Canon vs. Nikon
December 2008
Hands on with the D700
HAPPY HOLIDAYS! They are for me, I got another wish come
true. I found the D700 online for the price I wanted of $2000. I won’t say
where, you can Google it. Some of the dealers are NOT reputable, so check
resellerratings.com before you buy. The place I ordered mine had bad ratings
but improved in the last six months. They did a little bait and switch, but I
held my ground, and got my perfect little D700 overnighted with
Colors are great, though STILL there is trouble spotting florescent or incandescent lighting reliably. The shutter has a more crisp sound than the D300, and the D700 just borrows a lot more from the pro end, such as the large prism, shuttered eye-finder and environmental seals. Still the same D300 battery, and single CF flash slot. The CF door is now a slide open door like the pro Nikons, and I for one will not miss the tiny lever that used to open the CF door. Still, I have to admit, my palm has already knocked that door open by accident.
The D700, typical of Nikon, is a great fit in your hands and offers a sense of balance and rubbery grippability (is there such a word)? The layout is otherwise the same going back to the D200, and matching what is offered on the higher end as well. This growing stability in control and user interface is important and it causes less confusion in the field, so it’s a design feature I for one appreciate.
The D700 low noise boosted ISO is useful and I’m glad its there, but its not only noisy, but streaky in the H2.0 range (ISO 25600). In the days when I push processed Tri-X in the lab (I used to take photos of the Celtics practicing in the gym and they didn’t like flash), it was heavily grainy, but pics of Bird and the Celts rendered the grain irrelevant. I also found out that the auto ISO feature (on the D300 and D700) can bite you on the butt for night exposures and grain them up heavy. Also, I continue to be baffled why Nikon would dismiss the ISO 100 standard, much less lower ones like ISO 64 made famous by Ektachrome. Assuming the noise is long gone at higher speeds, having the extra range is useful regardless in various situations. Guess I’ll add this to the wish list.
The dedicated info switch on back is a nice addition, but redundant since that feature can be appended to the light (on/off) switch. The LCD as an info screen is great in the studio or in various other situations, and easy to read for those whose eyesight is impaired (like me).
I’d like to see the menu options refined, but I’m not sure what to recommend. The headings they are under are logical, but there are SO MANY options it gets confusing, and some get used enough that you either need to memorize them, or search (tediously) to find them. Maybe my memory is short, but after I dig through the options to make a creative change, I find myself struggling to find (or even remember) to find the option and return it to my default setting. There is no doubt that the feature set is great, but its complex, and in the field simplicity can pay when things happen in seconds with little time to make complicated changes. Perhaps a search feature? The favorites is a nice option that I will spend time learning to alleviate this problem. The help feature is a great addition (which appeared in the D300). I find I have a hard time remembering what some of these myriads of options even do, so help helps.
There remain other things to think about. Mirror lock up and time delay is still disconnected, but there is an option (somewhere in there) to give a one second wait to the shutter after the mirror goes up. It would be a lot easier to put the timed delay on a separate button to affect all modes, silly in fact that its not. Canon also integrates the nice little infrared remote controller, its cheap and easy to do, but Nikon continues to ignore this. GPS is nice, but something only a few will use. Same of networkability (though I have used it myself on occasion). Remote is something everyone will eventually use, should be a regular item on a digital electronic camera.
Okay, I didn’t have it on my wish list, because I thought it was too much to ask, but I’ve been watching the growing convergence in electronics for years. Cameras, computers, audio and video are all crossing into each other’s territories for years, and overlap is a good thing, and I want more. Much more. As a photographer, I want a prosumer class camera that does ALL kinds of photography well; studio, sports, landscape, free lance, candids, even astrophotography. But with the Nikon D90 and the Canon 5D mk.II, --I WANT HD VIDEO TOO. Focusing is still an issue there, but until now, dedicated cameras and camcorders could were the way as they each did their job well, dependably and covered all bases. After seeing some of the low light video produced by these cameras, this a natural layer of progress that is much appreciated. Okay, I admit it, this is a feature that is so well implemented, that its again worth thinking about jumping back to Canon. In addition, it appears noise levels are not much worse on the 5D Mk. II than the D700, comparable in fact, and that with the higher resolution Canon is offering. Impressive. Nikon will like respond, so I am not going to sell my glass and go through this all over again.
Its going to take a while to get used to using a 50mm lens all over again, and I hate to say it, but the 18-200mm VR zoom is really a spoiler. As a DX lens, its nearly useless on the FX D700, and there is no other offering from Nikon to replace it. So giving up that incredible zoom range and the VR is going to be tough for now. However, the much faster f/1.4 50mm is sharper, cleaner, less distorted and good for most of my photos. Flash has been greatly improved by Nikon, amazing really compared to how things looked 20 years ago, but nothing can compare with a good photo taken in natural light. Still, the tremendous range of an 11x zoom is really special, so now I find myself wishing for a 24-264mm lens (or something close to that) with VR, or even more, a quality 28-200mm (7x) ED lens for the FX frame. Of course, f/2.8 would be nice and make for a high value lens so long as it performed up to FX specs. I may be a wishing fool, but I expect to see a lens soon in this range, though I expect a variable speed lens instead of a fixed f/2.8. Still, if they pull of a lens like that, they’d stay ahead of Canon glass.
What now?
I am happy to be back into full frame where I wanted to be. However, I can’t help but think that Nikon (as I said they would) stumbled when they stubbornly argued the DX format. It was obvious they were going to pay a premium for a full frame sensor, so they made their choice. But Canon challenged them and took the lead in full frame and proved that 35mm remains the true size of the platform. Okay, Nikon with no apologies or regrets surged forward and put out some great full frames now, affordable with the D700 and with great features and capabilities. Where is the famous Nikon glass though to match? Everything has switched over to high quality zooms with Vibration Reduction, and Nikons blind leap into DX has left full framers looking to Canon not only for a better camera selection, but more quality glass for the higher priced full frames. In addition, the poor DPReview report of the FX performance of Nikkor’s f/2.8 70-200mm VR has only sunk the reputation of Nikon a bit deeper. Imagine a costly VR lens masquerading as an FX lens when its performance is more DX. Nikon needs to put some hard work into a new line of lenses. The 50mm AF-S is a nice start, well overdue. Primes are nice, and most of us have invested in them, but quality zooms offer more than convenience, they offer versatility and speed in the field. Pan out or twist and grab the best framing for your shot. Great for wildlife, athletes, or toddlers running around. Great for travelling light. Great to keep dust off that sensor. Great for Canon because they are well ahead now in providing lenses for their full frame customers, while Nikon lags behind.
You can always go for some of the older classic glass, but then, you can kiss goodbye that wonderful VR and AF-S, costly but some of the best improvements in photography that commands top dollar. Nikon will catch up, but I’d like to see more leadership than catch up in these areas. Well, I hoped the DX argument would fade, and it did. It was wrong, and obvious to many, but business is business, and in full frame, conglomerate Canon had obvious advantages.
On the side, years ago Canon implemented eye controlled autofocus. I have never used it myself, and have read about how it didn’t work for everyone, but at this point, why isn’t such a great concept perfected? And why hasn’t Nikon grabbed and run with it?
I still would like to see more features from a changeable prism, like vertical eyepieces, or more options in focusing screens, but that’s just me, a wishing fool.
June 2008
My Blog, my Blog…
My Kingdom is a Blog!
Nikon listens to the little guy, or so it seems. What I wished for here, Nikon has delivered in its newly announced…
Nikon D700
Not sure if I feel like a King or a Prophet, but one thing I am glad I am is a loyal Nikon user. I started this little blog over five years ago after making the switch from an old Nikon film SLR user to Canon digital. It was an experiment that didn’t last long, and asked by many the whats and whys, I put my thoughts down here for the few willing to read them. Longevity pays off on the web, and though I don’t get lots of views, I’m amazed where links to this site show up. So, from the outset, I’ve written down what I wanted in a digital SLR, a wish list on how to overcome the format’s deficiencies. Amazingly, Nikon has responded to every single issue except one…my wish list is now 90% fulfilled (8 out of 9 wishes!) by the new Nikon D700. Still wish it was $2000 rather than $3000, but the market drives prices, not my wishing wallet.
So, a quick review of what I felt I wanted in a dSLR, and how Nikon has fulfilled and even surpassed each wish.
- Fix the battery level indicators to show the decline in power more gradually.
·
This was
addressed with the D200, and fixed again in the recent D300 1.3 firmware
upgrade.
- Faster autofocus.
- The D300 was the prosumer
camera that really made autofocus transparent.
The D400 of course takes this to a whole new level with the
Multi-CAM3500FX 51 point, 15 cross focusing sensor
- Nikkor super zoom, like 24-200mm in AF-S.
- I forgot I even wrote this. Thanks
Nikon for the 18-200mm, the lens that does it all!
Darn! Now that I’m spoiled on it, FX takes this DX lens and dumps it,
with no replacement on the horizon.
- Less noise at higher ISO even higher than 6400.
- Okay, Nikon went ballistic on this
one. I mean 25600 ISO on the D700 is KILLER!
Its not for great photos, and its streaky at the top speed, but its
workable for super hi speed “push processing”
- CCD dust issue better addressed.
- The hypersonic wave duster introduced
with the D300 is now FX flavor on the D700.
- CDD hot spots firmware workaround.
