Canon better noise than Nikon. Not !

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by suzanne_andersen, Sep 29, 2006.

  1. What does everyone think of these tests done by Ken Rockwell.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/index.htm#summary

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/resolution.htm

    In particular, see his comments on the "granite" where the Canon's were
    fuzzier than the Nikons at the highest ISO.

    Also the Canon's aliasing seemed a minus.

    Overall, the Canon's did not do so well in Ken's tests. It could be argued
    that the Nikon's won the noise tests.

    Any comments?

    (Notice I asked for comments on the tests, not on Ken Rockwell ... so everyone
    who comments on Ken gets the buzzer).
     
  2. I think Ken tends to find what he's looking for.

    Sorry, couldn't help myself :)
     
  3. Carl, ironically that's what Ken said about other people in his preface to the tests. BTW, did you read his report in detail? I notice your reply came pretty quickly after I posted the question.
     
  4. Suzanne, to my eye, Canon IN FACT does have better noise reduction then the Nikon's. Any Nikons. What you seem to miss, is that the Nikons show LESS DETAIL because their anti-noise algo's are MORE AGGRESSIVE...more aggressive means noise gets removed BUT SO DOES DETAIL...too high a price to pay.

    By the way, I took this from Ken's site you pointed out to us.

    You really need to stop being fooled. In order for Nikon to "match" or come close to Canon's noise performance, they have to crank up their algorithms, but guess what again? DETAIL GONE!

    Don't fall for this.
     
  5. Suzanne, are you a troll? You just joined today...your love for Nikon is religion, based on faith....our preference for Canon is not faith based....it's based on facts.

    Canon has ALWAYS provide LESS NOISE then any and all Nikon DSLRs, of any cost. Get over it.
     
  6. I don't understand why Ken didn't remove a variable by using his very sharp Nikon prime lens with an adaptor on the Canons - it would also have allowed him to use the same aperture (another variable not controlled for). It's also noticeable that there are differences in exposure between the cameras - with the Canon shots (particularly the 30D) being significantly overexposed. That will naturally affect the outcomes. In short, there are too many factors that have been poorly controlled (perhaps by design) to make any meaningful comparisons.
     
  7. Pavel, I am a Canon user. True, I did sign up today, because I read Ken's article on wanted some feedback on it from other Canon users. Anyway, thanks for the welcome to the forum.
    Suzanne
     
  8. Suzanne,
    Ken is know any where on any forum to his hate about Canon Camera. Why I don't know.
    I not the first article he post on his web site whom are a "little" bias again the Canon Camera.
    I read this article some day ago and it have some flaw
    If you want a real opinion about noise on camera go at dpreview.com, the reviewer here is a Nikon lover, but he is honest.
    00IF66-32684384.jpg
     
  9. From dpreview

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

    "Apart from the obvious resolution difference the EOS 30D and EOS 5D produced fairly similar levels of visible noise and also limited softening at ISO 1600 and 3200. The Nikon D200 exhibits more noise above ISO 800 and pretty heavy noise reduction effect at ISO 3200. The D200's noise reduction seems to take care of chroma (color) noise better than Canon giving noise a more film like monochromatic appearance. However on balance it's clear that the EOS 30D comes away with a more usable image (compared to the D200) at ISO 1600 and 3200."

    ISO 1600 and 3200 of people benefit from a very light use of chroma noise reduction.

    I actually really like the Nikon cameras, especially the D80 and D200, and you could compare them favourably against the Canon's on many levels but noise would not be one.
     
  10. Ken is a Nikon user, only a human being and have biases.

    On the review of the canon sd700 IS , He said that the sd700 IS , has better build quality than the rebel xt and the 30d, I wonder why he did not include a Nikon model to the insult.

    In the review of nikon d80 on dpreview, the 400d clearly has better image and noise characteristics than the Nikon.

    All other manufacturers at the moment, is just playing catch-up with Canon, regarding sensor and processor performance in dslrs.
     
  11. A couple of years ago I jumped from a lifetime of Nikon use to Canon. I had a Nikon D100 and went with the Canon 20D (and later added the full frame 5D). I still have Nikon enlargements on the wall that clearly show the noise when the ISO was dialed up. The Canons never really show this in "real world" shooting. The full frame 5D is really amazing in this respect.
     
