Nikon vs. Canon

<p>I have the Nikon D200 and wanted to upgrade to maybe the Canon Mark II. I was going to upgrade to a better Nikon, but I found out that they haven't made a Nikon yet with 21 mega pixels like the Canon. I am very confused on what to do. I am so sick of all the editing I have to do to make my D200 images look decent. Should I wait for Nikon to make a higher mega pixel, whatever it will be after the D700 or should I switch to Canon. I am a commercial photographer and I also do art photography, but kind of want to go digital with art as well, but my D200 can not compete with my Mamiya 7 II film camera. Any suggestions will be well appreciated, thank you :) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I found out that they haven't made a Nikon yet with 21 mega pixels like the Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You found out something that isn't true (<a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25442/D3X.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs">link</a>.) It is true that the 24 MP D3x is very expensive, so maybe you should switch.</p>

<p>It really depends on your art and commercial photography. What exactly do you shoot and how big do you enlarge? It would be better if you provide more info to help us make an informed decision...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hector, actually the OP was correct. Nikon has these current DSLRs:</p>

<ul>

<li>12MP: D300S, D3S, and D700</li>

<li>14MP: D3100</li>

<li>16MP: D5100, D7000</li>

<li>24MP: D3X</li>

</ul>

<p>But there is no 21MP Nikon DSLR. :-)</p>

<p>I do not understand what kind of editing you have to do to your pics caused by the number of pixels the D200 provides in the first place. However, you just might want to give the D7000 a try. More pixels and, more important, much more recent picture quality altogether.</p>

 

<p>If you want high megapixel count at a budget, then Canon at present offers a better choice. There is also Sony, the A850 and A900, but their future for full frame cameras is a bit less clear cut it seems. However, the overall costs obviously also depends on the lenses you already have for Nikon, and the ones you'd need to get for the Canon (or Sony). The other obvious question is: do you really need the high megapixel count?<br>

Not to stir the age-old debate on resolution of film versus digital, but medium format low ISO film with good lenses like your Mamiya does capture a tremendous amount of info, and when scanned properly don't be surprised when it still exceeds the 24 megapixels you can now get on DSLRs.</p>

<p>[off-topic] I've never bothered about the pixel count with my Nikons, and can't quite imagine in which situations I would.[/off-topic]</p>

<p>I have been bothered by lenses that did not seem to work for me (as in; I did not like their color rendition, sharpness, bokeh, etc) and a D200 that I just could not get used to (I'd had a D50 and D80, and somehow with the D200 I always missed my shots, shots I did take were often out of focus, etc.) so I traded it in on a D300 and have been happy ever since.</p>

<p>So I'm not saying switching to Canon is a bad idea, but without further info on where your problem with your D200 (and the pictures it produces) lies, I don't think there's much useful advice to be had here.<br>

My first assumption was that you probably miss resolution or sharpness or contrast-/color rendition (which might be based in your lenses, rather than your camera) when you compare to you Mamiya, but it might just as easily be something else...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But there is no 21MP Nikon DSLR. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like that.</p>

<p>D200 can not compete with my Mamiya 7 II film camera</p>

<p>Obviously not, i guess that to compete with the Mamya you'd need something like a Leaf Aptus II 12/12R which gives you an image size of 80mpix , and the resulting file you will still have to process to get the picture you want .. this Digital back will set you back for around $25.000,- i guess...</p>

<p>Next best thing , if you want comparable quality will be camera,s like the D3x ( or maybe the D4 whenever it becomes available..) or the Canon version of that. IQ Is not just in the pixel count , but also in the lenses used, software, filters, development on PC ( your digital darkroom), the printer , paper , and ink that should match the paper used, and most important : the person using the cam and the software to process the image to a picture.</p>

 

<p>If you don`t wanta D3X, I`d wait for the D3 series replacement.</p>

<p>(I must admit that Canon is still the leader in the market, they certainly made that cool white-painted lenses that gives a... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63ADaP6bK8">"Lazy Town"</a> hero(?) look to their users, but think that Nikon lenses <em>has been always the best</em> (yes, haven`t heard you that?), and Nikon photographers are <em>way</em> smarter, nicer, way more <em>virile</em> (although there isn`t anything more <em>sexy</em> than a girl with a Nikon... ). Maybe they don`t look as cool(?) without that white-painted lenses... but there is no showing-off need... as <em>everybody</em> knows, Nikon users have always been the <em>authentic </em>"connoisseurs" in the photography world).</p>