- The D200 BIOS did this, and was
bettered in the D300 and D700.
- F2 modular technology, replaceable prisms, focus screens, even the CCD.
- Here’s my one wish that didn’t come
true, but low on the priority list.
- Backward compatibility with older Nikon lenses.
- This should have been higher in the
list, but was addressed with the D200, and thankfully.
- Not on the original wish list, but throughout my later additions, I’ve been craving affordable full frame.
- Welcome home D700, not only full
frame, but in a standard 35mm sized body. Yeah baby!
I feel good reading this, prophetic, righteous, perceptive maybe? No, I knew what I wanted, and Nikon seems to have agreed. It wasn’t about brains or vision, but what works in the field and how the best of 35mm film needed to return to 35mm digital. So rather than pat myself on the back, I have a few thoughts running around my head that work the other way, even a bit scary.
Okay, so my wishes are fulfilled. I would be the first to say that though I wished well, I didn’t expect it, really. Who would have thought Nikon would cannibalize their own recently released high end D3 full frame with a nearly perfect, small bodied dSLR like the D700 that matches it in every way that really counts? A year and a half ago, everyone was arguing that Nikon would NEVER produce a full frame and was working hard to sell us permanently on the DX size frame. It happened, and so she wrote. So, where do we go from here? That’s a huge question now. This whole blog has been basically saying, “hey, 35mm dSLR, when are you going to grow up”? Well, six years after the release of the D100, and nine years after the original D1, the platform has matured. We have reached an important transition and focal point for the dSLR.
I say this with some trepidation, because really, where do we go from here? I sold my D100 for the D200, and likewise for the D300. I will certainly do the same for the D700, but I am anticipating this being my last and only Nikon. Why? What more features could be added now to make me want to upgrade again? Higher resolution won’t do it; in fact, it's not likely that smaller CCD cells will help with the high ISO capability that makes me want to dump my D300 right now. The normal sized 35mm body means my camera can sit comfortably on a table with a large lens and not tilt over, a smaller or lighter body would be nice, but not something to make me jump. How much better can autofocus, dust removal, noise levels or other features be to make me want them at this point? So, I can stop upgrading and start buying new lenses then.
I’m not saying the D700 is the perfect camera, but it is certainly as close as we’ve gotten yet, and it’s hard to imagine anything new to make it better to the point that I’d eBay it for the next model. Hopefully, what we’ll see is a steady improvement in the design, more reduction in size and better quickness and resolution, along with a steady lowering of prices. That will mean a bigger market and more supporting products, but for me, a world that will rotate around settling permanently into the D700, protecting my investment and expanding my glass collection. Then again, the fast 50mm lens becomes photographic home base, as it should be, so in actuality, I will crave new lenses less except for specialty lenses and options. As I said, welcome home D700.
Though I’ve not even held a D700 in my hands, its certain to embody all the improvements of the previous four models, so here’s how far the venerable Nikon 35mm dSLR has come.
Full frame 50mm
heaven
Digital adds incredible headroom in terms of speed in stops with high ISO. Going full frame makes the classic 50mm lens viable again and since you can get a decent priced one as fast at f/1.4, add a few stops as well on the less than well lit situations such as sports, theater, and indoor candids. Flash photography is nice, but 35mm is at its best capturing natural light with angles and perspective matching the human eye. 50mm is precisely that, with its lens speed, perspective and focus range that matches our vision combined with the FX frame high ISO makes it even more natural and on par with what the depth the human eye can capture. Even the new D-lighting feature enhances depth to closer to human perceptions. Some have argued that to truly match film a digital frame would require 24-35 megapixels. Still, 12mp is not far off, and smaller cells might introduce noise and lower those high ISO numbers Nikon is now delivering (though Canon is making their argument in the 5D Mk.II). Have we hit the sweet spot or not?
Freedom from film
No restraints with 36 shot film rolls, loading, developing, and the costs. No waiting for results. No reciprocity failure. Low noise. No fading. No dust or degradation. No Storage or display issues. No rolling your own tin cans or fumbling with spools, chemicals, dark rooms or even trips to the photomat or costly pro developer. Since the D300, I’ve been pretty much freed from Photoshop now as well, thank heaven. Photos are mostly in focus now in high percentages, and though I can tweak photos in the digital dark room to show better, they are good enough right out of the camera to show or archive. My 30 year old negatives, though carefully stored, show a lot of wear and dust even though hardly touched, faded too. Digital would be better even with less resolution or depth, but with nearly comparable resolution and greater depth, film is dead. I know a few pros that still insist on film, but there are less and less of them ever year. I’ve not seen a film camera at a wedding in years. Kodak shares have paid the price, but their Photoshop plugins are killer, and should be cheaper and better marketed. Other than that, I am glad to have moved past film.
It’s the little
things
Digital costs more up front, but with no film or developing, it’s cheaper in the long run. You take more photos, store them, and while you save, companies like Nikon have picked the pockets of companies like Kodak and insured their stability for another generation. Electronic images have more capacity for creative manipulation, proliferation massive storage and retrieval. Nikon has been smart enough to expand our usage of legacy lenses, all but eliminated dust and fading or aging as serious issues, and expanded capability and control with inventions like automatic high torque silent wave focusing, TTL flash, backlit monocolor LCD readout, high quality color LCD display, focal plane flash, Matrix and D-Lighting curve, shutter sync options and much more. Digital is what makes this all possible. Instead of gears, levers and mechanical contraptions, the camera has a brain sending electrons from place to place, manipulating every one to better produce photos with myriads of options. Light is captured and owned by the digital photographer, and captured onto a tiny card we can trade, mail or pocket. Of course initially, the camera brain meant short battery life and long lag time. That wasn’t so long ago when the shot was after the button was pushed, and the camera took several seconds just to turn on…precious seconds in the world of photography. Nikon has sealed such doors behind us forever, and sealed out moisture and dust from the brainy insides as well. No stone has been left unturned. I’m not sure where Nikon has been while Canon was stealing its thunder, but the company has stormed back with tornadic force with a return of the pro vision for photography on which the company made its bones. Nikon lovers, you have something to be proud of again, and let your loyalty reign. Nikon most certainly deserves it.
Good business sense
Has Nikon cannibalized its high end market? Certainly the D700 is poised to do that, until we see if there is a killer D7 out there, but its seems logical to assume that the pro and prosumer markets will merge for Nikon, which should be plain old good business. Nikon got me that way in the first place. Starting as an amateur, Nikon equipment made my work look professional, so it was not long before I in fact became a pro photographer (though that was not my long term vocation). As the FX frame cameras drop in price, the line between pro and prosumer will vanish and the dSLR market will have plenty of room to expand. So, if I never buy a future model, so what? Nikon will convert many other potential photographers to feed their bankers and stockholders, while I can fall back to my old of role of loyal Nikon aficionado. Frankly, I’m tired of testing new models and making wishes. I can retire this blog and just happily take pictures. The D700 is a camera for all seasons, all situations, all lenses and all kinds of users. For me, that’s about as perfect as dSLR can get.
Wishful thinking
My one unfulfilled wish needs some rethinking. I still think that F2 type modularity is a good idea, including an upgradable or swappable CCD. Imagine a camera that could swap IR, super hi-res or astronomical CCDs and keep your camera both current and wildly flexible. As good as that sounds, it may not be practical. Opening the chassis of course would introduce more dust, moisture and contaminants to the CCD housing, and the more sealed that area is, the better (vibration cleaning or not). Also, a shutter with a 150,000 iteration life holds a different position in a digital world. A good photographer takes the right shot like a gift from heaven, but a smart photographer brackets, and heavily so. With no film rolls to slow us down either physically or financially, most of us shoot a heck of a lot more digital frames than we did on film. It’s not at all unusual to see even amateur photographers shoot as many as 5-10 thousand shots per month. Heck, I can go to a Husker football game and easily shoot a thousand shots and still wish I had taken more. At that pace, a camera’s shutter is good for only 15-30 months. Granted, we might give our cameras a few months off, but the point is made that there are a lot more actuations on a digital shutter, so building modularity around a short lived shutter is not really worth a heck of a lot. Sadly, or happily depending on your viewpoint, I am plum out of Aladdin wishes, other than having my wish granted to have a digital SLR every bit as balanced and functional as a 35mm film camera, and then some. Still, with my wishing capability so on target, maybe I really should conjure up a few more.
In any case, one does not take such wishes for granted when fulfilled, so with whatever grace and sincerity I can muster, I offer my gratitude and congratulations to Nikon. In kind, I wish you well.
=================================================
Dec 2007
Finally! Full Frame D3 and a Pro’s D300
Nikon produces a full frame pro in the D3, and for good measure nudges the prosumer to the pro rankings with the D300.
Nikon film SLR history and fame was built on solid engineering in delivering a well designed SLR that was the ultimate camera for the pros, and so it was the brand the rest of us wanted and bought. Nikon is returning to those roots by giving up its DX argument and making a top of the line full frame, and by pushing the design of the DX format to the highest level yet. Nikon thrived on great lens designs, solid reliable camera bodies, and thoughtful implementation in their cameras that brought it all together with balanced, durable, sensible and smart operational controls that pleased the pro and made the amateur photographers crave owning a Nikon. I am not dissing on Canon, but as a conglomerate, they have not had the attention to detail and focus on design that a smaller dedicated company like Nikon has demonstrated (though they excel in glass). Canon has been steadily cutting into that leadership and Nikon is now in my opinion reclaiming the lead it originally brought to the dSLR and then gave up to Canon. Whether it’s enough to win back the pro market remains to be seen, investment in glass is a lot of inertia to overcome, but the pro market is always looking for an edge, and Nikon has worked hard now to provide it.