  12. your love for Nikon is religion, based on faith....our preference for Canon is not faith based....it's based on facts.
    I had to laugh at that massive dose of unwarranted assumption, subsequently undercut by Suzanne herself. And based on what I see in this forum, the prim little phrase about Canon users not being faith-based is, to put it mildly, not invariably correct.
    Disclaimer: I use Canons myself.
     
  13. don't mind Pavel, he's our local multiple-personality, um, shall we say "entertainer." look through his posts of a couple weeks ago for some good laughs.

    welcome suzanne.
     
  14. First, his conclusions don't seem to jive with that of DP Review, which in my experience has scientifically sound testing (Ken should have done his tests with the same lens; he did not.
    Second, he's comparing a 10 Megapixel Nikon to two 8 Megapixel Canons. Why didn't he do this comparison with the 5D? Probably because he knows the high ISO performance and resolution of the 5D not only trounces the D200, but it also trounces the D2X.
    I also agree with Alistair in that there are certainly some points on which the D200 or D2X are clear winners. High ISO noise levels is unequivocally not one of them. This is based upon my hands-on experience as much as my reading of various resources online.
     
  15. One more thing to consider. Roll-over the image, as Ken suggests (here). However, instead of looking at the brightly lit cabinets that are so prominent, look at the shelf behind the chair (it the bottom-left corner of the image). There's an enormous difference, there, between ISO 100 and ISO 3200. To me, this coincides with DP Review's discovery that the D2X has very high levels of luminance noise, but low levels of chroma noise.
    I don't know about you, but I don't take photos at ISO 3200 when I'm in a brightly lit room. The reason I shoot at ISO 3200, is because the scene is not brightly lit. Therefore, the luminance noise level will play a large role in the overal quality of my images.
     
  16. I have shot side by side several times with a friend of mine. He has a Nikon D2X, I have a Canon 1D mkII. We have compared images afterwards on screen an in print. Until 400iso the D2X images can hold up, but above that, there is a BIG difference!
     
  17. umd

    umd

    In the review of nikon d80 on dpreview, the 400d clearly has better image and noise characteristics than the Nikon.

    Canon's perceived lesser noise and detail are delusional, because as you can see from comparision pictures Canon applies a lot of sharpening to camuflage noise reduction which is evident from the halos at high contrast trasitions. See the resolution chart comparision here, check the vertical lines especially.

    Nikon obviously applies more conservative sharpening or no sharpening at all, which is a better approach since sharpening is not a reversible manipulation, and doing it later (outside the camera) is the more flexible way.
     
  18. > Canon's perceived lesser noise and detail are delusional

    Oh yeah, you're going to win a lot of converts around here with your choice of words... :)
     
  19. umd

    umd

    You'r so fast Hyun, anything else (such as an argument) to contribute?
     
  20. These samples were shot at IS0 100. What does this have to do with noise? Sharpening levels are adjustable from the default. You can specify zero sharpening, if you choose.
     
  21. umd

    umd

    These samples were shot at IS0 100. What does this have to do with noise? Sharpening levels are adjustable from the default. You can specify zero sharpening, if you choose.

    Where does the sharpening halos come from then? As far as I know its because Canon applies on board noise reduction, even before getting the raw image ("on board noise reduction circuitry" is their official saying), you may check this from several of their official product releases. This kind of noise reduction and subsequent sharpening may not be cancellable. If sharpening levels are adjustable then Phil Askey would (and should) chose to apply no sharpening to both cameras, otherwise test would be meaningless.
     
