Camera revelation

[greg_lisi]

<p>As an avid Nikon shooter from the mid-70's (semi-pro/enthusiast) I came upon a situation that I wondered if any other Nikon(ist) experienced. For me it has been a very interesting revelation....I'll be damned....Nikon isn't the only quality DSLR manufacturer of gear on the planet. It has taken me a number of years to be able to purchase all Nikon glass, a D3, D300 (soon to sell), and a D7000. In my wildest dreams I would've never believed I would purchase anything but Nikon gear. Well, to make a complex/long story short, I wound up buying, from a financially distressed relative, a new Canon T3 kit for almost a song. I've wanted for some time to pick-up an ultra small/light take-everywhere-supercasual D3000 class camera, but not in the P&S class. When the situation came up, I figured it would be a win-win if I pulled the trigger. Well, I did and here's the kicker....I've been shooting the little T3 with an upgraded (from the kit) 17-85 zoom. I use Canon's DPP s/w to convert from raw to tiff, take it into LR3 to tweak and out to JPEG. The IQ I've been able to get from the T3 is, in a word, amazing! When I first bought the T3 I knew it was an entry level camera so my expectations were that this camera's performance wasn't going to come close to my D3 or D7000. Ah...hello, I got a wakup call from the otherside of the fence!!<br>

For me, this brings up the question...are there many dual product or Nikon/Canon shooters (pro/non-pro?) who switch back and forth for reasons?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I suspect that someone using that T3 would experience a similar revelation when using your D300's AF system to track moving subjects, or your D3's high ISO performance and frame rate in situations they've never before been able to handle. All modern cameras are good. The differences show up in the performance margins or in the form of very specific features that differentiate makes/models (the T3 user might be really surprised by a full-on Nikon CLS lighting scheme controlled from your D300's menu). And those moderate improvements in performance usually come at a substantial cost - and with dimishing returns on those costs for <em>most</em> typical users.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I've understood that Canon and Nikon, (along with Sony), currently make great quality DSLRs. I've shot both, but I will not switch to Canon, nor will I purchase a Canon DSLR for the simple fact that I don't like the way Canon's cameras fit in my hands.</p>

<p>Really, if Canon would focus more on ergonomics and true usability rather than "looking good" and "seeming more usable" I'd look more into Canon, but alas, they don't.</p>

<p>BTW, I think that the most usable and user friendly Canon ever built was the AE-1</p>

<p>RS</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I'm with Richard - all of the name brands are high quality and each has it's strengths and weaknesses. </p>

<p>I've shot with friend's Canons and when I was done, they went back to them. </p>

<p>For me it's all about the layout of the menus and buttons and Canon still hasn't figured out where to put the on-off switch after 10 years. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[sking]

<p>Greg,<br>

Amateurs fixate over their gear. Pros just use whatever gets the job done. I shoot for a newspaper, and I carry Canon gear, Nikon gear, and even occasionally Leica gear. (And it's <em>my</em> gear, not the paper's. I paid for all of it.) I use the tools that are appropriate to the assignment and the gears' capabilities. Each manufacturer has its strengths and its limitations in its product line. There is no "one size fits all" solution. Anyone who says there is is selling something or not paying attention.<br>

So, you now have Nikon cameras and lenses, and a Canon camera and lens. So what? Only the gear snobs will really care.<br>

When John Updike or Patricia Cornwell publish a novel, no one asks, "So Patty, what word processor did you use?" That would be crazy. The final novel — or in our case, the image — is what matters.<br>

When HCB commented, "I am not concerned with the technology of the photograph," he was right on. It's the image that matters. A bad picture taken with a Nikon D3s or a Canon 1DMkIV is still a bad picture. The gear doesn't make the photo legitimate.<br>

Enjoy your T3, and happy snaps.<br>

Steven</p>

<p> </p>

[greg_lisi]

<p>Thank you guys...your input is appreciated. My perspective with this experience encompasses the wow-factor level of DSLR technology and where it has come to (and where it's going). Put 2 DSLR's, one which appears and feels like a toy (T3), and one that looks and feels like one hell of a serious piece of gear (D3/3s) and see the end result of each (IQ image) to an experienced, or even an average eye, and the comparison is quite amazing. Sure, the bells and whistles of circuitry, computer processing, optic sensors, etc. lend to speed and high horsepower features of the upper level DSLR's. But given the limitations of these relatively inexpensive low-end, entry level models, (such as the T3 or the D3000) just blows me away in terms of what they can put out. Now I'm getting more of an insight to the DSLR wars (for lack of a better word).</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Are you comparing the T3i against the D3000? Have a go at the D3100 if you want a somewhat small body that has OK color...</p><div></div>

[Rick Waller]