As I’ve argued below, the SLR is a 35mm format and is at home in a full frame environment. Much as that’s so, my little blog here is not about the pro, but the amateur or prosumer. Much as I want the D3 and all it offers, I am still not willing to fork over five grand for a camera. But, I am going to cough up one grand and ebay my D200 for the D300 I picked up the other day, shocked as I was to find it in stock in my local camera store. In fact, it’s amazing how the D300 is knocking the ebay value right down from under the venerable D2x and the D200.
THE D300
There are plenty of sites to talk about what’s new in this camera, and this is only my initial opinion as I am just now getting acquainted for the first time with camera hands on. I am putting forward my introductory thoughts on the D300 with at least a few hundred photos under my belt.
First off, the problem with digital has always been the loss of the pro film developer. All that expensive color and density equipment transparent to the end user and built into the cost of film developing was gone, and Photoshop became more than a digital darkroom tweak for anyone serious. If we wanted the good photos we were used to, we had to regularly run a lot of our images through the Photoshop to balance color and density to squeeze out the best of our image, not to mention fixing dust or other flaws. Noise Ninja also became a fact of life with the growing man-hours of effort that PS stole from the chemical developers and digitally dumped on our laps and lives. Most of us didn’t admit our expensive cameras took as much Photoshop time as we secretly sacrificed, but we all knew it was true. So my first few rounds with the D300 were a shock. Color was right on, ambient light and metering are much better measured. With no tweaks on the camera, none of the photos I took, not one, needed PS time to make them presentable. Now, let me qualify that. Loading those images into PS and applying “auto-contrast” will bring out a little better of an image, but auto color correction will not improved (in fact it ruins) the D300 images. Images are sharper than the D200 enough that no unsharp mask is needed, so I figure a tiny bit of contrast adjustment (the “Vivid” setting?) on the camera will pretty much eliminate my ever needing to Photoshop again without specific creative purposes (I’ll update this as I find out). I am dead serious about this. Let me go further by saying that the default images as they emerge from the D300 look better when auto-levels of contrast are applied from Photoshop, but that is a personal preference that I’ve gotten used to from repeatedly using those features at their default settings in Photoshop (actually I use Photoshop Elements these days). The added contrast brings out the photo with some extra pizzaz, but the original setting has a nice soft balance that shows great depth and detail, some of which gets lost in the PS auto process. So, photos right out of the camera are archive quality with no work REQUIRED for a base reference image of what you actually photographed. Thank God almighty I am free at last!
Focus magic. I am not the young photographer I once was. I wear glasses now and need reading glasses just to decipher the top LCD, turning up the diopter all the way on the D200 to get a good look through the viewfinder. I learned on the old simpler film cameras. Meter, focus and shoot. Now I’ve been weaned on auto-focus, which worked best on all the cameras I’ve owned on the D2H platform. HELLO D300! This camera makes autofocus work the way it’s supposed to. Auto focus has taken the pro out of me for a long time now. I shoot people and action, but the automation of the camera that has happened at so many levels in the past 20 years has turned me into a candid photographer, worrying more about the action or moment than the technical aspects of the camera. Good, but…after years of composing a shot with careful focus, I now concentrate on live action and have defaulted to automation features to get nail the meter and focus, which has been a hit and miss deal to be honest. Digital made it much easier to bracket my photos in huge numbers and discard shots out of focus, improperly exposed, ruined by motion blur or misreading ambient light color (the bane of the digital camera until now). I admit it, automation made me sloppy, but it also allowed me to do what I really wanted to do, focus on the subject and action, and fix it all later with tons of images I could sift through to find the gems. This was true in the days of film as well, but economics forced me to be far more carefully frugal and attentive. The switch to digital meant that I could make up the difference on the computer, the cost being additional time. The D300 and its 51 focal points is far more accurate and tolerant of my sloppiness, which ironically came from autofocus to begin with. I am not kidding when I say that every image I have taken so far is in focus. IN FOCUS! Let me go back and think about this. No stats to prove it, but I’d say that easily a quarter to a third of my photos were out of focus with both the Nikon D100 and Canon D60. Remember, I shoot action, and fast. I’d say that dropped to under 10% or so with the D2H, but back up to 15-20% with the D200. So far, I am getting 100% accuracy in focus right now. I’d say this happens for two reasons, not one. There are more sensors and better evaluation of the subject, but also the D300 just does the entire process faster and this is where I gain the most benefit. I am not an impatient photographer, but action and people mean you take the shot when the moment calls for it, not when the camera is deciding its ready. So, that’s why I bracket so heavily, leaving my camera Continuous rather than Single image setting. Timing is everything, and I often didn’t give the camera the time it needed. That seems finally to have vanished with the raw processing speed of the D300 in all facets of its operation.
Noise Ninja has just been karate chopped to death by the D300. Sure, I read Rockwell’s evaluation of the noise issue and how Nikon is cheating and the images are soft. I like his opinions and usual emphasis on art rather than technology, but this time he reversed that usually dependable trend of his. First off, with noise reduction options reduced, the D300 is just less noisy at high ISO than the D200 was. Of course detail gets lost, and more so when NR is turned up, but look at the darn image. Color noise is GONE, hard noise is severely reduced, and the over image still seems pleasing and not lacking sharpness in places that the human eye first looks. Sure, look deeper and you see softness in the sub-details, but the overall image at ISO 3200 is ridiculously appealing compared to how it was in the past. The D300 uses trickery but I’d say it’s very smartly implemented and well tuned to the human recognition process. Images that before were fuzzy, noisy and noticeably so are suddenly smooth and appealing without lacking in overall clarity and sharpness, at least perceptually. Compare that image to one taken at ISO 200 and flash, you will clearly see a difference, but the ability to capture low light images to look NATURAL is something that the Nikon engineers have seriously accomplished in the D300. This kind of high speed quality is a brave new world for photography, and of course one that makes me crave that extra five grand to move up to the D5 and its totally sweet ownership of high speed imaging and noise destruction. Ah, its good to again covet a camera that’s still in my lens family. Thank you Nikon.
A little bit about sharpness. I can’t say the D300 is generationally sharper than the D200, but it is incrementally so. The feature of tweaking each lens for sharpness and keeping it in memory is very intriguing, and I will report back on this when I can. Suffice it to say, images are nicely sharper.
DUST! Has finally been serious addressed by Nikon in a redundant manner, a self cleaning CCD (too bad its not implemented on the D3) along with a dust reference image and therefore a software solution to dust on the CCD, which darn it, could at times drive me mad. Let’s see how it works as time goes on.
The LCD is BIG and SHARP, excellent for more serious evaluation of photos, sharpness and whatever. Instead of fumbling with the buttons and the dials, the magnification buttons alone now zoom in and out. It’s a far more simple and elegant control method than the previous implementation. Also very nice is the Live View option, which takes a little getting used to as this is still a true SLR. You press the shutter to lock up the mirror and then press halfway for a meter/focus which pulls the mirror back down to do the reading, then you press again and the mirror locks up once more as the picture is taken while the LCD shows the live image. Not a huge deal for an SLR lover, but a very nice feature, and it works great in a crowd where you have to hold your camera up or down and away from your eye. Far and away though this LCD is the best I have seen on any 35mm SLR, showing not only excellent sharpness, enough to evaluate lens focus, but also it shows a very reliable view of color and density true to how the image will appear when downloaded. This may seem trivial, as the D200 was good at that as well, but earlier cameras were not. In fact, cursory LCD reviews that looked good enough or in focus sometimes really fooled me once the image was downloaded. It’s important in the field to be able to evaluate the digital image reliably, and this LCD is setting a new standard. Its sharpness blows away the D200 LCD.
There are some other considerate features, like the Info button that shows the top LCD info on the large color LCD, only bigger and brighter for those with weaker eyes or in situations where the upper LCD is hard to read. The menus seem to have more features than I’ve seen before and parameters that allow for deeper change. The memory has been expanded to include a menu favorites section. The inclusion of their software, Capture NX seems to be the final uncramping of the brain that has been stifling Nikon and given up so much ground to Canon. I’ve never used the software before as I wouldn’t spend the money on it, but I’ll make some comments about it as I take a look. Not sure if this is permanent though or introductory, as the software was NOT included on CD, but had to be downloaded with your serial number.
I have kept this blog up for years, as it still gets hits and seems to find relevance for those straddling the Nikon and Canon camps. I quit on Nikon as the dSLR wars progressed, though I never got as far as selling my lenses. Eventually, I went back to Nikon as I found the Canon D60 more problematic than I expected. I don’t fault Canon or Canon users, but I am glad I stuck with Nikon, and now it just seems that the company has returned to its roots; a good pro product that does it all and does it all well. VERY WELL. I would love to get my hands on the D3 (might it be the nearest thing to the perfect digital camera?), but the D300 is SO well implemented for a heck of a lot less. I don’t blame Nikon for keeping the prices high, these cameras are worth it, and I want Nikon to succeed and make a profit. However, I also hope that if business is good, that Nikon will reward us with a more affordable full frame soon in line with the tradition of technology making things better and less costly, certainly for a price much closer to that of the Canon 5D, or better!