  22. What I think.

    I think that when the 20d and 10d were introduced that noise levels in the canon sensors were better. now that gap IMO has been narrowed to the point of being insignificant. That said I still prefer the canon image to a nikon. BUT the thing that sells me on a canon is taht they offer a full frame digital SLR.. Nikon doesn't. if I were to choose another camera other than canon. I woudl be looking at something like the new Pentax (entry level price but if the image quality is even close to being on par with current designs I think it will do well)
     
  23. "The moiré issues in the scan marked "perfection" are artifacts of Photoshop's resampling algorithms....
    It's easy to see that my D80 and D200 perform smoothly. There is no significant moiré or aliasing or any other funny business going on.
    This is interesting: the three Canons have significant aliasing, or false resolution.... This is an engineering textbook rendition of aliasing."​
    Hmmmm.... The 'perfection' scan's moire is caused by the resampling in photoshop but the canon images are the canon's fault not the RESAMPLING IN PHOTOSHOP? Yeah that makes sense.
    "The aliasing isn't turning colors on the 20D and 30D, so no problem. There's a little bit of color on my SD700, but as we'll see at ISO 200, it's insignificant photographically"​
    I didn't really notice any on the SD700 shots, but every one of the D70 shots looked horrible.
    "But wait - look at the granite! The Nikons render this much more sharply than the Canons...."​
    Yikes... so much noise even something out of focus looks sharp. Way to go Nikon. Seriously is this guy blind or just an...
    "The only thing I see is more aliasing with the Canons, but the same noise."​
    I don't know what he sees in his tests but I see more a little more detail and MUCH less noise in the 8mp canon shots that have been resampled to match his 10mp nikon shots.
    If you look at the 'black dot' in the middle of the charts... the true story is hidden right before your eyes.
    I am a canon guy, but I am more than willing to accept when canon is bested by nikon.... This couldn't be farther from the case when it comes to noise.
     
  24. i doubt this even need to be debated.. i think it's quite obvious who wins this war. I could never use my d2x above 640, and chose not to over 400. I just bought my first canon. a 5d. and boy, the few nikon loyalists who hold their pride over common sense really are missing out.. but it's fine by me.. keep shooting nikon and leave the higher isos to canonites, now including me.
     
  25. Mark Chappel, Noise performance is EVERYTHING....and therefore Canon is the best way to go these days, if one wants a DSLR. Perhaps in the future Nikon will improve in that department, but for today, the XIi produces less noise at ISO 1600 then does the D2X Nikon flagship...that is why I maintain people by Nikon today by faith, religion, in other words, brand loyalty...again, in the digital realm, noise is the achilles heal with manufacturers. Is this a laughing matter? I don't see the humor.
     
  26. Umit, adding sharpening in-cam will only make the noise worse...your arguments are not grounded in pysics, nor reality.

    There are COUNTLESS reviews, especially one on dpreview.com which prove that Nikon must crank up the AA and algo's to remove the noise, and guess what Umit? DETAIL GONE BABY.

    How you can deny Canon's superior noise performance at each body price point against Nikon speaks to the "religious", and "brand loyalty" I wrote about earlier on this thread.

    Umit, keep the faith buddy, keep the faith going...sooner or later hyperbole turns to "fact". ;-)
     
  27. If sharpening levels are adjustable then Phil Askey would (and should) chose to apply no sharpening to both cameras, otherwise test would be meaningless.
    Now, you're changing the arguement, just so you can have something to argue about. Right at the top of the results, the following is written: "cameras set to ... image parameters default." The test isn't meaningless. He's testing the cameras the way they'll take photos, out of the box -- with default settings.
     
  28. Mark Chappel, Noise performance is EVERYTHING
    Really? Gee, how delusional of me. I always thought things like color accuracy, detail resolution, system versatility, lens characteristics, and so forth had some minor importance to image quality. However, now I know better.
     
  29. umd

    umd

    Umit, adding sharpening in-cam will only make the noise worse...your arguments are not grounded in pysics, nor reality.

    Ok, lets hear what ground in physics that tells adding sharpening in-cam AFTER SOME NOISE REDUCTION will only make noise worse? Which physicist found it? Einstein? Rutherford? Fermi? Later in your post you talk about Nikon's need to crank up ALGORITHMS to remove noise which has nothing to do with physics but computer science.

    First noise is of random and fractal nature, which means you can't identify noise exclusively to remove it from signal. You can only seach known patterns in a signal which resemble noise and smoothen them. By doing this also you rob off some of the actual signal inevitably, in digital photography this corresponds to loss of detail. This detail can't be put back but an illusion of "sharpness" can be added with the unsharp masking.

