Byta sin canon 300D till en Nikon D70?
- Trådstartare Tokfnatt
- Start datum
Christerart
Aktiv medlem
What do I use
I have Hasselblad's - and I very seldom use 'em any more - wanna buy some H'blad's?..=*^)
I have Canon's - use 'em all the time - I've had Nikon - never liked 'em - didn't fit my hands - sold 'em - I've had Mamiya 645's - sold 'em - I've had minolta - sold 'em. I have 4x 5's and 5 x 7 and I never use 'em - fun to mess with though...=*^)
So, I've been around the block with a lot of cameras. My advise ab ut the Canon's is based on not only MY experience but a lot of other's as well - including as I wrote earlier a friend who wanted to buy my - yes - my D100(!) some time ago since he was mainly using Nikons and had other Nikon lenses. The Nikon D100 I had was given to me(!) because the guy who bought it (a very good friend of mine) didn't like it (and he spent more than $3,000 on it - got shafted).
Now my friend who bought the D100 from me (at a decent price)_- is a pro by the way - after comparing images taken at the same shoots - we work well together - he realized his D100 is no match for the 10D's I usually shoot with on locations - not to mention the 1D's and the mark II's...
The difference in image quality is very marked when shooting at higher ASA speeds - Nikon at 1600 is atrocious - ande Canon at that speed looks like Nikon at 400 - no kidding!
We have also done print comparisons - 16 x 20" nost of them and there again it's very noticeble.
The CMOS is much smoother and less noisy at just about all speeds compared to the CCD Nikon is using.
I am not out to bash anyone or brag about my Canon's - if so I should brag about my the H-blads to the max - I mean with a 22 mb $33,000 digital back it's kind of hard to beat the H-blad's right? -- what I am trying to tell Annika - and whoever else who cares to read these posts is straight, real life experiences I and others have had with these cameras/lenses.
What it really comes down to though is that what most people start with - that's what they end up staying with - if nothing else it seldom makes sense unless you're a pro to change brand - and even then it is never a good economic move - you usually loose your shirt selling or trading in used equipment - at least I always do....=*^)
My 3 cents worth...
Christer
I have Hasselblad's - and I very seldom use 'em any more - wanna buy some H'blad's?..=*^)
I have Canon's - use 'em all the time - I've had Nikon - never liked 'em - didn't fit my hands - sold 'em - I've had Mamiya 645's - sold 'em - I've had minolta - sold 'em. I have 4x 5's and 5 x 7 and I never use 'em - fun to mess with though...=*^)
So, I've been around the block with a lot of cameras. My advise ab ut the Canon's is based on not only MY experience but a lot of other's as well - including as I wrote earlier a friend who wanted to buy my - yes - my D100(!) some time ago since he was mainly using Nikons and had other Nikon lenses. The Nikon D100 I had was given to me(!) because the guy who bought it (a very good friend of mine) didn't like it (and he spent more than $3,000 on it - got shafted).
Now my friend who bought the D100 from me (at a decent price)_- is a pro by the way - after comparing images taken at the same shoots - we work well together - he realized his D100 is no match for the 10D's I usually shoot with on locations - not to mention the 1D's and the mark II's...
The difference in image quality is very marked when shooting at higher ASA speeds - Nikon at 1600 is atrocious - ande Canon at that speed looks like Nikon at 400 - no kidding!
We have also done print comparisons - 16 x 20" nost of them and there again it's very noticeble.
The CMOS is much smoother and less noisy at just about all speeds compared to the CCD Nikon is using.
I am not out to bash anyone or brag about my Canon's - if so I should brag about my the H-blads to the max - I mean with a 22 mb $33,000 digital back it's kind of hard to beat the H-blad's right? -- what I am trying to tell Annika - and whoever else who cares to read these posts is straight, real life experiences I and others have had with these cameras/lenses.