=================================================
Mar 2006
Next Round!
D200 vs. 5D
The
best shootout yet!
$3000 Canon 5D Full Frame $1700 Nikon D200 DX Frame
(street prices as of March 2006)
Finally, pro level
digital products are filtering down to more reasonable costs and like sirens of
old, call out with sweet song to the photo enthusiast, and with good reason.
Canon has also released the 30D to counter the onslaught of the D200, and it is selling at about $300 less. They are comparable cameras, though most reviews would give the nod toward the D200 for more features, weather sealing and more solid design, some argue that the 30D has better noise characteristics. Many others have argued the real battle is between the full frame 5D and the pro featured D200, and that is where I stand as well. I have not evaluated the 30D, and will keep the comparison between the two upper end offerings from Nikon and Canon in the prosumer market. Meanwhile, this site has been here so long under the original D60 vs. D100 moniker that it shows high up on searches and still gets hit regularly. So, I will keep the name and stay to the original concept: what is the best of the top prosumer models from Nikon and Canon and how do they compare head to head.
I have spent some
time with the Canon 5D, and it is a great camera. The shutter is a bit slower
(back to 3 fps) and not as obnoxious sounding as the 20D. It focuses fast and
accurately, operates and handles well, and does with your 35mm lenses what was
meant to be done with them. Standard 50mm lens shooting is everything it used
to be so who needs expensive stabilized zooms when a very fast 50mm, a good eye
and quick feet can get a better (and sharper) shot every time in natural light?
Oh and the joy of using an 85mm or 105mm at 50 ISO for portraits. Heavenly. Or
is it?
Problems are being
reported... Dust, stuck pixels, vignetting and every
flaw on your lens you never saw in the straight-jacket 'cropped digital mode'.
So what? Vignetting, soft corners and lens flaws were
exactly the issue back in the film days, but was just less noticeable (since
the Lab always touched this stuff up, and film has plenty of forgiving
latitude). Dust and stuck pixels are a fixed part of the digital world—although
I've observed more pixel issues with Canon than I have with Nikon, and
consistently so. Maybe this is just my bad luck, but every Canon I had showed
stuck or hot pixels, and they got worse the longer I owned them. Still, having
full frame is a market thrust I welcome and laud Canon for challenging Nikon's
sad little "DX is better" marketing ploy, as if we can't see through
it. Nikon, please just make a full frame digital SLR, charge what you will, and
shut up! If Canon makes money on the 5D, Nikon might have to ditch their silly
DX argument and start playing catch-up as soon as they secure a chip fab deal that can get them a cost edge. So far though,
Nikon has not lost any ground, and the 5D is not selling nearly as well as the
smaller frame lower end models. Too bad, as the DX argument is one I really
want Nikon to lose.
For now Nikon is
responding smartly to the full frame challenge with a very pro DX design in the
D200. I've had mine for a couple months now, and it is as reported, very well
made, balanced and more like the D2 than the D100. Weather sealed, Magnesium
alloy body instead of plastic, 100 ISO (FINALLY!!!), non CPU lenses (YES!
FINALLY FINALLY!!!), 1/250 X-Sync, 5 fps, deep
buffer, 4 memory modes, better metering and auto focus. It has firmware to deal
with sensor dust, noise and user upgrades. I was pleasantly surprised to find
that even with a smaller battery like the D100, the D200 comes very close to
providing the amperage to drive non AFS auto focus lenses at speeds about 75%
that of the D2 or the D2H). The D200 has mirror lock up on the dial (take that
Canon!) but because its there you can't get both MLU and timed release (dumb dumb dumb!). Nikon also added a
time lapse intervalometer (FINALLY! and why not?),
much better battery management, large (and still protected) LCD, but no screw
in release for the shutter button like the D100 (come on, do we HAVE to buy
that overpriced MC-30 remote shutter release?). Still, that's a lot of pro
level product for less than what the original D100 cost.
The Canon 5D retains a significant edge in both smoothness and noise. The D200 just can't match the large well CMOS capability of the 5D and at higher ISO, the 5D consistently produces images with noise levels TWO STOPS lower on the D200. WOW! This puts low light photography into an whole new category. In college, I used to photograph the Celtics at practice where flash was forbidden, so I had to push my B&W film to IOS 3200, and the noise was staggering but the price paid for capturing that speed at that light level. The 5D changes that equation forever and raises the bar to a whole new level. I for one hope this becomes the standard for all digitals in the next few generations with no looking back.
I was happy with
the D2H as an all around camera except that 4 megapixels did cause a few
problems. First, limited cropping and enlarging ability, obviously. Second, noise
is more of an issue, not only because there is more of it (D2H is pretty
noisy), but in larger images like those of the 5D it just gets more lost in the
larger image than in smaller ones where noise is just plain magnified. The
sample images posted of the Canon 5D at ISO 3200 are just remarkable, as at
12mp, noise just vanishes into the woodwork, literally. Meanwhile, the D2H is
great for sports and action, but only so so at
portraits. It is not always the most accurate camera color-wise either. The D200
is an admirable replacement for the D2H, and the only significant sacrifices
are dropping from 8 to 5 fps, slightly less amperage and speed in auto-focus
but not to a significant degree.
I have long complained about manual focus as I still miss the old split prism as a focus aid. Sure, there is an LED indicator to show a focus lock, but it is at the frame edge which takes your eye off the subject, wastes time and is fatiguing. Focus lock should show on the frame as a HUD image. Nikon has an audio indicator, not to loud but I would prefer not using it. I am getting used to seeing the focus spot out of the corner of my eye, but it is still mentally distracting to say the least. The D200 has more focal points and more options like combining into zones. It also has a much tighter spot metering than the 5D, and matrix metering is in a class by itself. Overall though, I'd rate the 5D as about as effective as the D200 in focus and metering ability. I did not evaluate the Canon flash, but I will say this about the Nikon SB-800 and the pop up flash. WOW! What an upgrade from the SB-80DX, not in power or features, but in sheer consistency and accuracy. Day and night is the difference and so much, it makes the last Nikon speedflash model look bad. I can use the SB-80DX remotely (or hand held) controlled by the pop up without a connecting cord with relative ease, though using the cord allows for much faster flash speed from shot to shot.
So, for those
having to make a decision, the stakes are obviously much higher as the new crop
of digital SLRs from Nikon and Canon are really hot
in terms of capability. It might be hard to give up on your glass and switch,
but hey, eBay is great for transversing such chasms.
It might be worth it too. Most of Canons lenses hold a slight edge in most
reviews over Nikons, but most Nikons lenses cost a bit less. I'm not a bird
watcher or a NFL photographer, so I don't want to spend several thousand on too
many expensive long telephotos or zooms. I’ve been satisfied with the wide
range image stabilized zooms with slower aperture. The Nikkor
80-400 VR and the Canon 100-400 IS are decent, sharp and not ridiculously
expensive, and are equivalent except for one thing, the Canon has USM where the
Nikon doesn't have AFS, so its a dog slow focuser. I loved the Nikkor 105mm for portraits, but on a DX frame, its rendered
useless. For that matter, so is the 50mm, which now is the more usable focal
length for portraits; but in my opinion it is simply too wide. I had to get an
85mm and its still tight on the DX crop requiring moving the camera back to
uncomfortable distances and further increasing DOF. 50mm just is not as
pleasing a focal length as traditional 85mm or 105mm lenses were; facial features
distort. Its all too awkward.
Further, the joy
of the fast 50mm lens is gone. Sure, everyone is into the larger (and slower)
zooms, and they are nice (if heavy), but FF allows you to move with your feet
and position your very fast 50mm with enough frame (and bright too) to get a
decent shot. It is simply a far more natural way to shoot as the 50mm FF
viewfinder matches your vision and you can keep both eyes open for framing,
timing and watching the action. I truly miss that. A 35mm SLR is 35mm, not something
else. The next generation of digital SLRs needs to
get back to full frame 35mm where it belongs, and our beloved Nikon and Canon
both need to develop a robust CCD/CMOS filter that seals the chip and can be
user cleaned. Full frame and very smooth noiseless images are a serious reason
to jump to Canon and the 5D right now. But at what cost (not only the cash
either)?
The Canon 5D
remains a pro-sumer camera while Nikon's D200 has
upped the ante with more professional high end features like a better body and
sealing, slightly faster X-sync, button layout, large LCD, bigger buffer, 4
memory modes, a possibly better focus system and fast 5 fps. I know a lot don't
think much of faster shooting, but it is an important feature. Why should a
camera not be ready for sports, and more? The camera is a tool to capture
images in time, and dividing that time to smaller more precise increments is
critical now that we're not limited by 36 film frames or shallow image buffers.
I've been on the sidelines taking shots, as well as nutty birthday parties, and
you need that speed to help catch some highly unusual and beautiful shots that
you might otherwise miss, no matter how good you are. So while the Canon 5D
with full frame is not only more expensive, it also surrenders pro level
features (except for image size, quality and buffer) to the more affordable DX
cropped Nikon D200. I really wish that Nikon would also at least offer a FF
sensor and let us choose. I also would like to see a lower resolution FF at a
more reasonable price. 50mm has been around for a long time and is successful
because it is well conceived. Changing it has worked, but lets not pretend at
no sacrifice.
