What do Canon owners know that I don't

[edwardsp]

Please help me figure out this camera quality issue. I have a relative who purchased a Nikon D40 2 years, but never liked it. She was sure her friends with Canons were getting much better indoor highschool volleyball shots. This past fall she bought a Canon T1i and she says she is happy now because the Canon can get the action shots she wants(that the Nikon could never do well). The lens she used on both cameras had basically the same specs(similar apertures at similar focal lengths). None of the lenses were 2.8 quality. The only thing I saw that was diufferent was the new Canons lenses have IS, and her particular Nikon lenses did not have stabilization/vibration reduction.

I have a Niklon D40 myself and get great results with it, although I've not tried it for indoor volleyball. Personally I think her "Better camera-better results" is all in her head. For my understanding, exposure is based on ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Am I missing something?

 

[skanter]

[NT]
--
Sam K., NYC

 

[Bill Ko]

I'm not sure how the Nikon D40 performs in low light, but the Dreb T1i has extended usable ISO to 3200 and for emergencies you can go all the way to 128k! So it may NOT be in her head, after all - though what you said about low light shooting is right on the mark, and IS has nothing to do with action shots. I've heard that the low-light capabilities are not THE best in the lineup of the latest entry level DSLRs, but it's not that shabby at all...

Bill
--
http://www.pbase.com/billko

 

[tycfung]

It's probably a moot point now, but perhaps she can post some of here photos from the D40, and some of the more recent photos from the Canon. We can take a look at the EXIF data and the photo itself, and determine what the problem is - ie. is it the camera, or the photographer?

 

[tkbslc]

I would say it is mostly in her head, unless the new camera prompted her to get excited enough to learn something new that improved her results.

The bottom line here is that you were happy with your D40 until your relative told you she wasn't. Don't sweat it. If Canons really were absolutely better, there would be very few NIkon customers. AS is, the market share is about even.

 

[Silvex]

Please help me figure out this camera quality issue. I have a relative who purchased a Nikon D40 2 years, but never liked it. She was sure her friends with Canons were getting much better indoor highschool volleyball shots. This past fall she bought a Canon T1i and she says she is happy now because the Canon can get the action shots she wants(that the Nikon could never do well). The lens she used on both cameras had basically the same specs(similar apertures at similar focal lengths). None of the lenses were 2.8 quality. The only thing I saw that was diufferent was the new Canons lenses have IS, and her particular Nikon lenses did not have stabilization/vibration reduction.

IS is worth about 2-3 stops of "hand holdability." Indoors, shooting sports.... I think you have answered your own question.

I have a Niklon D40 myself and get great results with it, although I've not tried it for indoor volleyball. Personally I think her "Better camera-better results" is all in her head. For my understanding, exposure is based on ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Am I missing something?

 

[graphikal]

Please help me figure out this camera quality issue. I have a relative who purchased a Nikon D40 2 years, but never liked it. She was sure her friends with Canons were getting much better indoor highschool volleyball shots. This past fall she bought a Canon T1i and she says she is happy now because the Canon can get the action shots she wants(that the Nikon could never do well). The lens she used on both cameras had basically the same specs(similar apertures at similar focal lengths). None of the lenses were 2.8 quality. The only thing I saw that was diufferent was the new Canons lenses have IS, and her particular Nikon lenses did not have stabilization/vibration reduction.

IS is worth about 2-3 stops of "hand holdability." Indoors, shooting sports.... I think you have answered your own question.

IS generally doesn't help for indoor sports, since it works to minimize camera shake only. When you shoot sports that is generally not the problem-- rather, it is getting a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject motion, plus AF.

 

[graphikal]

It almost certainly is not lens stabilization, which helps little if at all shooting indoor sports at the focal lengths most people use. It is more likely that your friend got more in-focus shots due to differences in autofocus-- note that I am not saying the D40 is inferior in this respect to your friend's new camera. She may just naturally fit with the camera/lens combo she is using now (you know how it can take time to use a new lens well). AF can be a tricky beast, and it takes a high-performing user, camera and lens working in harmony to get a high percentage of keepers shooting sports.

In addition, it is possible that your friend is using a different sort of camera mode that tends to guarantee her higher shutter speeds, compared to when she had her D40. Or perhaps she is using a different autofocus mode (servo focus versus one-shot)?

 

[djrocks66]

Please help me figure out this camera quality issue. I have a relative who purchased a Nikon D40 2 years, but never liked it. She was sure her friends with Canons were getting much better indoor highschool volleyball shots. This past fall she bought a Canon T1i and she says she is happy now because the Canon can get the action shots she wants(that the Nikon could never do well). The lens she used on both cameras had basically the same specs(similar apertures at similar focal lengths). None of the lenses were 2.8 quality. The only thing I saw that was diufferent was the new Canons lenses have IS, and her particular Nikon lenses did not have stabilization/vibration reduction.

IS is worth about 2-3 stops of "hand holdability." Indoors, shooting sports.... I think you have answered your own question.

IS generally doesn't help for indoor sports, since it works to minimize camera shake only. When you shoot sports that is generally not the problem-- rather, it is getting a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject motion, plus AF.

I think you are wrong here. I.S. will defiantly help you. I have used a 70-200 I.S. shooting indoor basketball. If I turned off the I.S. it made a huge difference. Most of the time you are zooming the lens and camera shake will be more noticeable. No I.S. and you will get blurry pictures in low light unless of course you can keep your shutter speed up. Good luck doing that without shooting at very hi ISO.

Like I said I think you are wrong. I could be, but that has been my past experience.

