Digital SLR Cameras

[lordsmurf]

Not quite there? How do you figure that?
- ISO 25600 with even 1600-3200 having no noise.
- 9 fps in full frame or DX mode
- Supports all lenses, both DX and traditional F-mount for AF (AI, AF, AF-D, AF-S)
- Full frame sensor

Let's not overlook those new lenses either! It all comes out in November, and mine is pre-paid and on order.

Canon get to play catch-up this time around. About time Nikon showed some teeth again. :P

[SquirrelDip]

We can agree to disagree...

The one thing I'm really interested in seeing in the Nikon is the high ISO performance. A friend of mine has been using the Canon 1D Mark 3 for a couple of months - 10 fps sounds like a sewing machine...

[Conquest10]

Canon get to play catch-up this time around.

What happened to all the talk about how Nikon didn't need a full-frame sensor?

[lordsmurf]

Canon get to play catch-up this time around.

What happened to all the talk about how Nikon didn't need a full-frame sensor?

It doesn't need one. It still has DX mode. But FX is nice for studio shots and certain landscape scenarios.

That's another point for Nikon. All lenses work. Those Canon cameras have THREE different ranges (1.3, 1.6, 1.0), and some lenses on some bodies don't just not work, but can actually destroy the camera AND/OR the lens too! Talk about crappy design planning. The D3 auto-crops the viewfinder to the DX lens, when in use. And then the body is actually LESS EXPENSIVE than previous DSLR flagship models.

I actually don't plan to use FX mode all that much.

[Conquest10]

1.3x was a compromise that will soon be fazed out now that full frame sensors are cheaper. 1.6x is the Canon equivalent of DX.

What are you talking about destroy the camera and/or lens? EF-S lenses are a completely different mount and will not mount on non EF-S bodies at all (unless you destroy the lens). That's like criticizing Nikon's lenses for not being able to fit on Canon bodies. What happens if you mount a DX lens on a film body? EF lenses fit all of Canon's dSLRs. EF-S lenses only fit on the Rebels, 20d, 30d, and 40d.

Will DX lenses work on the D3?

[SquirrelDip]

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
How many lens mounts did/does Nikon have??

What sold me originally on the EOS system (back in the late 80's) was the motor in the lens and how fast the system autofocused. All EF lenses work on all eos bodies - EF-S will only work on the 1.6. Not really a big downside if you know your equipment. When/if I sell off my 1.6 then I'll sell off the EF-S lenses (it's amazing how well used lenses sell). Oh, three sensors but still only 2 lens types.

In protrait, landscape and most commercial photography all of the big manufacturers have viable systems - if they didn't they wouldn't be in business. Sport photography is dominated by Canon.

[lordsmurf]

Canon both gained and dropped large numbers of photographers when they changed lens mounts in the late 1980s. They quit supporting all older lenses for the EOS mount, pissing off many photographers, and losing support. But they also introduced silent focusing that was fast, thereby gaining support. It was a trade-off. Nikon was not willing to sacrifice previous generations of lens owners, so it took them a while longer (a few years) to create AF-D fast-focus, and then a few years later the AF-S silent-wave lenses. Both a USM and an AF-S focus equally speedy. The reason Canon is so common in sports photography is those photographers started before AF-S, but after USM. Being a photographer that largely shoots sports, I don't see much difference anymore in who is using what on the sidelines.

edited because I seem to have gotten mixed up on some info here

[SquirrelDip]

Late '90s?? I had an EOS 650 in 1988 - I'm still using my 70-300 on my XTi that was purchased in '94... AF-S wasn't till 2000...

There's one thing that is undeniable: Competition is a very good thing for the consumer and technological advancement.

[Conquest10]

Late '90s?? I had an EOS 650 in 1988

Correct. The EOS EF mount was introduced in 1987.

I agree competition is very good. Canon was getting used to being the top dog in terms of sensor technology. Now they're going to have to start offering a little more.