Right now it seems prudent for me to just keep my Nikon glass and stick with the D200 and hope that eventually Nikon puts out a full frame in a year or two. Still, the Canon full frame calls to me, and I miss the days of just a small SLR and a fast 50mm lens that the current DX 'crop' has just taken away (and sorry, the wide ange 35mm lens produces images just too ugly and distorted to compare). I can't help but seriously think about dumping all the old manual Nikkors and travelling a lot lighter with the 5D and 3 or 4 lenses: a standard old fashioned 50mm f/1.4, a 85mm f/1.4 for portraits, a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM for telephoto (or go extra for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and a 1.4x extender) and maybe a 24-70 f/2.8L for scenery and multi-purpose. I might have sold out again and moved to the 5D, but there are other things now holding me back.
First is price. $1000 is still a chunk of change, and I can pretty much overcome the differences in a variety of ways, so its not like I can really justify jumping to Canon for the full frame or noise alone.
The new Canon 5D handles a lot better than the old D60 I had. It is instant on, focuses fast, has a large bright viewfinder and LCD, has wonderful silky images and 50 ISO. In the end, the only major concession I would give up really is the faster frame rate. Issues like sync, intervalometer, mirror lock up all can be worked around easily enough. I still want to wait out and see how much the complaints mount about pixels and dust for the 5D or BIOS problems, as I just don't quite trust Canon there in those areas.
After spending time with both cameras, I have to admit fair and square that I am clearly biased and subjective in that I have spent too many years with the Nikon to really appreciate the Canon way of doing things. The differences are subtle and certainly easy enough to overcome, but I had to stop and think whenever I made ordinary changes on the Canon that were second nature on the Nikon. The solid body and weather sealing are meaningful enough that it would be hard to trade down for an extra grand. Regardless, the differences between the cameras has narrowed, and I would think that anyone with Canon or Nikkor glass would just stick to their brand like everyone else is saying or maybe wait for the next generation to see if the gap widens again. I do want full frame, and if the Canon had more pro features, 5 fps and compared more favorably head to head, I might pony up the extra $1k plus whatever I lose in selling my lenses. For now though, its too much to ask. I would also say the same for those 20D Canon users, that moving up to the 30D gains you little. A Canon prosumer upgrade is to the 5D or forget it.
Nikon D200
PRO
- A prosumer camera with pro features
- Fast 5 fps, fast focus, fast tracking, fast image handling
- Decent price
CON
- DX cropped frame
- Average noise at high ISO
Canon 5D
PRO
- Full Frame
- Low noise at high ISO sets new standard
CON
- Price
- Still a prosumer camera lacking upper end features
AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 G ED DX VR
I have spent some time now with the 18-200, and I am finding the lens quite remarkable on several fronts, and much more than expected.
Until this lens, the 17-55 f/2.8 was the lens that remained on my D200 for over 90% of the time. The 18-200 has now taken that position, only now the percentage has gone way beyond 90%. The lens is remarkably sharp, lightweight, and noticeably smaller than the 17-55. It is actually less costly as well. I would still prefer the 17-55 for basketball. The ED glass is well designed and the lens is a lot sharper than any other large range Nikkor zoom. It sets a new standard.
I find the distortion well within tolerance, the only real negative is that the bokeh really is harsh, but not too much of a distraction. Its adequate for a candid portrait, but I'll stick to 85/105mm for serious portrait work and better bokeh.
The range of this lens is astounding, and it took a while to adjust to having so much range. I was actually surprised at how unaccustomed my eye was to having so much 'grabbability'. I got the lens to have the flexibility, but once I began using it, it was like the first time I slept in a large bed as a kid. I just loved the room and roamed and rolled with great pleasure that just felt liberating and luxurious.
All specs say this lens focuses down to 1.5 feet, but my lens can focus down to about 10 inches at 200mm. Really! Set the lens at closest focus and run a ruler down from the rim and look, its the 10 that's in focus. Was there an upgrade in capability since its release?
The VR has definitely improved from the earlier versions. I have the 80-400 and the 18-200 is just a lot smoother and pans better. Its also quieter.
Finally, the lens handles well. It is not the fastest AF-S, but still better than any non silent wave lens. Though the rings are not well dampened or tight, they're not particularly loose either. The zoom will creep with gravity and shake, particularly downward, but not as bad as some lenses. Focusing is constant throughout the zoom range, so if you zoom in for a precise focus and then zoom out, your focus remains accurate. The 80-400 does not do this.
I waited well over 2 months for this lens, and from what I gather it is still a wait and in great demand. Impatience aside, that is good news, as it means the lens is immensely popular right out of the chute, so that speaks volumes to those considering its purchase. Considering its remarkable range, features and performance, this lens suddenly seems like a great deal to me, especially compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 which is $450 or 60% more. Right now there is nothing comparable to this lens in the general purpose category, not even close. The Canon 28-300 has the range, but is too much on the telephoto side for non full frame digital. It is also huge, heavy and 3x the price.
This lens is not only a must have for most Nikonians, but a long awaited and much needed accomplishment for Nikon. My guess is that this lens will continue to fly off the shelf and push higher the parameters and expectations of Nikon equipment. It shows that Nikon is not caving to Canon, which is good for both companies. It is as many have said, hardly a perfect lens, but it is a great, and I mean GREAT general purpose lens with no peer. A must for travel, and IMHO a buy no digital SLR user will regret.
The combination of the D200 and the 18-200 is devastating and has to pose a
serious challenge to Canon's ascent to SLR primacy. First, a basic package of a
Nikon D200, AF-S 18-200mm VR and SB-800 speedlight
sells for around $2770 at street price. The Canon 5D with EF 28-300mm IS
L and 580EX speedlite sells for $5374, almost
twice the price. Both the Canon camera and the lens will outperform the Nikon
counterparts on image quality, but sacrifice weight, features, and dollars. The
performance difference is marginal when looking at the final print. The price
is anything but marginal. So though I may pine for the full frame and the lower
noise of high ISO that Canon has engineered, that extra two and a half grand
buys a lot of extras that will make a much larger difference. Lenses, studio
lights, tripods, backdrops...a lot of that can be had (if not all) for the
difference in price. So, again I remain in the Nikon camp, safe from the
invading barbarian hordes of
I would like to add to the above "until the next round", but I am finding this unlikely. The D200 and 18-200mm combination is a powerful platform that I really can settle into. The next few upgrades, unless they are revolutionary (or full frame) are not likely to make me want to move again. Though hardly a perfect system, it is the most robust and feature balanced camera for general purpose photography there is without spending a small fortune. I can use this camera for studio portraits or indoor sports with the same aplomb. Now I can do so with one lens and flash if I need to as well to keep my baggage light and my readiness keen. The feature set is not only broad as a swiss army knife, but on the cutting edge as well. Think of the breadth of the abilities of this system. Instant on, fast auto focus, great ISO range, excellent metering even in low light, reliable flash, adequate flash sync, vibration reduction, high shutter speeds and fps, fast buffering, double exposure and intervalometer, and moisture/dust seals, firmware CCD dust negation and excellent overall camera versatility, handling and design in a traditional film SLR footprint and style. I can finally cross the threshold and say, "I love this camera". So, though I am now 'going steady', I still look at others, and will report back as that happens. Meanwhile, I will be out shooting with my D200 with 18-200 lens and taking shots of just about everything everywhere. Its great to be in love.
Sep 2007 UPDATE: While I’ve had
remarkable success with this lens and its amazing versatility, its less than
pro design has caused me a major letdown. We visited the beautiful
=================================================
Feb 2005
THE ALTERNATIVE: NIKON D2H
And now, a pro alternative. Nikon has announced the D2Hs, and has slashed prices on the
D2H to around $2k. Sure, its half the resolution of the Canon 20D, but there are some things
to consider that makes this high performer an interesting alternative for the prosumer. Better yet,
I picked one up on eBay for about $1700 WITH 2 Nikkor lenses. Not bad!
PRO
- Fully a pro camera
- Fast! 8 fps, fast focus, fast tracking, fast image handling
- 40 image buffer to handle that speed
- Weather sealed and tough body
- Vertical grip, shutter button and orientation sensor
- Built in ambient light meter
- Eyepiece shutter
- Large bright focus screen with brightness sensing readout
- Intervalometer
- Options Options and more Options!
- True Spot metering
- 2 LCD info screens
- Large LCD with clear plastic protector
- Excellent battery life (replacements can be found for $30 on eBay)
CON
- Large, bulky, heavy
- 4 Megapixels is adequate but nothing to brag about
- Still costs more than the Prosumer SLRs
- The added bottom means the camera won’t sit upright with a lens attached
- No built in flash for quick flash fill
There are a few other little things that Nikon systems offer that stand out for me.
Shutter/Aperture/Manual/Program mode priorities are labeled with simple mnemonics S/A/M/P.
The BIOS is rock solid, no hanging or errors, not one. Instant, and I mean INSTANT on.
well balanced and the layout is very accessible. The Nikon speedflash has a metal foot with a
quick action locking leverl, and the flash head has a one button swivel release, where the Canon
has a plastic foot with a screw dial lock and a two buttons for the head (vertical and horizontal),
both of which I consider a nuisance. The Canon 20D does have a optional infrared remote
which the Nikon does not.