    Try this: go ahead and clean a noisy picture in a noise cleanup program like Noise Ninja, then sharpen it, you gonna see those halos at high contrast areas. It is correct that noise will get worse with sharpening, hey but remember you cleaned it, so what is going to get worse? Sound? Even for you?

    Btw, I have a Canon FS4000US scanner which has a similar and undocumented "feature", it applies a default amount of sharpening to all scanned images which is not cancellable in the dedicated Canon software (though it can be cancelled by 3rd party software) because of that scans from this scanner are perceived as being very sharp. This issue is not mentioned by Canon and goes unnoticed by the casual buyer who is content with his sharp looking scans. So this is at least a way of doing things, at Canon.

    How you can deny Canon's superior noise performance..blah...blah..keep the faith buddy, keep the faith going...sooner or later hyperbole turns to "fact".

    Now you sound like the typical brand fanboy. Just do one thing, show me that its my eyes and those sharpening halos don't exist in Canon shots.
     
  30. umd

    umd

    Now, you're changing the arguement, just so you can have something to argue about. Right at the top of the results, the following is written: "cameras set to ... image parameters default." The test isn't meaningless. He's testing the cameras the way they'll take photos, out of the box -- with default settings.

    And? Then passing the test is quite easy with your logic, just crank up sharpening, color, noise reduction etc as the default and you'll have better camera since it will give sharpest image, most vivid colors and least noise; there will be lot of other artifacts but who cares. If Phil Askey is thinking as superficially as you then why he also tests cameras at different noise reduction settings, not only the default reduction?
     
  31. Umit, lets forget about pysics, and sharpening.

    Lets speak to noise.

    Nikon, all their bodies across all price points, are noisier at ISO 800 and beyond then the Canon counterparts.

    As for brand boy, well let me assure you that if and when Nikon makes a full-frame body that produces less noise then my 5D at any and all ISO's, well, I'll gladly switch and become a Nikon convert, no problem there.

    You see here on this site, and on DPReview.com and other sites of many, many ex-Nikon shooters going to Canon, and often their reasons, which they themselves write, are the better noise performance of Canon DSLRs.

    I'm yet to remember one single poster that went from Canon to Nikon for better noise performance.

    These are just tools....I those Canon beceaue of superior noise performance, not because I own Canon stock, or love Canon, or any other religions or emotional reason.

    Noise produces an edge...that edge gets bordered with radius of pixels that create more contrast. Adding USM to a noisy image will amplify the noise.

    This is not a sharpening issue. This is not a halo issue.

    This is about random noise found on the image from electro-static and/or electro interference, a by product of the amplification processes, if not other reasons.

    Please explain to me how you can think that Canon does not excel in noise performance. Have you ever used a Canon 5D? At ISO 800, 1600, 3200? The differences are VERY noticiable when one compares to any Nikon DSLR at any price point.

    Like you'll find on dslr review on for example dpreview.com....the only way Nikon can come close to Canon noise performance is if in-camera algo's are used to remove the noise, but funny how the noise is gone, but so is the detail....strange how the Canon images HAVE MORE DETAIL.

    Explain this to us, please.
     
  32. I hope you stop arguing, or this thread might be delelted by a moderator if this gets uglier.

    If you wanna experiment, just download a comparison images of both the 400d and 80d at iso 800 and 1600 from dpreview, and apply noise reduction and USM on your own, and see for yourself which one turns out better and easier to correct.
     
  33. I wouldn't say that this thread is getting ugly. It's just an exchange of opinions....nothing personal against any one responding here.

    People have different opinions....often at far extremes of the spectrum, and that's okay...I think the moderators understand this, at least I hope they do. We're in the "kitchen" and sometimes it gets "hot". No worries there.
     
  34. I'm I the only one who suspects that the Dan/Pavel show has turned into the Dan/Pavel/Suzanne show? I guess it doesn't matter. The show must go on, right?
     
  35. yeah this sure looks like a setup
     
  36. Johnson, and Andy, perhaps you should report Dan, Pavel, and now Suzanne to the Web-master Bob here at PN....tattle tall your life away boys....maybe if you keep complaining like little girls, you might convince Bob to band us.