<p>This is the only truth, and if someone cannot accept it, should go inmediatly to be checked by a specialist.</p>

<p>Well, if you`re in a hurry, buy Canon. We don`t know when Nikon will release a D3 series replacement.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>... or a D700 replacement (too late for editing!)</p>

<p>I rather look at an interesting 6x9 than a boring 20x30 print. Furthermore, if your subjects are static (say, still life, landscape etc...) why stop with the Mamiya 7 or 21MP? Go 4x5 or even 8x10...if you think sheer large size matters that much.</p>

<p>Great art is neither brand (canon/nikon/mamiya etc...) nor material (film/digital) dependent </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why don't you rent a D700 and see if that does what you want? The photos are significantly better than from a D200 [sharper, better colour, less noise etc.].<br>

If you really needed that many MP I don't understand why you didn't upgrade from a D200 several years ago.</p>

<p>One thing to be aware of is that higher mega pixels don't translate directly to better resolution - a 21 megapixel isn't going to have 1/3 better resolution than a 16mp. Or 3x better resolution than a 6mp for example. </p>

<p>As pointed out, to get the resolution of your Mamiya - you'd need a medium format 80 mp back. </p>

<p>You need to look at your photography, what each company has to offer and then make an informed decision. Nikon is better at some things and Canon is better at others. Some photographers even make one or the other work for everything. </p>

<p>Another factor to consider is what lenses and flashes do you have for your nikon? Some of them may be worth some money, but in general, you're going to lose money switching systems. Just another thing to consider in the equation and something to compare spending 8 grand on a D3x with. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>With the proviso that this is mere hypothesis, I'd like to point out to the OP that both the 5D2 and D700 are quite elderly, but are still holding their value. Many expect a replacement in the next year or so, based on previous upgrade cycles and competition from the smaller formats. I would expect (without any internal knowledge) the D700 replacement to have more pixels, if only because so much attention has been drawn to its low pixel count compared with the Canon; after the replacements are launched, I would expect both 5D2 and D700 prices to drop significantly. In short, I'd only buy a full frame DSLR now if I actually needed it <i>now</i> for some reason - otherwise I'd wait. The D7000 (and D5100), on the other hand, have more pixels than the D700 and are much newer technology. For what it's worth, I sympathise about jumping systems - I jumped from Canon to Nikon because the D700 came out while I was waiting for the 5Dmk1 to be replaced, among other reasons.<br />

<br />

As for medium format, I've heard it said that 6x6 and 6x7 quality is roughly matched by the 40MP medium format digital. The 80MP backs approach the quality of 5x4. That's quoting some reviews on the Luminous Landscape, not personal opinion. The optics are against a 35mm camera keeping up with a Mamiya 7 at its best - although when it's not at it's best, a DSLR can make it look very bad indeed.</p>

<p>I've had a D200 for some years and have no problems in getting my pics to look 'decent' (usually a a lot better than that) with virtually no post-processing from RAW. Maybe sometimes a little sharpening, and slight light/dark adjustment.<br>

As for megapixels, there's too much emphasis of those these days!</p>

<p>Based on my hands on experience with the 5DMKII and the D3, unless you are printing billboards or huge posters or need to do some serious cropping, it is difficult to see any real differences in typically sized prints.</p>

<p>Go with the manufacturer that has the features, lenses and accessories you need. You won't be disappointed with either one.</p>

<p>While I no longer have the 5DMKII, I did side-by-side comparison shots between it and my D3. There was little difference. I suspect it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference between a 5DMKII shot and one from Nikon's 16mp D7000. A 5MP difference at that level is probably not a significant difference.</p>

<p>You can look at test photos side-by-side here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

<p>I just did (between the 5DMKII and the D7000) and I can see anything more than a slight difference if at all - the Canon looks a hair sharper perhaps.</p>

<p>Elliot, it isn't difficult. I own a Nikon D700 and Canon 7D. The 7D is visibly better on a 16x24 print that for subject matter that is detailed....like a landscape. At 20x30, the difference is even more obvious. This shows up on an inkjet printer even more than a standard lab print. We're talking about a nearly 22% difference in horizontal resolution. That is entirely visible. No it's not huge, but it isn't difficult, and doesn't require a billboard.</p>

<p>Dave, your results are similar to mine. In re-reading the OP's comments, Tara may only be interested in full frame bodies. If that is the case and depending on the print sizes needed, it may pay to go with the 5DMKII at this time. Although to make matters even more complicated, along with the imminent release of a new Nikon FX body, Canon is possibly ready for a 5DMKII replacement as well.</p>