Many photographers do not place much emphasis on camera speed, and I don’t understand why.
3 fps is for me a bare minimum, 5 fps is nice, but 8 fps is just super (about one quarter video speed).
It is great not only for sports, but for bracketing, quick focusing as the scene changes,
and is great to have in a pinch.
The critical issue is whether 8 megapixels is worth trading away for the other amenities. My Nikon glass
collection has grown and would represent a large dollar loss to ebay them in favor of new Canon glass,
so that is one issue. On the other hand, I am finding little truly noticeable difference in the 4 mp size of the
D2H vs. the 6mp size of the D100 which I have owned now for several years. In addition, storage and
image transfer at the smaller size is much more manageable. Still, I doubt that many of today’s
photographers will trade 8 mp for 8 fps, and the 5 fps of the 20D is nothing to sneeze at.
I will sell my D100 and stick with the D2H for now, and likely upgrade to f/2.8 lenses while I’m at it,
cementing myself in the Nikon camp. Still, I highly regard the Canon 20D and recommend it whole-heartedly.
I found it focused as fast as the D2H in a side by side comparison, but wow, the 5 fps suddenly seemed
slow next to the D2H, really!
I am looking forward to new offerings in the coming years that will bring the digital SLR platform to a higher level
of performance and maturity. I will also continue to keep my eye on the Canon products as they are clearly
by consensus the leader in innovation and first to market with updates. However, in my opinion, Nikon holds
the edge in more practical engineering, the result obviously from venerably serving the pro community for so long.
Oct 2004
NEW ENTRY: CANON 20D:
And its certainly about time!
Finally, a camera to make this web page really obsolete!
10D was a fair try, but now Canon has finally upped the ante
and not only fixed what I alone sorely complained about,
but made this baby a fast 5 fps SLR for under $1500.
Now I have to think about selling all my lenses and
switching right back unless Nikon responds quickly.
Spent more time with the 20D, and was very impressed by
its overall operation, accuracy, speed, playback, and feel
I took over 100 photos, and did find a few out of focus
or under-exposed, but ended up realizing that they were
mostly my errors. Still did not review pop up flash
capability or battery tracking accuracy. LCD was very
bright, menus easy enough, and user interface and control
button layout and operation seemed quite well implemented.
Large dial and joystick combination is also nice.
Whats Finally Fixed:
- INSTANT ON (well, almost)! No more dreaded 2 second wait (more reasonable .2 seconds)
- Fast,
accurate focus, clearly faster than any non pro d-SLRs,
very impressive, better than D100.
In fact, I could not get the focus system to hunt at all unless the subject had no contrast at all. - Better Focus Screen, although it looks a little better, still not at the pro level.
- Powerful & well implemented LCD image zoom (okay, this was fixed by the 10D).
- Image handling speed with USB 2.0.
- Fast all around operation, review & file operations.
And for Fun!
- Under $1500 expected street price (some say $1300)!
- 8 Megapixel (this might be the perfect compromise between resolution & space/speed).
- 5 Frames per second and plenty of buffer. This is KILLER for the price!
- CMOS with filter, but reports are that it is no less prone to dust than D100.
- Better Noise Reduction. Wow! It was already in a class by itself.
- 1/8000 Shutter and 1/250 Flash Sync.
- Infrared remote control is extra, but cheap (should be included).
- Only 1.5 pounds with magnesium alloy body.
- Pop up flash reaches higher.
- CMOS has NR circuitry PLUS long exposure Dark Frame option.
- Photo modes on dial are convenient
- ISO 100 and higher shutter sync is better than D100
What's Not To Like
- Man is that shutter obnoxiously loud! Price paid for high frame rate.
- No ISO display on LCD.
- Several posted complaints about dust in prism and CMOS sensor.
- I guess .2 second wake up is acceptable, but instant would be better.
- Would still be nice to have a removable plastic protector on the LCD (come on, fingerprint prone).
- Definite banding in shadows at medium-high ISO when 'pushed'.
- BIOS problems again! Canon is just a bit weaker in this department.
Now Hows'Bout...
- Get rid of the goofy rubber covers finally, battery door has recieved complaints as well.
- How about an old fashioned screw shutter button?
- ISO 50 like the G Series or ISO 6400 like the Nikon D100.
- Bring back the split prism and other manual focus aids!
For more detailed info goto:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page2.asp
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d.html
http://www.pictureline.com/digital/dcameras/dcanon/eos20D.html
20D Compared to D100
No doubt about it, the Canon 20D is the superior camera,
showing its generational
advantage over the venerable Nikon D100. I don't know why more reviewers aren't
squawking about the faster framerate. They went nuts
over it on the 1D, but are just
about yawning about it on the 20D, and most say it is hardly an issue. Baloney!
Sports aside, there is no better way to bracket for any movement or fleeting
expressions,
especially for children. Just wish it was less obtrusive in decibels.
The CMOS sensor and higher resolution are also welcome, especially in light
of the speed of file handling and playback along with well managed noise
levels.
With this camera I think the Canon prosumer SLR has
finally shown real
maturity. It handles as it should, and above all is responsive in all
situations.
It is speedy in every way; exacly what an SLR should
be to be useful.
Am I serious about selling my Nikon gear for Canon? Yes I am. I have no
doubt Nikon will eventually (I am very regretful they missed it at Photokina)
match this offering, maybe even beating it. But there are other issues to
consider.
Canon is without a doubt the number one camera producer, especially so in
the digital world, and lately in the pro ranks as well. In the pro sports
realm,
there is just a sea of white lenses, while from what I can tell, news cameras
are still pretty split, maybe even a bit favoring Nikon still. Canon just keeps
chipping away at Nikon and has long since erased their mystique and aura
of superiority. Canon glass is now abundant and in some ways superior,
certainly they lead in design innovation, and will catch up in super wide
zooms shortly as well. Worse, it is getting harder to find Nikon lens
rentals in as many numbers and locations as Canon. Nikon has just
slowly eroded their edge. Behind from the days of auto-focus, image
stabilzed lenses and now they are beaten back
regularly in putting
forward new and innovative d-SLR models.
My original article more or less put forth my open-mindedness to
brand loyalty. I flat out thought the Canon D60 was inferior to the
Nikon D100. I jumped on the D60 before waiting for the D100
and regretted it. It might be wise to wait for a new Nikon as well
this time, except that now there is absolutely nothing on the horizon,
not even a rumor. Even should the next Nikon be a better model
than this 20D, its pretty obvious Canon will move quickly to
keep ahead in this game. Regardless, the 20D is adequately up
to the task of handling many pro as well prosumer
applications.
You can't go wrong with this one.
=================================================
2003
Canon D60 vs. Nikon D100
Hands on, Head to Head camera comparison & review
Topics:
Why the 35mm Format for Digital?
I decided it was time to buy a Digital SLR. Before buying something expensive, I try to study the products and make an educated choice, So naturally, I spent many hours on Phil Askey’s dpreview.com, Steve’s Digicams and the D100 Lounge, not to mention anyone else who would do an in depth review of the new D-SLRs. But reading a review is just not the same as using the thing yourself. That these babies are in short supply is good for the market, but bad for the buyer. They are not even on the camera shop shelf for you to look at. I based my purchase on these reviews, and found that high praise from the technicians did not translate to my photo happiness. In effect, I have my own shooting needs, habits and circumstances. These days I mostly shoot poses, events and my kids (who move quickly). Unlike a computer, a camera’s statistics don’t always reveal its capability in the field.
Reviews on these cameras take each one at a time, and since the actual decision to buy requires sensible information on actual working differences, I thought I would share my experience hands on with both cameras. Your experience and conclusions might be different. For me, it was only by hands on experience that the real strengths or weaknesses of the camera design became apparent. This is not scientific, and although I tried to remain objective, the idea was to make a decision and finally take a side. So for what its worth, here is my two cents on the D60 vs. D100, head to head.
With the current crop of Digital SLRs, the price barrier has been lifted, allowing many of us to exit the consumer ‘idiot box’ digicam market, and enter the promised land of high quality, low noise, true 35mm SLR photography with creative control, quick response and instant gratification. Certainly the learning curve is steeper, but that is precisely the challenge; to learn a new level of photographic art. The difficulty is choosing which camera to buy. Top runners are obviously the Canon D60 and the Nikon D100, with the Fuji S2 Pro making a strong run, and the Sigma SD9 driving the flank with new technology. For my part, I narrowed the field to the leaders, Canon and Nikon, and still the choice was difficult, I ended up getting both cameras to test hands on, with the loser headed for eBay. This web page is a summation of my conclusion, and is only intended to help those going through the same throes of selection, to review the differences, sort their priority, and highlight the thought process, which is much different in practice than in theory.
I have been a 35mm Nikon FM user for 26 years, and would be considered a ‘pro-sumer’. I have done some professional photography on and off through the years, mostly free-lance. I have also used Rollei TLRs (twin lens reflex) and rangefinders, and of late the Canon G1 digital. I have shot events, babies, groups, portraits, a few weddings and some stills, and I even do CCD astrophotography. I will only qualify myself as an amateur, not an expert; but serious, studious and sincere.
