Canon vs. Nikon SMACKDOWN!

[plugsnpixels]

Ha, the title makes this thread sound really exciting but it's not, just an informal comparison between two cameras I am currently using.

For the past couple of years I have been using a non-DSLR Nikon Coolpix L810 for general shooting. My favorite feature on this camera is the huge zoom range (since switching to digital I always missed the long lenses I had with 35mm cameras). The photos from the Nikon are decent overall; you've seen them on my website and in my ezine.

Just a couple of weeks ago I needed to buy a DSLR for my daughter's college photography class which starts next week. Of course I've always wanted one but since I only shoot "stock" photos for my own use, I couldn't justify the expense. But her class needs made it a good time to go shopping.

I was open to either Canon or Nikon (I used to shoot both in the film days), and found a great deal on a 9 condition used Canon Rebel T3 at B&H (the same thing cost $100+ more in a local used camera shop, sorry guys...). Then a friend gave me his unneeded 75-300 Canon zoom, so we now have a nice complete kit going on.

Yesterday we went out shooting for practice while I explained f/stops and shutter speeds (etc.) to her. I also took the opportunity to do some informal comparisons between the Nikon and the Canon.

The photos attached show the zoom range comparison (turns out that even with the Canon 18-55 and 75-300 zooms, the Nikon's permanently attached zoom lens has a slightly longer range on both ends, wide and tele). Note the different image dimensions from each camera, the Canon being more strongly rectangle. [The Canon sequence shows the widest and longest end of both lenses and is of reduced dimensions due to file attachment size limits.]

Of course I was interested in image quality, and obviously a DSLR would have an advantage, but I wanted to see exactly how much I had been missing. The attached comparisons are actual size screenshots from Photoshop with the images displayed at 100% (both cameras were shooting high-quality JPEGs). While the full frame photos from both cameras looked remarkably similar at smaller on-screen magnification (25/33%), the 100% view clearly revealed where the prosumer Nikon camera falls short. And of course a Nikon DSLR would have rivaled the Canon.

All of the two-image side-by-side comparisons (Canon on left, Nikon on right) were shot at or near the extreme long end of the focal range from a distance. You are only seeing a small section of the overall image.

The three sets show the dramatic resolving difference between the two cameras. Both shots were auto-focused, which may be a factor in softening either/both shots. The set with the trees is from the extreme upper-left corner of the images, and you can see where the Nikon introduces edge-of-frame distortion as well.

Obviously even a starter DSLR is better than a prosumer camera (and you can see how much more so), and if the brands were switched in this test, the results would likely still be the same.

[Colin Southern]

Ha! Everyone knows that Nikons are better ...

... but only when images are shot without a UV filter - and processed on a Mac using NX2

(and I'm a Canon shooter) (but saving up for a Nikon Coolpix!).

[plugsnpixels]

Mmm, Macs!

[AB26]

Hi Mike,

The Nikon L810 is a bridge camera with a very tiny little sensor, the same size as on my Sony DSC HX100V.

Prosumer cameras are those aimed at “advanced amateurs” and professional Photographers. In the Nikon range it would be the likes of the old D300 and new D610. I think it is safe to say, all “prosumer” digital cameras have inter changeable lenses.

I made the same comparison between my D200 (Prosumer camera) and my much newer Sony bridge camera. Comparing the two is a little unfair. Even though the Nikon is five years older than the Sony the Nikon still beats the Sony in most aspects when it comes to image quality. That does not mean the Nikon is better than the Sony camera, it simply means the Sony is not aimed at rendering the same results that can be achieved with the Nikon.

[DanK]

I don't think anyone will be surprised that even a low-end modern DSLR will outperform a bridge camera, but this isn't quite the way to show that. The best comparison would have the same perspective and amount of magnification in both images.

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks guys for clarification on the terms "prosumer" and "bridge". Obviously this test was going to favor the DSLR; I did it mainly to see exactly how much since I hadn't shot with a DSLR until recently (my main focus is on post-processing software, not hardware).

While the magnification was not the same in both sets (which would be ideal, yes), the informal test also showed the reach of both cameras' lenses from the same vantage point. So for my information the test had some value and hopefully others got some little bit of useful info out of it ;-).

PS: The used Canon DSLR+18-55 zoom and these bridge cameras new are about the same price. So it seems if you want a monster zoom range above image quality, you get a bridge camera. If you want higher image quality with less focal length reach out of the box, you get a DSLR (and of course you can invest more to upgrade its reach).

[Inkanyezi]

So it seems if you want a monster zoom range above image quality, you get a bridge camera. If you want higher image quality with less focal length reach out of the box, you get a DSLR (and of course you can invest more to upgrade its reach).

In some respects, the above might be correct, but there are properties other than possible image quality that might also be important, and which for some photographers are perhaps even more important than zoom range.

Bridge cameras share many properties with comact cameras, and one of them is that you press the button to take a photo.
Then nothing happens.
And still nothing happens.
So, suddenly, a little click, and an image is taken. Doggy is long gone, got tired of waiting.

If instead, you have a system camera, be it DSLR or EVIL, you press the button and - click.
The image is taken at the same moment as the shutter button is down.

This difference can be a real PITA with a bridge or compact camera, when there is some action. I regard it as more important than the difference in image quality. If you publish on the web or make small prints, the image quality from a small sensor often is more than sufficient. When publishing on the web, anything beyond two megapixels is overkill. But if you take a picture of a jumping horse, and all you get is the tail in the edge of your image, you're likely to be disappointed.

[plugsnpixels]

That's a great point, difference in performance/responsiveness in addition to zoom range and image quality factors. I've fought with that particular camera weakness for a long time. Thanks for adding that.

[Brev00]

Try macro with both. The L810 should focus to 1cm and the camera might show one advantage of a small sensor. I would think a standard kit midrange will focus as close as maybe 12 inches and the telephoto maybe 36 inches (guessing). Another issue with the 810 is it is fully automatic so you can't control the shutter speed. Your images might be showing camera motion blur as well as lack of resolution. It will be tough to compare these two systems because the 810 is going to fall down in many ways at once making it hard to isolate individual features. For example, it is hard to evaluate sharpness with an image that is overexposed and suffering from motion blur. I would first try to find out where the 810 does well then compare.

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks for the macro idea, Larry. And again, this was a casual normal-use test, and no camera motion blur was involved. Regardless, some tripod shots might be in order.