    Waaa.....Waaaaa....calling out to mommy.
     
  37. Johnson,

    I only posted the question which I was personally interested in, and didn't take part in the actual debate. I've been accused of being a troll and now being part of a show?

    How can I be part of the show when I hardly contributed to the discussion -- since I wanted to see comments on the subject without swaying the direction it went in.

    The reason I posted the question was that, for the most part, the information on the internet heavily favours Canon having better noise handling in DSLRs than Nikon. I was therefore unprepared for Ken's article which seems to show empirical evidence to the contrary, so I put it on the Canon forum for discussion.

    Seriously, this discussion reminds me of people who get heated up when they're accused of having a bad temper.

    Suzanne
     
  38. Suzanne, I never accussed you of being a troll....I just asked because on the surface your question seemed very provocative, running against the finding of everyone excent Ken Rockwell.

    You didn't do anything wrong...Johnson and Andy have little tolerance for other opinions, and when they dislike one's opinion they start acting like babies.

    Nothing wrong with a good banter between mature adults...nothing happened wrong here....except for the inappropriate stupid comments by certain boys...whom would rather pick at others then talk about digital photography. They lack tolerance, and I suspect their behavior is evident of more deep rooted issues, that we can only imagine.

    Water off a ducks back, as they say. ;-)
     
  39. Thanks Pavel. After filtering out the tremendous amount of noise on this Canon forum, what remains looks like really good information, and an overall stimulating discussion.
     
  40. I am a Nikon devotee who owned a 20D so I could meter my old ais lenses on a dslr. I now use a d200. In my opinion, based on hands on experience, the high noise superiority of the Canon is obvious. However, for my tastes, it is not worth the trade off compared to the superior color and contrast performance of Nikon glass.
     
  41. Suzanne, Ken Rockwell is well known among us Nikon users and his articles are so full of unsubstantiated claims and incorrect information that he's become a legend ... there is no point whatsoever in reading his articles except for laughs. It seems like there is a negative correlation between his findings and my own.

    I've got very little experience on Canon DSLRs but what I did try is a 30D with 24-105/4 and the high ISO performance was indeed from another planet than my D200's. I have no doubt about it .. the Nikons do well up to iso 400 and after that the image breaks down (at least for my purposes, although I have a few ISO 800 images which look ok converted to b&w).

    However, I find the colors from my D200 doing a normal RAW conversion in Capture to be very pleasing and the ergonomics of the camera are great. My reason for being a Nikon user are solely because of the high-eyepoint viewfinder on the higher end Nikons which allows me to see the whole viewfinder image with my glasses on without the slightest bit of discomfort. With the 5D, I could only see about 80% even by pressing against the glasses. That's just unacceptable for me, and so I use Nikon, although I recognize Canon to have many advantages. IMO they're arrogant towards those who need to use eyeglasses.
     
  42. according to the specs, the D200 eyepoint is 19.9mm, the 5D 20mm. Do you find those specs inaccurate, or is there some other aspect of the viewfinders that's not captured in the specs? Not a flame, an honest question.
     
  43. Well, the D200's image is easier to see all of because it is smaller of course! The issue you speak of has nothing to do with eyepoint - just a reflection of sensor size (and consequent viewfinder image size). Having a larger image in the viewfinder is a bonus for most photographers.
     
  44. First post ever on a Canon forum with a title: Canon better noise than Nikon. Not!

    Suzanne is a troll.
     
  45. I saw that DPReview did some D80 vs. 400D comparos: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp

    I'll let y'all draw your own conclusions ;)

    --
     
  46. 1. what's a troll?
    2. ken rockwell is a F%%^&ing ego driven tool. period. the way he talks just screams
    uneducated. great, he's got opinions, but i'd hardly say that he is scientific in any nature.
    sorry, but I hate the guy.
     
  47. umd

    umd

    Umit, lets forget about pysics, and sharpening.

    Why? Because you don't have a clue about them?

    Nikon, all their bodies across all price points, are noisier at ISO 800 and beyond then the Canon counterparts.