What I think might be significant to others, is that I represent that part of the market that would most likely enter this new $2000 plus lens d-SLR market; I want serious photography at a reasonable price. Having experience, I want creative control and responsiveness, but not having handled a new SLR for 25 years, I am a novice to TTL and matrix metering, auto-focus, and some of the other new fangled features. I love learning, and so do many of us, but we also want to make the good shot regardless of our place on the learning curve. So if you have tried a new digicam and are craving the next level, then this web page may help you sort out some of your issues.
Why the 35mm Format for Digital?
I loved the Rollei TLR for portraits and landscapes. Like any savvy photographer, I adored german lenses. Waist level imaging was somewhat awkward for me, though many advocate it as less conspicuous than eye level picture taking. Rangefinders made an impression on me as decent eye level shooters. I found that double image alignment to be the quickest and most accurate method of manual focusing to date, even if ugly. But overall, I want and need heads up eye contact; it is simply more natural and the reason why the SLR is the most owned camera system in the world, especially among pros. Seeing through the actual lens is what it’s all about. My dream was to eventually spring for the Hasselblad, the crown jewel of SLRs. I never made it.
My actual introduction to amateur photography came in 1975,
when I became the head of photography for my college yearbook. So I went to
35mm SLRs do have their drawbacks. Manual metering, focusing and lens switching were the cause of many lost opportunities. But the fine optics, seeing the action with both eyes open, and the precision of that shutter trigger helped develop in me a great sense of timing and anticipation for the shot. I longed for autofocus, but by the time it became affordable, my financial interests lied elsewhere, and the FM was always ‘good enough’.
I was open minded enough to embrace the digital revolution in photography. I still spent a lot on film and developing, and despite high digicam pricing, digital was too cost effective to ignore. The Canon G1 was the pick of the litter a few years ago, and there was a lot to love about it. It had a Zeiss designed lens. It was light, fairly quick, had superior images and long lasting batteries. The twist LCD was reminiscent of the TLR, and opened new angles for shooting, including the 180 degree face back via IR remote. Cool! Autofocus and TTL flash proved remarkable (especially the latter). But a few shortcomings drove me absolutely nuts. The inconsistent shutter lag killed me; so many smiles and precious moments were lost. The total lack of accuracy for manual settings and focusing left me longing for something better.
I found myself craving a 35mm based digital SLR. Prices prior to the D60/D100 were totally prohibitive, and to be honest, even $2000 plus lenses is still too high for most of us. I crossed over simply by reason of impatience. I am not saying that a Canon/Nikon system with zoom lens and speedflash is not worth $2.5k plus, but considering the cost of film cameras, I think the price where the market will really start to bite will be at about half the current levels. This should be achievable soon considering the steady price drops, not unusual in any new technology. So if you can wait…
Why Eliminate
Sigma has an interesting concept going, but tying their technology to one brand has many wondering. Sigma makes good lenses, but they make bad ones too, and are not at the reputation level of Canon and Nikon. Nice concept, but let someone else try it.
The Fuji S2 Pro was much tougher. It seems like a great camera, but I have not been able to even see one (I did get both the D100 and D60 in my hands before purchase). The 2 frames per second limitation, huge raw file size and user complaints about batteries are what put this mama out of contention for me. For others, I would still recommend it for consideration, and its feature set remains in my comparison charts.
Charting the Differences
I kept a spreadsheet on the finer points of each camera (mostly provided by the Buying Guide Side-by-Side comparison of features on www.dpreview.com), adding a few points of my own, and adding a weighted score on features I deemed relevant. At first, the cameras all came out with the same score, but as I carefully considered my needs, I prioritized certain features with higher grades after hands on use. You can check out this matrix for yourself.
I had an investment in 5 old AI Nikkor fixed length lenses, but read that they wouldn’t meter on the D100. In any case, I was planning on getting an autofocus zoom for multi-purpose shooting anyway, so I could now consider Canon. It is common knowledge that Canon and Nikon lead the field, so why quibble? I didn’t wait for the debut of the D100, but purchased a D60 with the highly rated USM 28-135 IS lens. I already had a 420EX speedflash, and since the G1 used the same battery and CF card, it seemed a wise choice. Sadly, problems appeared in use. I knew that the D60 and D100 each had different respective strengths, but didn’t realize how much some of these would affect me.
The Canon D60 has marvelous strengths, particularly great image quality with low noise, sharpness and color accuracy. It features a rotating dial which makes for fast selections, with features and information well laid out. Various modes are quickly available by well placed buttons, and the camera is basically always in shoot priority mode (theoretically). Metering is a bit underexposed, but easily adjusted. Speedlight e-TTL and bounce flash performance are truly remarkable, as is high speed sync.
Slowly, the D60 began to frustrate me. First, the large diameter of the zoom lens never fails to draw comments and attention. Though flattering, I did not find this conducive to my style of photography. I prefer to be inconspicuous and worse, I don’t want everyone thinking (okay, KNOWING) that I’m wearing $3k around my neck. Some might like that, I don’t.
The shooting modes dial has tiny cryptic icons I need the manual to decipher and letters like ‘Av’ for aperture and ‘Tv’ for shutter priority. I wish I knew what these acronyms stood for, maybe then I could memorize them better. Poor image zoom on the LCD leaves no way to verify focus on site, and the file handling is sluggish, both on the PC and in the field.
Next, and worse, the Canon shutter lag is not always as promised. I want to use the auto modes, but their delays make getting some shots all but impossible. Of course the much talked about poor low light autofocus only adds to this problem. So for all my investment, I am still shooting manually to keep up to speed. I make up for this by sheer volume. No film costs let me shoot many photos to insure getting some great shots. Frankly, this works fairly well.
But other issues began showing up. The viewfinder LED display shuts down after a few seconds, and half pressing the shutter doesn’t always bring it back. Long exposures are revealing more and more hot pixels (this was a problem for me with the G1 as well). But what is really killing me is the power saver coupled with the 2 second power on delay. That 2 seconds at startup is no problem, but the same 2 seconds it takes to recover from the power saver mode is just murder. I shut down the power saver in the custom function menu, but the battery dies much sooner. Too soon, and the D60 battery gage shows full until about the last half hour. So to last a day, I have to carry several $80 batteries or suffer numerous 2 second delays and lose shots. I could also feather the shutter release every 25 seconds, but this was impractical and also wasted battery life.
My initial choice was for Canon D60, but two things made me reconsider. First, the D60 was holding its value in the eBay channel because of the high demand. Second, a most interesting site appeared on the web by Rolland Elliott, offering the chip upgrade to older Nikkor lenses. Suddenly my old lenses were not so old (and still highly rated compared to today’s crop). So, I ordered a D100 from Ritz, and was shocked to get it in one week. I ordered the Nikkor AF-S 24-85 G, and the SB80DX, put it all on the charge card which would give me a few weeks to let both units battle head to head; loser going eBay. So for now, I have both cameras, and must make a final decision. My experience with the D60 remained fairly subjective until I actually got to use the D100 and make direct comparison of each camera’s ability and capacity to perform under varying circumstances unique to my needs and style of photography. The following are the results of that endeavor; D60 head to head with the D100.
Surprisingly, the D100 arrived before the new AF-S lens, so I started by using my manual AI lenses and the results really surprised me. First, the lack of a meter on a digital camera is hardly a problem (why didn’t I think of this before?), as I can usually get right on within a guess and a review or two. Next, head to head comparison between 20 year old fixed length Nikkors and the new Canon zoom is clearly in favor of the older lenses. I used my 135mm 3.5 Nikkor vs. the Canon USM 28-135mm set at full zoom at ISO 200 and stopped down to f8 for both, on tripod with timed delay. The Nikkor AIs are clearly sharper, despite all complaints about D100 image softness (I presume this is true of Canon fixed length lenses as well). Maybe because I’ve practiced on the Canon, I found I was taking better images faster on the D100 than I did on the D60, reminiscent of my happy initiation on the FM. Head to head between the Nikkor AF-S 24-85 G and the Canon USM 28-135 IS, I’d give the edge to the Canon, but it’s close. Autofocus speeds are also about the same in daylight. I miss the telephoto power of 135mm, but the extra 4mm on the wide angle side is far more productive, making for better all around coverage.
The D100 is frugal with battery power, and can be left on, remaining instantly ready. Both cameras have the strange propensity to report low battery power only at the last half hour or so. Very weird. Worse, the Nikon has already just quit near the end with no warning. I have yet to get over 300 images as many have reported, and I’m not sure why (I have review set off and power down features set at the shortest durations). I will trust that this is unique to my camera or technique, as so many others have reported better battery life. I did find that the D100 had more options for power down, and that once the meter and LCD were off, power use is negligible. The viewfinder LCD turns off and on as programmed, and no surprising delays have occurred to cause shutter lag. The D100 is swift in all of its image handling. Review, downloading, deleting, and particularly uploading images to the camera are noticeably faster than the D60. Both cameras continuous shooting speed is about equal, and the Canon’s buffer gets one to three extra shots, but requires that the shutter be released to begin saving.