[SquirrelDip]

It was a couple of years before the USM drives became available but I believe still in the '80's... The first lenses were slower than USM but still much faster than the competitors.

Once again - I am very interested in seeing some real world reviews of the new Nikon sensor. Still made by Sony??

[Conquest10]

Still made by Sony??

Most likely. Nikon doesn't make their own sensors. I think only Sony and Canon make sensors. Also, Nikon seems to now use CMOS like in the Canons.

[lordsmurf]

Commonplace USM lenses were not something I saw until the mid/late 1990s. While EOS existed for a few years, there was not much reason to buy it, aside from some die-hard sports photographers who insisted on using AF.

Everybody shot Nikon when I started (really started, I don't include what I played with in the 80s) in the early 90s.

Nikon co-developed a few of their sensors with Sony, especially on the high-end DSLRs. JFET, LBCAST. The D2 and D3 sensors are designed by Nikon. The D3 uses an EXPEED CMOS sensor. They use both CMOS and CCD still. The lower cameras use stock Sony, from what I've read. Canon used CMOS prematurely a few years ago, before the theory of CMOS-better-than-CCD was a reality.

Nikon sports cameras of yesteryear included the F4, F4s, N8008s, N90, N90s. When the N90 came out, it led the pack with 4fps and AF-D fast-AF Nikkor lenses. Those are what I used back then, along with a personal new-at-the-time N6006.

In 15 years, I never worked at or worked with any company or newsroom that was not stocking Nikon gear. Canon users were always toting personal equipment. Maybe it was just luck, but that's what I experienced at the time.

another post edited for some clarification and correction

[SquirrelDip]

Yep - ya convinced me...

Edit:

So basically the reason you chose Nikon was because this is the manufacturer chosen by the companies you've worked with/for - makes for an obvious choice. Basically the same reason I chose Canon, not so much that I work with them but a few friends shoot Canon semi-pro - I can rely on their experiences, knowlege and hardware.

[lordsmurf]

I joined the field when you used Nikon. There was a ton of legacy equipment that could be used, as well as third-party lens options for cost savings. Canon was seen and used by others (mostly lone wolfs, not staffers, from my observations), but Nikon was always the elephant in the room wherever I went.

Most people who swapped to Canon (that I observed, at least) in the film age were whiz-banged with stupid features like eye-controlled AF, something that has since sort of disappeared (it was crap anyway). Silent focus won over some others. The high-end CAM engines in Nikon, especially on AF-D, were almost the same speed as USM/AF-S, but still made noise. USM was first, so that hurt.

I didn't really start seeing Canon in dominant use until the digital age, and even then it had to catch up to Nikon. Nikon had DSLRS (or Fuji/Kodak coop bodies) all during the 1990s. Nikon sort of stagnated in 2000, and Canon really began to push out the bodies. Many of those bodies sucked, but they were there nonetheless (the D30, with horrid lag and a crappy CMOS), and eventually started to outpace Nikon. Every Nikon body since the D1 has was a "been there, done that" for Canon. With the D3, things have flipped again, although it's a small leap. Can Canon answer it? Not yet, but it'll be interesting to watch. I'm sure they will. Competition is in full force once more for the top-dog cameras. Lower cameras all work about the same (D40 and Rebel XT, for example).

Nikon got really sidetracked with consumers the last number of years. It's a good market, so I can't blame them. Canon really pushed all those cheap Rebels out in the late 90s, and Nikon started to answer with the N40, and others in that line. Lots of new P&S too. Nikon hit hard in the digital years, bringing out the two-digit D-series bodies.

Remember Nikon is a glass/optics company that also makes cameras. Canon supposedly is too, but they also are at least partially an electronics company that has cameras, scanners, and other equipment.