<p>Tara, I shoot Nikon D700's and Mamiya 7II's. In this other thread, I posted an image I shot with an M7II on XP2 120 at E.I. 200, and scanned at 7,000 p.p.i. with a Nikon LS 8000 scanner:</p>

<p><a href="../no-words-forum/00Z2Dx?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/no-words-forum/00Z2Dx?unified_p=1</a></p>

<p>I downrezzed- not uprezzed- to print the image at 16x20 inches, 400 p.p.i. on an Epson 3880 printer. The print is grainless/noiseless and tack sharp, even with my nose a few inches from the print.</p>

<p>Certainly, I could make a decent-looking 16x20 print from a D700, D3x or one of the Canon FF DSLRs. However, even the the 25 Megabyte- or larger- RAW file I'd get from a Canon 1Ds Mark III isn't going to have as much resolution as the 664 Megabyte scan I got from the image referenced above. If you're making big prints, 35mm-style DX DSLRs and FF/FX DSLRs simply won't be able to compete for brute resolution with a fine-grained, well-scanned 6x7 cm. negative or transparency.</p>

<p>That said, hopefully Nikon will field a higher-rez replacement for the D700 in my lifetime. If so, I'll buy the first two that show up at my store.</p>

<p>Tara, you are one <em>tough</em> lady to find. I did, however, locate <a href="http://www.tararenephotography.com/index.php">your site</a> and had a good look at your work. I like the stuff in your 'Thesis' section, especially the blonde on the beach who reminds me of <em>La Dolce Vita</em>. I am not as impressed with the more commercial stuff, but that is often the case. I don't see anything there, though, that would necessarily benefit from more megapixels. I also think that there is really no digital equivalent to the Mamiya 7. I am not talking Eye-Q necessarily, but weight, ease of use and portability. If you have some good Nikkor lenses, and want a significantly better camera than the D200, I would wait for the 'D400' or 'D800'.<br>

<br /> Eric: Why the devil did you scan at greater than the true optical resolution of your LS-8000?</p>

<p>A 21 MP camera will not make you a better photographer nor will it produce images that need less 'Editing'. Experience and many hours of shooting will give you better results only after you gain the skills you currently lack. It truly never is about the equipment, it is always about the person who uses it.</p>

<p>Les, good catch- I meant to write that I scanned at 4,000 p.p.i., the LS 8000's maximum resolution.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your responses. I am sorry if I was unclear or may have stated things poorly. I don't want to spend more than $3,000 on the upgrade, so I am not really considering the Nikon D3. If I was going to spend 8,000 or so, I would want it to produce something similar to 4x5 or medium format. I was just wondering if I should wait for Nikon to make something in the $3,000 range in a similar league with the Canon Mark II since I am familiar with Nikon. I am also very much aware that a photographer/light/subject ect. is what makes a good photograph. I am just concerned with the quality of my commercial images, but don't want to make a poor purchase since I have already waited so long to upgrade. When I look at other commercial websites, the images just seem so bright, clear, and sharp...quality I feel I could never produce with my D200 regardless of the wonderful light and good exposure/settings, ect as well as what I could do in photoshop. I was thinking of buying the Canon, but the guy at the camera store is such a Nikon man that he talked me out of it and I remain confused on what I should do. However, some of these commercial websites I have gone too, where the image quality looks stunning (not necessarily the subject or the way it was shot) they are Canon Mark II users. </p>

<p>Tara, buying a new DSLR- Nikon or Canon- with more resolution isn't going to help you make images that will post better on a web page, as web images use only a small fraction of the resolving capabilities of any DSLR camera. Sizing and sharpening images for web posting is an acquired skill.</p>

<p>This flower image was shot with one of my D200's, but could as easily have been shot with my D100's. Obviously, it isn't the best image ever taken of a lilly; but its sharp, dynamic and color-accurate. I wouldn't have made a better image with a D3x or a 1Ds Mark III. In fact, I took a better photo of some lillies the other day with my iPhone.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you take the time to learn to shoot in RAW, use Photoshop or Lightroom and get the hang of a good sharpening program- e.g. PhotoKit Sharpener. I'd been shooting for more than 25 years when I got into digital photography. Not that I'm a master of Photoshop now, but I had to take a little time learn how to correctly size and sharpen to post photos on the web.</p><div></div>