    Reference? According to D80 review at dpreview.com Nikon shows less noise at ISO 800 (hey you said lets forget about sharpening/sharpness). At this point one (who's not forgotten sharpness) can rightfully argue that noise reduction robs detail and image sharpness (or other image qualities in general) should be taken into account, and when we do that its 400D that seems to give a sharper image. So far so good, but when we look at 400D samples they show sharpening halos even at ISO 100, so the sharpness in 400D (at least partially) comes form unsharp masking.

    There are software to remove noise, but I haven't heard one for removing sharpening artifacts, if there is one it will probably create other side effects while doing that.

    By the way I have one more bad news for you, 400D also shows more moire, check the resolution chart samples for yourself.
     
  48. umd

    umd

    This is about random noise found on the image from electro-static and/or electro interference, a by product of the amplification processes, if not other reasons.

    "Random noise" is an oxymoron, because noise is random in nature. I think you should avoid using terminology of professions you don't have any knowledge about like electrical engineering, computer science, solid state physics, physics in general, and probaly any science.

    Have you ever used a Canon 5D? At ISO 800, 1600, 3200? The differences are VERY noticiable..

    Yes I did. And the noise seemed low. So what? This camera has a larger sensor. Now your beloved physics kicks in and tells that it should have less noise because of larger photosites. That said 5D is expensive and has corner issues with wide angle lenses, you may check dpreview and Canon's own samples for these. Btw full frame vs small frame is not the subject of this thread.

    Strange how the Canon images HAVE MORE DETAIL. Explain this to us, please.

    I did. One more try. You might not be seeing more detail in Canon images, what you are seeing (at least partially) comes from sharpening, which is evident from the sharpening artifacts. To say whether it is the actual detail or something artificial, you have to have the photographed objects standing in front of you. Do you?
     
  49. Umit, it's sad that you are so into being right, even if you are wrong.

    Why is it Umit, that there are SO MANY ex-Nikon shooters coming over to Canon?

    And I find it amazing that you are still disputing the BETTER noise performance of Canon gear....you are in the very, very small minority.

    Most everyone here and in other forums admit that Canon provides better noise performance....

    And if you look very closely at dpreview's noise analysis, the Nikon's LOSE DETAIL in order to come close to Canon noise performance.

    It's sad that you cannot admit this...stubborn....why is it Umit that MOST SWITCHERS GO FROM NIKON TO CANON AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?

    This issues is not debatable...the qualified conclusion amount the pros, the masses is that Canon in fact provides bette noise performance.
     
  50. umd

    umd

    Ok Pavel. I give up. Cause anything is useless when a fanatic switches to the idiot-savant mode, in which all his arguments are derivatives of "My brand/team/religion/nation/race kicks ass, because we say so".<br><br>

    Beware Pavel, so much emotional connection to something you don't have any control over (other than paying them $$$) is destined to frustration.
     
  51. hmmm...i switched from nikon to canon for the superior high iso performance. don't have any facts or statstics or quotes...just testing and comparing images. my photography is my profession...no gear religion. i think you'll find the vast majority of pros agree.
     
  52. Maybe when Umit and Pavel have worked out the Nikon vs Canon question, they can settle
    the issue of angels and pinheads for us.
     
  53. umd

    umd

    Please Mark, at least I know how to spell "physics".
     
  54. lb-

    lb-

    don't mind dan/pavel/anson, he's the resident multi-persona canon mascot. harmless, but if you do push him too much he'll start calling you names then switch to another account and agree with himself.

    the moderators don't seem to care about the abuse of the forum (although I suspect that if he were a nikon zealot he might have been toast by now) but either way, he's not worth getting into conversations with (unless endless "this vs that" arguments are your thing)
     
  55. Poor Lucas, the paranoid little boy whose been trying hourly, daily, and weekly to get me banned. No one listens to him...we have found him out. Fight the good fight Lucas! If you have a different opinion then his, he will call you names, bully you, and send all kinds of letters to powers of this site. Poor Lucas, he has NO pictures displayed on this account, nor any account, nor any gallary online. One wonders if he even owns a camera.