I had stepped away from photo for a few years, and had no reason to swap to Canon. It's something I might have done, had I stayed involved. The D200 was a near-equivalent to my film F5, so I stayed with Nikon when it came out. The D3 is a true digital version of the F5/F6. Canon's had true EOS3/EOS4 digital equiv's for years now. That's the big reason Canon is seen so often now. A number of pre-digital lenses and flashes don't work all that hot with digital bodies, so it was a perfect time to swap brands.

For as much as folks can rave about Canon L glass, Nikon ED glass is just as good and sometimes better. Again, glass company, not camera company.

So yeah, Canon has a lion's share right now, but it's not for reasons most new-to-the-scene folks might have been told or might conjure up. In the pre-AF film days, the field was dominated by others (or rather had a shared domination). Fujitsu, Vivitar, Pentax, Konica, Minolta, Contax ... those names are almost 100% forgotten now!

It should also be mentioned that, at the time, I was shooting Canon (pre-EOS) and Minolta. I didn't necessarily want to switch. But the Nikon features of the time were hard to turn down.

[lordsmurf]

What are you talking about destroy the camera and/or lens?

It's something I've read in photo magazines. Not a Canon user. Something crashed into something else. I used to see online complaints from time to time, people who lost a lens or body or both. I don't really have any details for you. Something allowed something else to mount to it, and it was not good.

Will DX lenses work on the D3?

DX lenses work fine on film bodies. The D3 accepts DX lenses in a DX mode that crops the viewfinder. It also takes film lenses, including manual lenses of yesteryear (a number of AIS lenses, for example).

[Conquest10]

The D3 is nothing new. Maybe to Nikon users it is but full-frame sensors with great results even at high ISOs on weather-sealed bodies has been the norm with Canon for years now. The only thing the D3 changes is that now Canon is not the only one with a full-frame sensor.

Calling bad design on Canon's part because of some stories you've read is rather unfair. EF-S lenses will NOT mount on non-EF-S bodies. PERIOD. The mount is different. The only way it can be done is to disassemble the lens and actually saw off a piece of the lens and then hope that it will fit the body without hitting the mirror. Criticizing Canon for damage that some idiot does to their equipment is ridiculous.

[lordsmurf]

It might have been an available adapter or third-party lens. It's been at least a year since I read anything on it, something I came across while investigating DSLR bodies. I just don't remember. Maybe I just read it wrong. But having three crop factors with specific lenses for each one is still a pain in the ass.

I think you're missing the buzz on the D3 and high ISO. It far surpasses what exists right now from anybody else. It natively supports ISO 6400, and it's not using a custom cheat. With the custom options, however, you can go all the way up to ISO 25600. The noise of the D3 at 6400 is supposed to surpass that of Canon's best 1600-3200. I'll be able to shoot the D3 and a Canon 5D soon enough. There are other features too, integrated into a single body for the first time (things that both Canon and Nikon have, just not on the same body). All for only $4,975 best street price (Canon's flagship is far more costly).

The 5D is often touted as some of the best in high ISO NR, but it was not much different than the Nikon D200, which is also touted for its very good NR. Only the D2Hs was better, but at the sacrifice of only 4MP and on a 1.5z APS-C CCD. This D3 is supposed to crush both of them combined. Digital may finally surpass film, and in more than a marginal way.

[SquirrelDip]

"horrid lag and crappy CMOS" - I don't agree, at best you're exagerating.

[lordsmurf]

The D30 ... the camera from 2001-2002 or so ... had this god-awful lag to it. You'd press the shutter release and it was about as slow as a point-and-shoot camera. I'm not exaggerating in the least. It was 100% unusable for sports or any other kind of action. The first time I used that camera was at a basketball game. That basketball game was the first and only time I ever fucked up an entire game with zero shots. It was way too slow to catch the action when my finger hit the trigger. It sort of stalled there for a quarter of a second.