Most reviews compare the composite bodies of the new d-SLRs to their Pro cousins costing over twice the price. I find this unfair, and feel the body design of both the D60 and D100 are plenty sturdy for the average shooter. So I will deal with the more practical accoutrements. The D100 LCD protector is very nice, and I like it much more than I expected to (it actually bothers me that there are not even 3rd party covers available for the D60 LCD, which I am constantly wiping). D100 image review 9x zoom is also a very important feature, and works well. The joypad is not as fast as the D60 dial, but again I was surprised. I haven’t found that I have to repeat presses too often as the menus are well implemented, and images appear faster than the Canons dial allow anyway. As for the dexterity of the joypad or dial, or the camera weight and ‘feel in my hands’, I would rate both cameras equal. They are different, but nothing major that one won’t get accustomed to. The complaints about the CF card door are exaggerated, as the Canon door is only slightly heavier. Conversely, the Canon rubber cover has a plug protruding for the video out that struggles to find its way home, where the Nikon rubber cover seems a bit heavier and closes easier. I read many complaints about the D100 not indicating on the LCD the current ISO speed (which is true of the D60 as well except at startup). This doesn’t really bother me, nor does the loss of shot priority in changing ISO. If this is an issue, I can readily use the menu to make the change and keep my readiness. I like having a second option, frankly. Also, I am amazed at how much I like the D100 CF card space (images left) number always on. This is critical for me when shooting in RAW, as I prefer several smaller memory cards to the micro-drive approach (I find them slower and power hungry). I want to be ready to pop a new card and like being constantly informed, it is also more comfortingly film-like. This is also true of the D100 mode dial, no icons, and a simple ‘S’ & ‘A’ stand for ‘Shutter’ & ‘Aperture’. Finally, both companies give you the corny 1.5 inch shoulder strap (free advertising I guess). Next time you see a pro or serious amateur with one of these, you let me know. They use the narrow black ones for the same reason they use black bodies; unobtrusive. For those whose reviews praised these straps, get with it.
Image quality compared is a very subjective issue. Much has been written about the D100 softness, due either to aggressive noise reduction or passive JPG conversion. At 6 megapixels, this is not a huge issue. Any loss of detail or sharpness in the D100, though noticeable, is really splitting hairs. I have read about noise issues as well, but to my eye, these issues are just not a problem. The D100 does lack ISO 100, but goes into the ‘push processed’ realm adeptly. Personally, I find the 3200 and 6400 quite usable, especially if images are reduced in size. But frankly, I can do the same in the D60 by lightening the images in post production. Noise levels are as reported, higher in the D100 at lower ISO, and higher in the D60 at higher ISO. Again, either or works for me. Long exposure goes to the Canon, or at least it did until hot spots began showing up recently in 15 second exposures. Also, you have to shut down the viewfinder’s superimposed display (which lights up the focus areas) as red glimmers will appear in exposures as low as 15 seconds. This is not an issue in the D100. Both require the viewfinder to be covered if there is light behind the camera during an exposure. There has been talk that the CMOS sensor on the Canon is an unproven technology and inferior to CCD. I have looked into this with a local physicist, and he totally disagrees, as NASA is successfully using CMOS in space imaging. A D100 15 second exposed dark frame (by the way, the D100 and AF-S lens will not shoot with lens cap on, for nerds I guess) lightened logarithmically by software shows a literal starfield of various colored hot spots, where the D60 dark frame has only a few white spots. Certainly the future of long exposure is in favor of CMOS.
The software edge goes to Nikon. Using the Windows browser, both drivers load the cameras as an external drive, but the D60 only allows slow uploads via their Zoombrowser. On the D100 files move quickly both ways, and the mini editor is quite nice. Canon’s browser is more gimmicky, appearing as a photo album. The Canon device driver is efficient in its ability to select, name, rotate and transfer images, but it is two times slower than the Nikon image transfer (average downloads for a fine JPG image on a 16x 256mb CF card was 3.0 seconds on the D100, and 6.2 seconds on the D60). A rudimentary time lapse software controller is included for free with the Canon. Image Capture 3 for the D100 is an extra $150, but does give you complete control of the camera from the PC. Strange, since Canon’s time lapse software for the G1/G2 gives much more control of the cameras resources.
The Nikon built in flash protrudes about a half inch higher than the Canon, which might be an issue considering the girth of Canon lenses, hoods off for both cameras. The Nikon SB-80DX does indeed by default underexpose (-2/3 to -1 EV), more than the Canon 420EX (-1/2 EV), but both can be compensated for handily. I have noticed a bit of irregularity in both color and exposure on both units (using auto white balance for both), but it seems to happen more with the Nikon. Once exposure is compensated for, the digital TTL seems to work well, in fact just about as well as Canon’s. The Nikon foot mount and locking lever really are noticeably more luxurious. The Nikon bounce angles are released with a single push button, while the Canon requires 2 buttons, one for angle and one for swivel. This has caused me some minor delays and fidgeting in the field.
I don’t run a commercial site, and so have nothing to lose in stating my humble opinion openly on which camera is the better overall unit, and the nod goes clearly to the Nikon D100. The advantages the Canon D60 brings in theory seem to evaporate in actual use. Sharp, clean, colorful images at low ISO settings are only marginally better than the Nikon. Better selection of USM and IS lenses is hardly an advantage considering how much old (and very sharp) Nikkor glass there is available and how easily ‘rentable’ both brands can be. The D60 sports a double buffer, speed selector dial and the same 3 fps shooting speed as the Nikon, but the overall operational speed, actual camera readiness and auto focus implementation really cannot compete with the D100. The D60 having FP sync and a PC connector does not make up for the loss of a serious image zoom or 1% spot metering. Overall, the Nikon responds faster, and for the most part instantaneously in every regard. Certainly the D100 autofocus and metering will err, but a least a shot will fire off, every time. Of these, the easiest to correct is exposure, and it certainly seems that the D60 (as duly complained about) causes more unfixable images because of the auto focus issue than does the D100.
I know this all sounds biased, especially considering that I have been a Nikon user for many years, but keep in mind, I set aside my Nikon investment and spent my hard earned money on the Canon first, with no loyalties or expectations to do more than just watch what was happening on the Nikon side. $3,000 was too much an entry fee to be missing so many photo opportunities, and so I am switching back. Sadly, this has left me unable to really recommend the D60 over the D100 for anyone except those with heavy investments in Canon glass or the overwhelming need for the D60 image ‘look’. Even as a studio camera I fail to see any real advantage in the D60. Perhaps a software update could cure the 2 second power up delay, speed up file transfer and add a higher zoom factor for image review. That would leave only the weaker auto focus, and make the race tighter again.
I can’t say the D100 is a perfect camera, but I can say that it is the first ‘mature’ digital camera for the pro-sumer market, and can get all but the most demanding jobs done. As for the much ballyhooed shortcomings; soft images, the missing PC port and no FP flash capability, they just aren’t anywhere near as important as a quick, feature rich camera. I don’t find the images too soft to use. In direct closeup comparison it is noticeable, but in reality that only adds up to bragging rights, not better photos. I don’t run all my images through Photoshop, but only the best ones I will print or use somehow, so a bit more unsharp mask on such occasions is hardly a problem. I did the same with D60 images to achieve the best look. The PC connector is meaningless to me, as I use a Wein Infrared unit to set off slaves. I have found PC cables much more unreliable (they never stay in place and are just one more thing to trip over). FP flash would be nice, but all it does is give you an option for less depth of field when using flash, hardly something I would depend on for an image. This too can be corrected in post production.
In the end, what I want is to snap the picture on time and give it the best chance for the auto features to nail it if setup time is lacking. That's what candids are all about, and why the D100 with its speed and readiness simply and reliably get the job done. The best summation would be that to my liking, the D100 behaves more like a film camera than a digital. It still 'thinks' through its automation process, but puts the priority on timing. This is what makes its design mature in digital photography, and is what should be highlighted in reviews about this camera's abilities.
My future wish list would be for pretty obvious next generation needs, and I would wish them for both the D100 and D60 (once they fix its delay issues which vexed me).
- First, fix the battery level indicators to show the decline in power more gradually. 50% time remaining should logically show as half a bar, right?
- Faster autofocus. Why not, how much more does this really cost?
- I would like to see more Nikkor super zooms, like 24-200 that are better suited to the 1.5 digital crop. I presume we will see more AF-S lenses regardless.
- I want less noise at long exposure and at higher ISO, and would like to see workable ISO speeds even higher than 6400. CCDs do not experience the same level of reciprocity failure as film, and theoretically should be able to far surpass film in sensitivity in the near future (this is already true in astrophotography). Canon’s CMOS approach along with their mysterious noise reduction algorithm are the direction of the future, as might be the Foveon technology.
- I would like the CCD dust issue better addressed. So far, I have not experienced such on either camera, but the concept is really bothersome, especially as the camera ages. Why not add a cleanable protective screen several millimeters above the CCD (this is already partially implemented in the D60)?
- Age also seems to add CDD hot spots. How about a firmware workaround?
- I would also wish for the old F2 modular technology, with the ability to replace prisms and focus screens (yes, please bring back the split prism!), but I would wish for one step further. Why not make the CCD and digital electronics a removable module? The upgrade market is a lucrative one, as proven by the computer industry. After all, body and shutter are expected to have much longer useful life than the CCD.
- My final wish would be some backward compatibility with older Nikon lenses. There must be some way to get that meter to work in some limited fashion. If there is no chip, how about letting the user input the widest aperture, or simply adjust EV to a scale, after all, most lenses only vary by a few f-stops.
============================================
©Copyright
Chris Margaritis
www.members.cox.net/d60-d100/Review.htm
d60-d100@cox.net
07/02/08