What it really comes down to though is that what most people start with - that's what they end up staying with - if nothing else it seldom makes sense unless you're a pro to change brand - and even then it is never a good economic move - you usually loose your shirt selling or trading in used equipment - at least I always do....=*^)
My 3 cents worth...
Christer
Christerart
Aktiv medlem
This is stupid! I am not going to get into these silly impossible comparisons over the net or arguments - you come over here and we go and take some images of the same subject - at the same ASA, same kind of optics (lenses) and we compare - OK? Thats's the ONLY way you can compare!
Funny - on these forums there's always somebody who has to argue to the max about these things - if you're not satisfied with the posting I just did, then come over here so we can do a REAL LIVE TEST COMPARISON - like my friend and I have been doing now over several months shooting side by side. That the results I reported are obviously not to your liking is something I can't do anything about - sorry - however, my friend is not too happy about it either since he's ending up spending more money buying a new setup!
Since you clearly a Nikon fan - here's a chance for you to put your money where your mouth is - you want buy his D100 and lenses? He'll be in Europe next month and plan to sell it there so here's your chance to buy a D100 and lenses at a good price - and yeah - he's got some Nikon film bodies for sale as well as he's going all Canon.
Just let me know and I'll put you in touch with him.
And, please - no more sillyness, ok?
Funny - on these forums there's always somebody who has to argue to the max about these things - if you're not satisfied with the posting I just did, then come over here so we can do a REAL LIVE TEST COMPARISON - like my friend and I have been doing now over several months shooting side by side. That the results I reported are obviously not to your liking is something I can't do anything about - sorry - however, my friend is not too happy about it either since he's ending up spending more money buying a new setup!
Since you clearly a Nikon fan - here's a chance for you to put your money where your mouth is - you want buy his D100 and lenses? He'll be in Europe next month and plan to sell it there so here's your chance to buy a D100 and lenses at a good price - and yeah - he's got some Nikon film bodies for sale as well as he's going all Canon.
Just let me know and I'll put you in touch with him.
And, please - no more sillyness, ok?
Arleklint
Aktiv medlem
Vad jag säger är att skillnaderna i fabrikat och modeller är överdrivna. Är det "sillyness"? Jag utgår då från bilder som tas i dagligt bruk till det dom är avsedda att användas för.
Bildkvalitemässigt funkar sannolikt de flesta kameror för mig, oavsett det står Canon, Nikon eller nått annat på dom.
Bildkvalitemässigt funkar sannolikt de flesta kameror för mig, oavsett det står Canon, Nikon eller nått annat på dom.
Christerart
Aktiv medlem
differences
Yes, Janne - for most people - however, when used by pros - side by side as Jose and I have been doing here over several months time - shooting thousands of images - the differences become glaringly obvious - and very frustrating to Jose. Where I could shoot at 1,600 and even 3,200 at a music event he could shoot at not more than 800 without getting a much more grain and noise.
And as we both work on Macs, often side by side as we process the images, using exactly the same procedures and programs - it becomes quite clear where the differences are - and that is all I have reported on here - our experiences and what we have seen. I have not tried to put sanyone down for using another kind of camera or system - just adding my 3 cents to this subject.
If you normally shoot at 100 - 400 ASA - have your images printed by a lab - not by yourself and not larger than 8 x 10 I am sure you will be perfectly happy with the results - and you should be - the D100 with a decent lens is a good system - however when compared SIDE BY SIDE, processing the images SIDE BY SIDE and printing large prints - 13 x 19 and 16 x 20 a lot of the time - on THE SAME printers you DO see where the equipment differ.
And, truly - a CCD and a CMOS do record the light quite differently - as does the Foveon - myself I am very curious to see what happens with that sensor in the future.
Here is an interesting article from a well known photographer - a guy who most of the time shoots medium or large format - on his take on the D300:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/paris-rebel.shtml
Even if whatever camera works for YOU and you're happy with whatever camera you've got in your hands - for the majority of us we find that one camera or one system works better for each of us - even if they produce absolutely the same image quality, there are always differences in how they "feel" and work with the way YOU work - and that in it self is why most of us use one particular system instead of another, don't you think? I never got comfortable with my Hasselblads - they always felt kind of wrong in my hands - one of the reasons they sit on the shelves most of the time now..