--

 

[RCederholm]

Seems to be a user issue not a camera quality issue. But too many holes in this story.

Ric

 

[graphikal]

I guess you missed the part where he said both her lenses had similar specs and were not "f/2.8 quality". There is no 70-200 f/4 for Nikon mount. Hence she was not using a zoom of that length, and almost certainly was not using something longer as a newbie.

So yeah, you're wrong.

Please help me figure out this camera quality issue. I have a relative who purchased a Nikon D40 2 years, but never liked it. She was sure her friends with Canons were getting much better indoor highschool volleyball shots. This past fall she bought a Canon T1i and she says she is happy now because the Canon can get the action shots she wants(that the Nikon could never do well). The lens she used on both cameras had basically the same specs(similar apertures at similar focal lengths). None of the lenses were 2.8 quality. The only thing I saw that was diufferent was the new Canons lenses have IS, and her particular Nikon lenses did not have stabilization/vibration reduction.

IS is worth about 2-3 stops of "hand holdability." Indoors, shooting sports.... I think you have answered your own question.

IS generally doesn't help for indoor sports, since it works to minimize camera shake only. When you shoot sports that is generally not the problem-- rather, it is getting a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject motion, plus AF.

I think you are wrong here. I.S. will defiantly help you. I have used a 70-200 I.S. shooting indoor basketball. If I turned off the I.S. it made a huge difference. Most of the time you are zooming the lens and camera shake will be more noticeable. No I.S. and you will get blurry pictures in low light unless of course you can keep your shutter speed up. Good luck doing that without shooting at very hi ISO.

Like I said I think you are wrong. I could be, but that has been my past experience.

--

--
Jeff Varszegi

 

[djrocks66]

I guess you missed the part where he said both her lenses had similar specs and were not "f/2.8 quality". There is no 70-200 f/4 for Nikon mount. Hence she was not using a zoom of that length, and almost certainly was not using something longer as a newbie.

Well in any event the I.S. would make a difference.

So yeah, you're wrong.

Please help me figure out this camera quality issue. I have a relative who purchased a Nikon D40 2 years, but never liked it. She was sure her friends with Canons were getting much better indoor highschool volleyball shots. This past fall she bought a Canon T1i and she says she is happy now because the Canon can get the action shots she wants(that the Nikon could never do well). The lens she used on both cameras had basically the same specs(similar apertures at similar focal lengths). None of the lenses were 2.8 quality. The only thing I saw that was diufferent was the new Canons lenses have IS, and her particular Nikon lenses did not have stabilization/vibration reduction.

IS is worth about 2-3 stops of "hand holdability." Indoors, shooting sports.... I think you have answered your own question.

IS generally doesn't help for indoor sports, since it works to minimize camera shake only. When you shoot sports that is generally not the problem-- rather, it is getting a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject motion, plus AF.

I think you are wrong here. I.S. will defiantly help you. I have used a 70-200 I.S. shooting indoor basketball. If I turned off the I.S. it made a huge difference. Most of the time you are zooming the lens and camera shake will be more noticeable. No I.S. and you will get blurry pictures in low light unless of course you can keep your shutter speed up. Good luck doing that without shooting at very hi ISO.

Like I said I think you are wrong. I could be, but that has been my past experience.

--

--
Jeff Varszegi

--

 

[graphikal]

I guess you missed the part where he said both her lenses had similar specs and were not "f/2.8 quality". There is no 70-200 f/4 for Nikon mount. Hence she was not using a zoom of that length, and almost certainly was not using something longer as a newbie.

Well in any event the I.S. would make a difference.

Not usually. Most indoor sports shooters use primes, as f/2.8 is generally slow for that sort of work, and tend to be close to the court/rink instead of in the stands. For longer lengths most of them use tripods. View any indoor Olympics event for confirmation. So IS wasn't the factor for the OP's friend, and it wouldn't be for a pro sports shooter doing an indoor event either.

 

[Tharizdun]

the nikkor 18-55 is a terrible lens at best, the VR version is much, much better. Perhaps the IS version for the Canon version is way better than the non IS version?

--
Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a Nikon owner.

 

[djrocks66]

We could go on forever. :> ) All I am saying is that the I.S. would help a non pro that is probably zooming in handheld with the kit lens. I know that it would not help the subject blur if the shutter speed was too slow. I understand what you are saying.

I guess you missed the part where he said both her lenses had similar specs and were not "f/2.8 quality". There is no 70-200 f/4 for Nikon mount. Hence she was not using a zoom of that length, and almost certainly was not using something longer as a newbie.

Well in any event the I.S. would make a difference.

Not usually. Most indoor sports shooters use primes, as f/2.8 is generally slow for that sort of work, and tend to be close to the court/rink instead of in the stands. For longer lengths most of them use tripods. View any indoor Olympics event for confirmation. So IS wasn't the factor for the OP's friend, and it wouldn't be for a pro sports shooter doing an indoor event either.

--

 

[ersatz]

But perhaps 1/125 is fast enough for her purposes whereas 1/400 wouldn't. Of course, without pictures we cannot assess why she notices a difference and what factors are the cause. But IS can result in lower shutter speeds so it can help with low light situations provided the speed is not so slow that it causes motion blur.

EVeryone here has valid arguments why such and such could be hte reason or why it might not help. But since we don't have any pics we can only speculate so it really is kinda pointless.

 

[Silvex]

If her shots were out of focus, I agree, IS plays no role; it is a focus issue. However, if there is movement in the shot, the sensor does not care if the movement is coming from the subject, camera shake or both. Camera shake + subject movement = blur. If you reduce/eliminate either or both, blur is reduced or eliminated.