Where to compare

[Elkman]

I have been asked a few times about comparing camera's.
Here is where I start.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

You can choose a camera on the top left, then choose a pic then click on it again to get it to download in that frame full size then do the same thing in the top right frame with the same pic.
Now you can view them in the windows full frame size side by side.
You can also right click in each frame to save it to your computer and compare them FULL frame full screen size.

Here is the site's home page.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/

If your out for a point and shoot I would love a Canon G9 12 meg.
If your really low on funds, a Canon G3 4meg off Ebay for around $100 or less.

DSLRis another story 

[boneaddict]

I would like to compare a nikon d200 and d80 and a Canon Eos40D.   Thats my current research project.

[popeshawnpaul]

My Canon 40d sure takes nice pictures...  They all do really good though.  You have Canon lenses don't you Bone?  That makes it easy then in my mind...

Lets forget all this "which camera is better" crap.  They all take good photos.  I'm more worried about what lens is better.  The resource I use is at the following site:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

It has user ratings on lenses that gives you a good idea at what is quality.  A rating of 9.0+ is a good lens.  A rating of 9.9 or 10 like a couple of the sharpest Canon lenses is world class.  A D200 on a 7.0 rated lens versus a 40D on a 9.0 rated lens would be a landslide winner for the canon...and vice verse.  I could put D200 photos next to 40D photos and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  I'm not sure any pros could tell the difference.  Buy glass, not gadgets!

shawn

[boneaddict]

Good thoughts.  I agree it has to do with the lens and the pocket book for which to get the lens.  I have glass that fits my A2E body, but don't have a clue whether they are compatable for the new Dslrs bodies.  That would blow me away if so, as you said, that would be a no brainer.

Quite frankly, I have always been a canon man, and didn't even know about nikon until theMM crowd started slammin the board with pro pics. 

[LongTatLaw]

Im still holding on to my SLR film canon. I cant let go because of all the damn money in glass I have invested...money thats gone forever because theres no market for film cameras now... rather lone used film cameras lol

I use a lot of quantaray glass on my film SLR but not sure how they do for Dig.

I think my tax return may look a lot like a 12 meg SLR Dig Nikon   not sure yet.

[popeshawnpaul]

If it's a Canon brand lens it is compatable.  My Tokina and a Sigma I tried were also compatible...

[Elkman]

Sorry, this was in refeence to P&S.
I look at it this way, which is a given for most stuff, you get what you pay for.
and SLR glass that's 3.5-5.6 or 6.3 at around $400-$800 is not going to be comparable to a peice of glass that's 1.4-2.8 and runs $1500-$2500.
I have already priced my next 2 Lenses, and it's going to cost me $3200 
And that's after I drop $5k on the D3.
My buddy just bought the D300 last week and it's sweet in the low grain area, but I REALLY want to get back to Full frame.
Yes, I to would like Canon lenses, but I already started wth 3K worth of Nikon glass.
and After I did a side by side with the 1Ds MK3 VS the D# at 3200 ISO, the Nikon smokes Canon in Low noise at HI ISO, so I got that goin for me  At least a year and a half anyway, till Canon copies the technique on there NEXT flagship camera.

[boneaddict]

Dang Pope, you may have just made me an excited man, or cost me a bucnh of money.  Sure makes it harder to jump to the nikon boat. 

elkman...you are shooting a d200 now aren't you?

[popeshawnpaul]

I like good old Canon vs Nikon debates.  There have been quite a few comparisons with the noise levels at 3200 between the various cameras.  The only real differences are in the way they are processed by the cameras.  There are tradeoffs for the Nikons in their processing of images to get low noise.  From the major comparisons I've seen, there isn't much difference.  I rarely shoot higher than iso 400 anyways...  I've never actually shot at iso 3200 in fact...  If you think Canon L glass is expensive, have you seen the prices on Nikon's new VR telephotos?...    

On another note, I know quite a few of you get excited by the two guys over on MM that shoot with Nikon and post their pictures...they are a rare breed.  When I'm out shooting, 80%+ of the pros and people I see are shooting Canon.  Go look at Donald Jone's pictures here:

http://donaldmjones.com/

I shot beside him over in Montana recently and he was using Canon and had a 600mm F4 L.  In fact, when I was shooting in Montana the only person I shot with that had Nikon was Tony...  Donald Jones takes amazing shots and had about 3 cover photos from Field and Stream and other magazines in the last month.  Now, Tony takes amazing shots and his work appears on cover magazines as well.  Both brands work fine and Nikon has caught up to Canon in the recent years.  All I know is that we all will win, no matter the brand.  Increased competition will push these companies to try and outdo the other one.  The consumer wins, no matter if your lens happens to be white or black...

Elkman is 100% right on about P&S cameras...they just can't hang with even basic dslr gear.  They have their purpose, and I have one myself.  I personally don't see a whole lot of difference between any of them.  I would simply look for the highest optical zoom and stabilization if I were to look for one for wildlife. 

[Elkman]

Chevy or Ford, Bud Or Miller.
There will always be those comparisons. Same with Nikon And Canon.
I like both, if I could have either I would have Canon for there glass, and you do see more pros shoot with Canon then Nikon, especially sports.
 
I shoot alot of Rock and Roll and other events indoors under low theater lighting, so Hi ISO is VERY important to me.
The reason I would do a D3 over the 1Ds MK3 is because of the low noise, as seen here.
Here are 2 pics, one from the MK3 one from the D3
 then a full frame crop from both, there both shot at 3200 ISO.

Nikon
 

Canon


Nikon


Canon

[popeshawnpaul]

One thing we have noticed from the test shots, and the ones you posted show it, is the Nikon post processes out the grain.  Canon leaves it in.  The plus is that the Nikon has lower noise.  The negative is that it's a bit softer?  I'm not sure softer is quite the right word.  The Nikon does have lower grain, but I look at the writing in the lower right (Benissi...).  See how the red from the lettering has kind of "bleeded" out and is not quite as sharp as the Canon?  There is pink around the writing.  I'm not quite sure which is better.  I guess the lower noise would be nice, but I hate to compromise sharpness.  I gave up shooting concerts years ago with my photojournalist job.  My last show I shot was Van Halen at the Gorge.  It was simply wild.  I think it's amazing that we are even "complaining" about the noise with these 3200 iso crops.  I'm still thinking back to my film days shooting 3200 for Van Halen and the grain in those shots...  Oh my, no comparison.  I love the new technology.

I guess we highjacked your thread a bit...

shawn