Yes, Janne - for most people - however, when used by pros - side by side as Jose and I have been doing here over several months time - shooting thousands of images - the differences become glaringly obvious - and very frustrating to Jose. Where I could shoot at 1,600 and even 3,200 at a music event he could shoot at not more than 800 without getting a much more grain and noise.
And as we both work on Macs, often side by side as we process the images, using exactly the same procedures and programs - it becomes quite clear where the differences are - and that is all I have reported on here - our experiences and what we have seen. I have not tried to put sanyone down for using another kind of camera or system - just adding my 3 cents to this subject.
If you normally shoot at 100 - 400 ASA - have your images printed by a lab - not by yourself and not larger than 8 x 10 I am sure you will be perfectly happy with the results - and you should be - the D100 with a decent lens is a good system - however when compared SIDE BY SIDE, processing the images SIDE BY SIDE and printing large prints - 13 x 19 and 16 x 20 a lot of the time - on THE SAME printers you DO see where the equipment differ.
And, truly - a CCD and a CMOS do record the light quite differently - as does the Foveon - myself I am very curious to see what happens with that sensor in the future.
Here is an interesting article from a well known photographer - a guy who most of the time shoots medium or large format - on his take on the D300:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/paris-rebel.shtml
Even if whatever camera works for YOU and you're happy with whatever camera you've got in your hands - for the majority of us we find that one camera or one system works better for each of us - even if they produce absolutely the same image quality, there are always differences in how they "feel" and work with the way YOU work - and that in it self is why most of us use one particular system instead of another, don't you think? I never got comfortable with my Hasselblads - they always felt kind of wrong in my hands - one of the reasons they sit on the shelves most of the time now..
rideg
Avslutat medlemskap
Jag vill drista mig till att säga att skillnaderna mellan fabrikat och modeller är absurt överdrivna (här på fotosidan). Ibland skulle man kunna jämföra det med en site som behandlade skönlitteratur, och det mesta av diskussionerna handlade om typsnitt, papperssorter och tryckteknik.
Jag tror att pixelräknande och stirrande på MTF-kurvor har sin grund i exakt samma behov av att hävda sig som när ynglingar satt runt lägerelden och jämförde flintyxor för ett antal tusen år sedan. Men eftersom ingen kan härleda en viss bild till en viss kamera (allra minst när de publiceras på skärm) blir diskussionerna ibland rent komiska. Min bil har mycker rundare hjul än din bil! Min gevärspipa är mycket rakare än din gevärspipa! Min bok har flera sidor än din bok och har dessutom en röd rand på omslaget!
Om ett antal år, när upplösningen från framtidens digitala kameror har ökat med en faktor 10, så kommer dåtidens ynglingar att sitta och förstora detaljer på pixelnivå för att hävda sina val (eller sina drömmar) i svallande diskussioner. Det är ett naturfenomen. Vi andra vet att slutresultatet är det enda som betyder något.
Daniel.l
Aktiv medlem
Re: What do I use
Intressant. Jag som tycker att bruset i Nikons system är snyggare än det där klumpiga färgade bruset i Canons på höga ISO. Men det är väl en smaksak kanske, som när folk valde film till sin kamera för en tid sedan.
(jag har bara jämnfört 300D med D70 som den glada amatör jag är.)
Men visst är det intressant att läsa din beskrivning, kul med någon som har sett systemen sida vid sida. Finns det några andra med samma erfarenhet?
Personligen tycker jag Nikons och Canons system är så likvärdiga att enbart handhavandet avgör ett köp. Och eftersom ingen kan peka ut en viss papperskopia som sämre för att den är tagen med en Canon eller Nikon så är det ointressant (speciellt i en dagstidning). Köp det som känns bäst i handen och i hjärtat.