The 1D was the first camera with an instant shutter like the D1, from what I remember. The place where I worked at the time bought the D30, and none of us would use it (each of us had a crappy experience with it), we all went back to film or bought D1's, D1H's and D100's instead (they wanted to dump film, so we either used the POS bought for us, or got our own bodies). That's when I got my D1 used. That was the closest I ever got to a place that bought into Canon, and that fell apart within a month or two. It ended up being used as the in-office P&S replacement when the P&S was stolen (headshots, office party fodder, etc). It was not the camera, as we went through 2-3 of them before giving up and having Canon tell us it had "some" lag. I heard that some years later, they did eventually buy into Canon's good DSLR gear, but it was largely because the guy signing the checks was a Canon user.

The CMOS was noisy as shit. The D1 was no winner at high ISO, but this thing blew at any ISO. CMOS was new and still far from being a well-developed technology. People at the time would praise the noise level, but it was way behind a good film. It's not like now, where noise is close to or even better (in some cases) than film is. It used to blow out one color, and I think it was yellow.

This review here mirrors my experience 100%
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-3589-3605
He saw a lot of noise starting at ISO 400, colors shifted, shutter lag from hell, and other quirky BS issues. He uses the words "infuriating" in there. That pretty much sums up shooting with that damned D30. Although I'm baffled his conclusion was positive for the camera. Then again, it's not like there was much competition in those days, just 3-4 cameras to look at, all of them primitive compared to the current rigs available.

I'm not talking about the 30D of the last year or so.

The 5D, for example, is quite nice.

[SquirrelDip]

Sorry - I've forgotten about the Dxx cameras. Have to admit it's pretty confusing having a D30 and a 30D...

I was trying to figure what you were going on about as I really like the feel of my 30D - wife prefers the smaller size and weight of the XTi...

[lordsmurf]

I don't have anything against the 30D or 20D. Nor the D40, D50, D70, D80 from Nikon. Not cameras I use, don't meet my needs, but they perform well. The modern cameras in the mid range are all pretty decent. Higher 5D and 1D-series are fine too, like the Nikon D2-series and D200 (now D3 and D300).

Where features start to compete is NR, high ISO, continuous shutter, and some other pro features. Those are only on the high-end cameras. Nikon gained the edge in the D3. Canon had it for the last 6 years or so.

Remembering any camera model is tough. It's worse when you have "foreign" models with different numbers. The Rebel has various numbers, doesn't it? The "Rebel" thing is for North America only. Just like the N90s=F90x in the Nikon film line. Confusing.

[beavereater]

*Raises hand high*

I like Nikon. Nikon D80 owner!!

Working at weddings (As the pastor) I see many photographers here in Japan. For some reason, they ALL use Canon. When I try to strike up a conversation about it they say something like "At home I use Nikon, I like Nikon better...but for work this is what we use because (Insert Japanese I couldn't understand but will try next weekend to)"

[lordsmurf]

While one of the most important aspects of photography is owning a camera that can do what you want, knowledge makes up the other aspects.

I finally converted myself to shooting all-RAW now, I won't be going back to JPEG. Part of this is thanks to how well Adobe Photoshop CS3 works, with the integrated Adobe Camera Raw, and good processing of NEF files. This alone gives me an edge in quality over your typical JPEG shooter.

Knowing when to take the shot, knowing what to shoot... those are invaluable.

Processing, the post-camera work, is another important stage, be it digital or in a darkroom. You can shoot great pictures, but if you can't tweak or properly out those images (or worse, you screw up images), then you've got more to work on.

[Conquest10]

It might have been an available adapter or third-party lens. It's been at least a year since I read anything on it, something I came across while investigating DSLR bodies.

It was not an adapter. And if it was a third-party lens, why are you blaming Canon for it? I know what you are talking about. When EF-S lenses first came out some idiots tried to go out of their way to try to modify those lenses to fit their bodies. I don't see why as they were not designed for anything other than EF-S bodies. But they went ahead and took their lenses apart and sawed off a chunk of the mount in order to force the lens to fit on a body it wasn't went to fit on. After they mounted it they were surprised that the mirror hit the lens. Duh, you think? So these idiots then went on message boards and complained that EF-S lenses designed for EF-S bodies didn't work on non-EF-S bodies.

