Nikon and Canon Apples and Oranges (ISO)?

[meisaki]

When crossing the digital divide as far as an SLR body is concerned

I would be happy enough with 6 megapixels,slightly biased towards

Nikon because I already have Nikon AF lenses.

 

The ISO range of the two brands is what I would like to address,

Cannon offer 100-3200 EOS. Nikon offer 200-1600 D70 and 50-400

Coolpix. 1600 is as fast as I need to go but what difference is

there with Cannon going as low as 100 as opposed to Nikon (D) 200.

Is the ISO just a way of explaining to a traditional user who may

not know the difference between a J-Peg and a TIFF how thier product

performs? Is it possible that having chosen the D-70 the files will

be pushed to perform like 3200's or Pulled down to 100 in the

digital darkroom?

 

Thank You for taking the time to read my post.

[peter_phan]

Sometimes there are practical reasons for wanting to shoot at ISO 100, and sometimes there are practical reasons for wanting to shoot at ISO 3200. For me, those reasons typically are related to what shutter speeds I want to attain. It's as simple as that, at least for me. And I'll also go to ISO 100 for the cleanest images possible, if I can.

[michael_matsil]

Hi Alan....I'll quote myself from a recent thread on this subject:

 

"ISO is relative, just like many 'standards of measure' in photography. One camera's 100

ISO is another camera's 200, just like with films (was Velvia50 really 50?....I don't think so!)

Only testing against an absolute standard will tell the absolute truth. I'll bet that the D70's

200 is pretty much in the neighborhood of an absolute 100 (or maybe 160.) The rest is

marketing. Nikon wants this camera to be a mass market success. The pro's psychology is

that we want slow and medium speeds which represent smooth and grainless looks. We

use faster pricier lenses to cope. The consumer's psychology is that we want faster speeds

so we can shoot anywhere in our travels and sacrifice little in smoothness of tone (we also

want cheap as dirt slow zoom lenses as part of the deal.) Faking your minimum speed

upwards creates an illusion. "gee, my 200 ISO on my D70 looks as good as the 100 ISO on

my friend's Canon. It must be a better camera. Tell all your friends!" This is at least the

way I beleive Nikon see's it. The fact is, the speeds are pretty much the same."

 

Here is the link to that thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00BN4z

[godfrey]

The native sensitivity of the 16x24mm Sony sensor used in the Nikon D70, Pentax *ist DS,

Konica/Minolta 7D and several other Nikon/Pentax models is ISO 200. If you cut back the

sensitivity of the Sony sensor to simulate ISO 100, it would most likely not produce as

clean an image. Canon's 16x24mm sensor has a native sensitivity of ISO 100, that's all.

 

I don't know about the Nikon D70, but the Pentax *ist DS which uses the same sensor

supports ISO 200-3200, and has well controlled noise throughout the range ... at ISO 200

it's comparable to the Canon 16x24 sensor at ISO 100, although the Canon's do have a

small edge at ISO 1600 and 3200.

 

The Coolpix uses a smaller Sony sensor and is not comparable to either of the DSLR

sensors. It's native ISO is closer to 50 and it gets pretty noisy over ISO 200.

 

Godfrey

[majid]

The Canon sensors have lower dark current noise and thus better noise performance (or alternatively, Nikon uses more aggressive noise reduction at equivalent ISOs). Unless you are an astrophotographer, it should not matter much - the difference is nowhere near as pronounced as it was with the 10D vs. D100.

[lex_jenkins]

If you already have money sunk into some pretty good AF Nikkors it makes the most sense to go with Nikon.

 

OTOH, if your Nikkors are fairly pedestrian and you're considering a substantial upgrade for better optical performance, don't feel tied to Nikon if Canon offers glass that you want. (I say that as a current Nikon owner and former Canon owner.)

 

Pushing the sensor gain to "increase ISO" seems to boost noise out of proportion to light sensitivity with most cameras. It's probably better to use the lowest number you can get by with while maintaining the exposure settings you want or need.

 

There are noise reduction utilities that can help, so noise at high ISOs shouldn't be a major factor in your decision unless you expect to do a lot of low available light shooting.

 

Megapixel wars shouldn't sway you either. I'm as much concerned about handling as anything else. A higher megapixel camera that's irritating to use is hardly worth the extra MP. (I'm not implying that the 20D handles worse than the D70 or any other dSLR - it just didn't happen to suit my preferences.)

[isaac sibson]

Heavy handed noise reduction techniques typically result in images having a peculiar "watercolour" look, which is particularly prevalent with the kodak, fuji and olympus DSLRs.

 

In the consumer cameras, canon's ISO100 has been found by dpreview to be of similar sensitivity to many competitors' ISO160.

 

The EOS 1Ds offered an ISO50 mode, which was activated by special function as it limited dynamic range.

[praveen murthy]

Provided that ISO 100 on the Canon and ISO 200 on the Nikon do result in half the exposure on the Nikon for the exact same scene, there is an obvious advantage to having ISO 100: when you want lower shutter speeds, you don't need to reach for a neutral density filter as often. I haven't tested my EOS 20D against my Elan, but will do so whether the ISO 100s are comparable there. For the 3200 part, obviously, that's also useful, although some Nikon users claim that they can underexpose by one stop at 1600 and correct it in photoshop later. Of-course, you can't do that at the lower end since you would have to overexpose and blow out the highlights. As far as quality is concerned, most people agree that ISO 100-400 are pretty much noise free on most DSLRs. On the Canon, even 800 is extremely good with almost no noise in 8x11 prints.

[Ed_Ingold]

ISO 200 on one camera is not necessarily the same as ISO 200 on another, nor is it related to the relative quality of ISO 200 film. Some sensors are noisier than others, even with the same manufacturer or possibly even the sensor (the electronics make a significant contribution to the quality.) You have to look at the results of each camera (and model) to see what to expect. You (the photographer) may have different needs for different situations.

 

I find that a D1x or D2h works very well from ISO 200 to 800. Both start to get noisy above 800, but still useable and less "grainy" than the corresponding film. If I'm shooting in a dim auditorium, I'll use whatever it takes - 1600, 3200 or 6400. Grain/noise just adds "character" to low light shots - though I haven't convinced the art director on that point. I care not whether the low point is ISO 125 or 200! I do care what I can get out of what's there.