQ will soon be the lens we have in front of
the sensors. I therefore placed my bet on the company that in my
humble opinion made better lenses. It also follows that the FF
arguement will soon become mute since even the smaller sensors will
eventually out-resolve even the best pro lenses.

BTW I am blown away by the 70-200 VR and extemely happy with my
choice

Jake in SF

--
If you prefer better ISO 1600 (Canon) or higher resolution at ISO 100-800 (D200)

Updated jan 9: [ http://tri-xstories.blogspot.com/ ]
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

 

[LiveM]

I'd prefer the detail and dynamic range of the Nikon bodies as well as the skin tones any day.

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I am also one of those early Nikon, switched to another brand, and came back to Nikon.

The Canon sensor does have less noise, but the Nikon isn't what I would call 'noisy'. And what little noise it has seems to mimic film grain. I'll gladly trade that for better color rendition. I was all set to buy the Canon until I compared the test shots with a buddy's D200.

Here's the big issue for me. Dot alignment. I always print at a multiple of my printer's physical resolution for the sharpest print. The printer has a physical resolution of 1200 dpi, so I can print at 1x (1200dpi), 2x (600 dpi) 3x (400 dpi), 4x (300 dpi) or 5x (240 dpi).

Printed at 300dpi, The Canon 30D sensor (3504x2336) won't print an 8x10. It prints 7.79" x 11.68". So I have to crop the sides, and still come up short at the top. I'm amazed that Canon would miss this, since they made the printer I'm using. If I resample the image to fit, there is a loss of sharpness. If I print at 5x (9.73" x 14.6"), I have to crop it way down.

The Nikon D200, at 300 dpi, produces a 8.64" x 12.91" image. I have to crop it a little, but I can live with that. This is the reason I didn't get a D70 (3008x2000 = 6.67" x 10.03" print). The new camera (D90?) should print the same size as my D200.

Olympus did better than Canon. The Oly E500 (3264x2448) at 300dpi give you a 8.16" x 10.88" - pretty darn close. Roughly the same number of pixels, but at the proper ratio for a 8x10 print.

Nice to be back using a Nikon...

 

[clane47]

I've owned both systems also, and I think one of the things I missed most about Nikon was the matrix metering. I think Nikon does a much better job metering with or without flash. With the Canon, the automatic metering was never trustworthy.

Regards,
Chuck Lane

 

[DaSonyGuy]

So why did I choose the superior glass company over the superior
sensor company? I have not doubt that sensor technology will
continue to improve dramatically in the years to come. It is
unlikely that lens technology will change as dramatically. Hence
the limiting factor in IQ will soon be the lens we have in front of
the sensors. I therefore placed my bet on the company that in my
humble opinion made better lenses. It also follows that the FF
arguement will soon become mute since even the smaller sensors will
eventually out-resolve even the best pro lenses.

He He, strange, I went the other way...I chose to go with the company with the best sensor on the market and I was'nt to worried about the lenses.

However it was'nt long before I was looking for better glass that the two cheapo Sigma kit lenses I got with the body...Now I almost exclusively use the best manual focus primes I can afford...Including the Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T*, Nikon 55mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro, Mamiya 80mm f2.8 and 150mm f3.5 etc.
...I'm just glad I decided not to get a Canon!

Regards

DSG

--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

 

[sfnikon]

Thanks I fully intend on getting the 85/1.4 in the next couple of months. I've been having too much fun shooting and getting to know the 70-200 VR to think about ordering one right now.

I was always very impressed with the 35-70/2.8 but my 70-200 is sharper at all apertures but especially wide open.

I can appreciate that the Nikon sensors can render colors differently and the pictures have a different look but I consider this subjective and something that can be altered with PP. I was referring to resolution/megapixal and low light ability which I think everyone agrees is preferrable over not.

You're also right I only looked at lenses that interested me and that canon probably has a clear advantage in the super telephotos that are sideline fixtures at professional sporting events. I should qualify 'superior lens company' to 'the company that makes superior professional quality portrait length and "event" zoom lenses'.

As an aside I feel like a poster child for Nikon marketing strategy. A former camera guy who got busy with other life issues and then was 'baited back in' with a good cheap entry level SLR who then goes on to buy a few very expensive lenses and then eventually upgrades to an advanced expensive body.
--
Jake

 

[Gary Mayo]

You just need to use a FujiFilm S3 Pro. D200 for low light and flash, and S3 for high ISO (above 400). The S3 has lower noise at 1600 ISO than my Nikon does at 800.
--



Photography http://www.garymayo.com Body Arts http://www.guns2roses.com
Speak ill of no persons and expect the same courteous treatment from all others.

 

[Phil Flash]

...don't look back. I think they are both fine. Once you commit, second guessing is really counterproductive to actually going out and taking pix.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.

 

[Albert]

ISO 800 on my D70s is about 10x better than ISO800 FILM. So.. I don't know what the complaining is about; and I can change ISO on the fly!! One of the benefits of DSLR vs SLR.

That said, there are jems, and there are cubic zirconias; you just have to know which is which.

Example: Tamron makes a killer 90mm F2.8 macro. Their uberzooms however, are horrid.

Nikon makes a not so great 28~200. Their 28~80 is horrible too. It still says Nikon on the side.

Canon makes a great 70~200mm. Some of their wide angle lenses are horrible.

Sigma makes a great 24~60mm.

I can go on and on, but I won't. Each has jems and duds, avoid the duds.

That said, it's not a Nikon sensor; Nikon buys all the sensors from Sony as far as I understand..

I didn't like Canon's "plastic" look and the overly fake looking grass. Some people do.