But having three crop factors with specific lenses for each one is still a pain in the ass.

No it isn't. Because they don't. Canon has the EF mount. That is compatible with every single Canon dSLR ever made as well as all EOS film cameras. The second one they have is the EF-S mount with is specific to only 6 digital cameras. EF-S lenses will only fit those 6 bodies so if you don't have any of those 6 bodies you don't have to worry about those lenses at all. They have two mounts.

[Conquest10]

The Nikons are popular with regular people because they are cheap. I was surprised at how many dSLRs I started seeing out in the street right after the Nikon D70 came out.

For some reason, they ALL use Canon. When I try to strike up a conversation about it they say something like "At home I use Nikon, I like Nikon better...but for work this is what we use because (Insert Japanese I couldn't understand but will try next weekend to)"

The reason is that Canon is much better at higher ISOs. So Canon is much better at documentary photography. With the Nikon D3 it might change as I've heard that is Canon-esque in its high ISO performance.

I still can't believe that smurf compared the D200 to the 5D in its high ISO noise performance. Even Ken Rockwell does not do that.

[lordsmurf]

Nikon cheap? Are you nuts? Canon and Nikon cost pretty much the same, always have. There's nothing cheap about a $2,000 F5, a $1,800 D200 or a $5,000 D3. The flagship Canon is $8,000 because they think they can. Well, the D3 will knock that non-sense on its ass (with a $3,000 difference, Canon-to-Nikon switching suddenly become tempting). The D200 is less than the 5D because the 5D is full-frame.

When Canon launched the cheap plastic Rebel bodies, Nikon had nothing to compete, as they did not do cheap and plastic. That slowly changed, giving you the N40, D50 and D40. Canon has had Rebels of going on 10 years now.

Canon also has tons of cheap P&S cameras. Elph is my favorite, although it resides higher on the cost spectrum of P&S. Nikon is very spares in this area, always has been. They've never been a company to ht the Joe Blow consumers hard, while Canon has.

The 5D and D200 have very little difference in ISO:noise performance. I've shot them both. For starters, shoot RAW. Ken likes to shoot medium-quality JPEG because "it looks the same anyway" (or some such conclusion). Nikon does really good at the JPEG processing on the RAW-enabled bodies, but Canon edges it slightly, on the highest-ISO images. We're nitpicking at 100% on a big screen, however, not a real-wold observation.

I like Ken Rockwell's information and all, but don't take him at his word all the time. Just look at how he describes Windows vs Mac. Given his silly descriptions, you'd think all Windows has in MS Paint for image software. He drinks too much Apple kool-aid. Other times, he's like a kid sampling chocolates, the favorite flavor changes constantly, almost always preferring the newest flavor. If he said the 5D was better than the D200 (and he didn't), what mood was he in, and which review came first? Seriously. Read enough of his site, you'll see what I'm getting at. Newer is almost always better to him.

I have to let the 1.3x, 1.6x, 1.0x and lens-crash debacle go. I just don't have that information anymore, and it's long purged from my memory (I don't remember things I consider unimportant). If I come across one of the magazines, I'll scan it in. Unfortunately, I tossed out a lot of old magazines last Tuesday. You just missed me. Those sat around for years, and I figured I'd never open any of them again. That's the way that works, isn't it? I saved about 10 of them, I might browse and see if one of those happened to be an issue with that information.

The thing I'm getting at in my last post is that it's a shame there are 3 crop factors, with 2 lens sets. Not everything is compatible with everything else, and that's what's crappy. Nikon is moving that way too (D40 only taking G-type lenses, for example). Also crappy. Pain in the ass, the whole situation. Canon was guilty first, Nikon is joining them.