MVH
Daniel
Intressant. Jag som tycker att bruset i Nikons system är snyggare än det där klumpiga färgade bruset i Canons på höga ISO. Men det är väl en smaksak kanske, som när folk valde film till sin kamera för en tid sedan.
(jag har bara jämnfört 300D med D70 som den glada amatör jag är.)
Men visst är det intressant att läsa din beskrivning, kul med någon som har sett systemen sida vid sida. Finns det några andra med samma erfarenhet?
Personligen tycker jag Nikons och Canons system är så likvärdiga att enbart handhavandet avgör ett köp. Och eftersom ingen kan peka ut en viss papperskopia som sämre för att den är tagen med en Canon eller Nikon så är det ointressant (speciellt i en dagstidning). Köp det som känns bäst i handen och i hjärtat.
MVH
Daniel
Sonnaren
Aktiv medlem
Jag kan bara hålla med. Men det kanske detta som är mångas egentliga intresse av fotografi - apparatdillet. Går man igenom bildmaterialet som väldigt många av dessa apparatdiskuterande personer sänt in (om det överhuvudtaget finns några bilder) är det sådant som utan vidare hade gått att åstadkomma med en enklare typ av APS-kamera. GIVETVIS finns några undantag - men långt färre än vad man förväntar sig efter ett ändlöst pratande om fördelar med olika kameramodeller och tillgång till tillbehör.
Us
johanca
Aktiv medlem
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page14.asp
Jämförelse brus 300D vs. D70 och även D100 vs. D70
Jämförelse brus 300D vs. D70 och även D100 vs. D70
davidvpt
Aktiv medlem
Att jämföra slutresultatet när man vet vilka bilder som blivit producerade i vilket system säger ingenting. Man lägger omedvetet sina värderingar med i bedömningen vilket gör att det ENDA SÄTTET att jämföra bilder (eller vad det än månde vara) är att göra ett blindtest. Det har ju ingen som helst betydelse att veta vilken kamera som använts om det bara är bilden i slutänden som är intressant, eller hur?
Frågan är bara här om man verkligen ska använda EXAKT samma arbetsgång när man redigerar bilder från olika system? De bilder de olika kamerorna producerar är också olika, då behöver de olika behandling innan de kan nå samma slutresultat.
Här håller jag fullständigt med dig. Jag valde mellan Canon och Nikon, Canon lockade med i mitt tycke bättre optik men när det väl kom till kritan blev det Nikon för att jag var mer nöjd med känslan på huset och handhavandet i stort. Även om Canons motsvarighet skulle ge lite bättre bilder så förutsätter det att man tar bilderna först. Att gå runt och vantrivas med hur systemet känns och fungerar gör att man inte heller har det med sig eller anstränger sig att tweaka och lära känna systemet som man skulle göra med något man trivs med. Och ingen kamera = inga bilder...
larsborg
Aktiv medlem
Fullständigt rätt är, att en kamera eller ett objektiv, som fotografen gillar, dvs. allt är lättillgängligt och enkelt att sköta, ger ofta det bästa resultatet i en färdig bild.
Tillverkaren av utrustningen spelar mindre roll, när det gäller de nu nämnda tillverkarna, servicen vid en skada eller vid en genomgång, är mycket viktigare, ett snabbt, noga utfört arbete och trevligt bemötande, det är det som räknas!
En alltför krånglig kamera, kan visserligen älskas av prylnörden, men jag tror att med tiden
blir denna kamera lämnad hemma, i byrån.
Läsa tester från olika fotomagasin, därefter säga sin åsikt om den kameran eller det objektivet, det gör bara fotointresserade personer, någon fotograf blir ingen på det viset!
Tyvärr, har Fotosidan många medlemmar, med ett fanatiskt intresse att just läsa fototester, som troende läser bibeln!
Fotografering är ett hantverk, erfarenheten fås endast genom praktisk fotografering, ingenting kommer av sig själv, kanske sinnet för komposition bör vara utvecklat från början.