<p>If you want to see a noticeable difference between the Nikon and Canon entry level cameras (other than those ergonomic issues that are valid), shoot a a few frames in which there are extrememly wide tonal ranges going from deep shadow to bright white using both the Canon and the Nikon mounted on a tripod using identical settings with comparable lenses set at consistent apertures. Try for a shot where there are deep. underexposed shadows that are nearly clipped. The shots should be at almost the limits of both the right and left side of the histo. Then fiddle around in the shadow areas and work to bring back the detail as best as possible in the shadows using LR or PS. Fill slider for example.<br>

Then decide which image from which camera tolerates the heavy handed adjustment better. Look specifically for noise introduced into the shadow area, for color fidelity and for a curious, yet often apparent grid pattern that is subtly (or not so subtely) overlaid onto the image by one of the cameras. It shows up as if it was an actual pattern, where none existed. Then have a go with one of the noise reduction programs (such as Define, Noise Ninja or the one found in LR) in these recovered shadow areas. You might be interested to see that the two systems handle near impossible tonal ranges quite differently. If one looks better under such intentionally drastic measures, it stands to reason that that sensor will produce better results in less demanding circumstances. <br>

I have not shot with a Canon often and, while I too prefer the ergonomics of the Nikons since I have shot with the same basic pro body style for more than 35 yrs from the F2 through to the D3. I discount that "advantage" since it really is more muscle memory than anything else I suspect. The only difference I see is when one works in shadow areas in post. To me, the hands down winner is.......</p>

[leighb]

<p>I've always based my choice of brand on optics. The light can't read the name on the camera body.</p>

<p>Nikon is an optical company. Canon is not.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Yes I shoot both systems. You can use most Nikon lenses on Canon bodies with the right adapter.</p>

<p>I like the Nikon system overall - the new D7000 is ahead of Canon sensor technology by a wide margin. The D300 has much better build and AF than the 7D - while not being bulky or heavy. For me, the layout of the Nikon menu system is better...but Canon has better implementation of Video and Live View.</p>

<p>Overall I now shoot mostly Canon because for what I do, they have better lenses (telephotos such as the 400 F5.6 and a more reasonably priced 500 F4 and the 800mm F5.6). I also like the 17mm T/S lens much...but wish they also had a 14-24mm F2.8 comparable to Nikons...anyway, I go with the lenses and fit them to my Canon bodies these days...</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I jumped ship from Nikon film cameras to a Canon 5D when it looked like Nikon were NEVER going to produce their own full-frame DSLR after Kodak pulled out of the market. Then I realised I'd have to re-kit with Canon glass at considerable expense - plus I had a bad experience with a faulty L series lens.</p>

<p>Long and short. Jumped back to Nikon with their introduction of the D700 and haven't looked back. I can use all my older Nikon glass on the D700 to great effect, and in most cases with better IQ than Canon's modern equivalent. On paper the 5D and D700 have a similar spec, but the D700 has a far superior dynamic range and high-ISO performance. OTOH the 5D hardly ever put a foot wrong in the exposure department, whereas IMHO the D700's 3D colour matrix metering is an overcomplicated pile of excrement that needs constant monitoring for its tendency to overexpose.</p>

<p>I like the simplicity and ergonomics of the 5D and dislike the extra bulk of the D700 together with the complexity of Nikon's menu system, but I must admit that the D700 offers far more flexibility in use than the 5D. I still use the 5D in parallel with the D700, but the split of use is probably something like 85% Nikon / 15% Canon.</p>

<p>So I guess there'll never be a perfect camera for everyone, but for me the fit with Nikon is better than with Canon. As someone once said "comparisons are odious".</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Of course the T3 is good - I am not sure why you are surprised. Entry level cameras are really good these days. I often use my wife's now old Canon Xti and that is excellent within its good ISO range. "Ergonomics" is in the mind of the user - many of us wonder why Nikon users make a big fuss over this compared with Canon. It is just a matter of getting to know your camera. As to the idea that Nikon is an optical company and Canon is not has to be some kind of weird joke.<br>

I actually prefer the look of Nikon lenses, but they all do much the same thing to varying degrees of perfection. Canon are generally more competitively priced across the board than Nikon and this adds up over time.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>As to the idea that Nikon is an optical company and Canon is not has to be some kind of weird joke.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not a joke. Check it out.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>OK, you're right: all those little glass tubes that Canon made and make are not lenses and never have been.</p>

[john_mallery]

<p>You may have another revelation coming: once the newness wears off, the new<br>

camera is just a tool to get a job done, and photography returns to light, composition and<br>

technique, and the camera fades into the background as your fingers and mind control it almost<br>

automatically.<br>

maljo</p>

 

[markci]

<p>Thanks, Leigh, I needed a laugh.</p>