    And Umit, he lives in the land of dillusion...he actually thinks that the Canon noise performance edge over Nikon's is a myth. He can't prove it, so he'll attacke one's spelling instead....Touche Umit, touche!
     
  56. So if I got things right reading Dumb and Dumber, I'm an idiot for buying a 30D because I'll get great in-camera sharpened detailed images?

    Just kidding ;) You guys are a fun read, makes PN feel like DPreview at times!
     
  57. lb-

    lb-

    gotta love you "pavel". I'm not trying to get you banned friend, I think you're fantastic entertainment. maybe dan or anson can chime in on this thread and get the party going.

    and I bet if you try just a little harder you might be able to shake and image or two of mine out of this internet thingy :)
     
  58. lb-

    lb-

    oh and "pavel" you mispelled "gallary" :)
     
  59. umd

    umd

    Philippe, I find your "just kidding" sinisterly hypocritic. I recognize this is the EOS forum and knew even the most blatant EOS fanboy is expected to receive some advocation from the start. Well it slowly turns I am right. Now in your and Mark's posts it surfaces as a passive depreciation attempt of my arguments by implication of a ridiculity via putting them in the same basket as the fanboys'.

    Therefore at the moment I must admit I deserve "the dumber" because of engaging in a fanboy hijacked discussion like that, but "the dumbest" title will eventually gravitate to its owner if I am not proven wrong, which hasn't happened yet.
     
  60. Umit (and Pavel): Like I said: "Just kidding ;)"

    Because contrary to some, I was! I think both of you have some good arguments going but the way the discussion is held, it no longer matters. If you felt I was sinisterly hypocritic and depreciative, imagine how everyone else is feeling when they read your posts... Yeah.

    And were it not for the outrageously overpricing of the D200 in Canada, that was my first choice for a camera this time around, because usability does matter, as do old MF lenses. But in the end, $ for $, I'll trade weather seals and 2 extra megapixels for better IQ any day. And I did. It's not about fanboyism, elitsm, camping, my daddy this, it's about taking good pictures and enjoying doing so.

    And I can say that without insulting anybody, SCREAMING, or being a cheaky little bastard (true as that may be).

    Have a great day! (See, that's almost not sarcastic!)
     
  61. All emotion, fanaticism aside, Umit, do you really believe that Nikon matches or exceeds Canon's noise performance? For example, what Nikon matches or exceeds Canon's 5D noise performance WITHOUT degradation in image detail?

    And if you think I am a fanboy, which I am not, then countless thousands of your fellow Nikonians are guilty as me, for having switched to Canon too...explain why they did please?
     
  62. People, for crying out loud, pull it together. They're just tools. Anybody worth their salt can pull together a good image using any of the bodies listed in this thread. People can and do make compelling images out of boxes with holes poked in them.

    I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears but can we just let this die please?
     
  63. I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears but can we just let this die please?
    I'd vote for euthanasia myself.
     
  64. Andy, it seems the eyepoint specs are not comparable across brands. Perhaps Nikon and Canon measure it differently? From the point of view of using eyeglasses, what is important is how much space there can be between the part of the eyepiece that touches the glasses and the eye while the whole frame is visible at the same time. A second important factor is how much space there is for the nose ... it may be that with a recessed camera back the nose forces the user to look into the eyepiece in an awkward angle. I haven't studied this in detail. What I know is that the only current Canon EOS body that I can see the whole image comfortably with is the 1D Mk II. Of the Nikons, I can use D200 or D2Xs viewfinders easily, as well as F100, F5, F3HP, F4, F-801s film bodies. I don't really pay much attention to the nominal eyepoint since it doesn't seem to be a useful measure across brands.

    It is true that a larger magnification is preferable for viewing and focusing but if I can only see a section of the frame at a time I am not able to compose properly especially if I'm shooting moving subjects. Stuff will be at the edges of the image which I don't see. The magnification and image size do not solely determine eyepoint.
     
  65. Take the dpreview.com comparison tests seriously. You might not like the conclusions, but they are rigorous tests compared to Ken Rockewell's.

    --Lannie
     

Share This Page