Ju häftigare utrustning, gör inte en bättre fotograf, däremot "You´ll lose your shirt"!
Tillverkaren av utrustningen spelar mindre roll, när det gäller de nu nämnda tillverkarna, servicen vid en skada eller vid en genomgång, är mycket viktigare, ett snabbt, noga utfört arbete och trevligt bemötande, det är det som räknas!
En alltför krånglig kamera, kan visserligen älskas av prylnörden, men jag tror att med tiden
blir denna kamera lämnad hemma, i byrån.
Läsa tester från olika fotomagasin, därefter säga sin åsikt om den kameran eller det objektivet, det gör bara fotointresserade personer, någon fotograf blir ingen på det viset!
Tyvärr, har Fotosidan många medlemmar, med ett fanatiskt intresse att just läsa fototester, som troende läser bibeln!
Fotografering är ett hantverk, erfarenheten fås endast genom praktisk fotografering, ingenting kommer av sig själv, kanske sinnet för komposition bör vara utvecklat från början.
Ju häftigare utrustning, gör inte en bättre fotograf, däremot "You´ll lose your shirt"!
Christerart
Aktiv medlem
processing the same
Actually, if you shoot RAW - and use the same programs - as we do with Photoshop CS - C1 is probably just as good or better - but priced way to high in my opinion (however some guys love that program - as with cameras - whatever YOU'RE comfortable with is the best for YOU)...=*^)
Again - we are both using a process to turn RAW into PSD and Jpgs (for the web) developed by D65:
http://www.d-65.com/
look for "downloads" and "digital workflow" - highly recommended for $20!
As we both shoot RAW and it takes a hell of a LOOONG time to process hundreds of RAW images into PSD's/Jpg's (if you want to have contro; over the process) we both decided this is a very good process adn we stick to it like glue..=*^)
and we both use the same programs, such as Sharpener Pro, Noise Ninja, same printers, Epson 1280, 2200, 7600, 9600, Fuji Pictrography 4500 and Lightjet 5000, same computers, Macs. And since I've taught him Photoshop he pretty much do things the way I do them....
This does not mean we process them EXACTLY the same as the images are not EXACTLY the same even from the same shoot - but it means that we can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges pretty darn well - and as we have done this for quite some time now certain differences in the way the different cameras produce images have become quite apparent.
But - sometimes it doesn't matter how much you can point to REAL world experiences and prints - people believe (and defend) what they WANT to believe - no matter that many of the so called "impartial" test sites are actually supported - sometimes clandestantly - by certain companies.
my 4 cents worth...
Christer
Actually, if you shoot RAW - and use the same programs - as we do with Photoshop CS - C1 is probably just as good or better - but priced way to high in my opinion (however some guys love that program - as with cameras - whatever YOU'RE comfortable with is the best for YOU)...=*^)
Again - we are both using a process to turn RAW into PSD and Jpgs (for the web) developed by D65:
http://www.d-65.com/
look for "downloads" and "digital workflow" - highly recommended for $20!
As we both shoot RAW and it takes a hell of a LOOONG time to process hundreds of RAW images into PSD's/Jpg's (if you want to have contro; over the process) we both decided this is a very good process adn we stick to it like glue..=*^)
and we both use the same programs, such as Sharpener Pro, Noise Ninja, same printers, Epson 1280, 2200, 7600, 9600, Fuji Pictrography 4500 and Lightjet 5000, same computers, Macs. And since I've taught him Photoshop he pretty much do things the way I do them....
This does not mean we process them EXACTLY the same as the images are not EXACTLY the same even from the same shoot - but it means that we can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges pretty darn well - and as we have done this for quite some time now certain differences in the way the different cameras produce images have become quite apparent.
But - sometimes it doesn't matter how much you can point to REAL world experiences and prints - people believe (and defend) what they WANT to believe - no matter that many of the so called "impartial" test sites are actually supported - sometimes clandestantly - by certain companies.
my 4 cents worth...
Christer
