Photography is above brands

[uspandey]

If switching brands makes you a better photographer, by all means go ahead and cross the line. This is what I feel about OJL's (in)famous switch to Nikon:

Divorcing Canon

[Colin Southern]

Interesting, but at the end of the day, does anyone really know why he switched? Having just said that, I can certainly relate to someone "throwing the toys out of the cot" when treated badly by those who should have more appreciation & respect.

[Shadowman]

I think this falls in line with the Mac vs PC debate/battle. I am a long time PC user and I find that most of Microsoft's business decisions to not be in the interest of the end user. Every OS upgrade seems to take the industry back a step in regards to customer service. While the new bells and whistles might intrigue some, they seem intrusive (the little help clip figure) and unnessary for most users. I have heard many wonderful things about the Mac but just can't find myself switching. I would prefer to hold on to former Operating Systems (Windows 98 and XP) that did the job with only a few hiccups. I recently purchased a new laptop that has Windows 7 installed and it can be annoying at times with the constant popups with advice on how to brush your teeth but I am getting used to it.

Interesting, but at the end of the day, does anyone really know why he switched? Having just said that, I can certainly relate to someone "throwing the toys out of the cot" when treated badly by those who should have more appreciation & respect.

[PopsPhotos]

I looked at several different brands when I decided to replace my old Canon, Vivitar, Ricoh and Kodak cameras with a single brand line of cameras and lenses. I chose Nikon for the interchangeability of lenses manufactured from the 50 to now. I looked at Canon closely, but the fact that they have changed mounts with new lines cameras in their history put me off.

Other than that, I agree that the discussion is much like the Windows/Mac or Fender/Les Paul/Gibson or Chevy/Ford/Dodge arguments. Each has its place and Canon's place is in someone else's bag.

Pops

[Wirefox]

He was apparently miffed by being bypassed for the field tests of Canon 1D Mark IV.

Aaaaw...diddums. A touch of prima donna methinks.

[arith]

You only get a camera you can buy, there is not a lot of choice.

[uspandey]

You only get a camera you can buy, there is not a lot of choice.

Philosophical, yet true!

[Tygart]

I think this falls in line with the Mac vs PC debate/battle. I am a long time PC user and I find that most of Microsoft's business decisions to not be in the interest of the end user. Every OS upgrade seems to take the industry back a step in regards to customer service. While the new bells and whistles might intrigue some, they seem intrusive (the little help clip figure) and unnessary for most users. I have heard many wonderful things about the Mac but just can't find myself switching. I would prefer to hold on to former Operating Systems (Windows 98 and XP) that did the job with only a few hiccups. I recently purchased a new laptop that has Windows 7 installed and it can be annoying at times with the constant popups with advice on how to brush your teeth but I am getting used to it.

Not trying to turn this into a computer thread, but this is a Brand depbate.

Talking to my Cousin last week who uses a Mac computer, he told me that he is required to update is operating system everytime a new one comes out, which costs $30 unless he misses the last update and then it costs $100. So you really can't fult Microsoft for their Operating systems.

Onto the camera side.

I bought my first camera a higer end point and shoot Sony cybershot DSC f717, purly on I thought it looked cool, and my Science teacher had one, My new camera I bought is a Canon 40D, here I did a lot more research, but when it came down to buying it, it was all because I liked the way it flet in my hands compaird to the the Nikon.

Both camera brands are great and with a good photographer you will never notice a differance betweent the two, even a Sony or other brands.

[Wirefox]

So you really can't fult Microsoft for their Operating systems

ah em...I am sitting on my hands...but its so hard I think that was only when leopard lagged the release of the AluImac for a couple of months. Then you had the choice to upgrade for £5 if you chose to buy the computer before the OS release. A similar thing may have happed with snow leopard. I have never paid for a Mac OS except as part of the package...same as Windows. You must realise that unlike windows, OSX is developed to work hand in glove with dedicated hardware. It is highly unlikely that I would want to retain and earlier version (which seems to be a standard practice in PC land).

I agree about camera's though. They are much nearer each other in quality and capabilities. I think only the selection of lenses and the ergonomics would sway one way or he other. In terms of lenses Nikon and Canon must lead. The ergonomic issue is far more subjective.

Steve

[Shadowman]

Not trying to turn this into a computer thread, but this is a Brand depbate.

Talking to my Cousin last week who uses a Mac computer, he told me that he is required to update is operating system everytime a new one comes out, which costs $30 unless he misses the last update and then it costs $100. So you really can't fult Microsoft for their Operating systems.

This is the part of the debate you never hear about. Everyone I talked to said they never had to update, then again there wasn't a lot of addons that made it necessary.

Onto the camera side.

I bought my first camera a higer end point and shoot Sony cybershot DSC f717, purly on I thought it looked cool, and my Science teacher had one, My new camera I bought is a Canon 40D, here I did a lot more research, but when it came down to buying it, it was all because I liked the way it flet in my hands compaird to the the Nikon.

My first point and shoot, not counting the Polaroid 320 I had, was a Pentax 330GS with 3.2 MP and I probably would have stuck with the brand going forward but the Pentax just wasn't getting the types of shots I wanted. So I went with a Nikon point and shoot and slowly evolved upward, with a rear step downward when I purchased my Nikon P90. I went with the P90 because I wanted a camera that I could travel with and not have to worry too much about security.

Both camera brands are great and with a good photographer you will never notice a differance betweent the two, even a Sony or other brands.

[Tygart]

Isn't Nkion lenses cost a little more then Canon's or is it about the same?

[Shadowman]

It's about the same yet each lens has their own technology. Canon has IS (image stabilization) and Nikon has VR (vibration reduction.

Isn't Nkion lenses cost a little more then Canon's or is it about the same?

[nycandre]

Nah - Ole isn' t the first nor the last to switch - it isn't about brands - fact is Canon used to be king with their unique CMOS - now Nikon has surpassed them with the D3 D3s and D700 - and Canon has decided to stick with high megapix count, being sidetracked with the unexpected video sucess of their DSLR's and neglecting to address Nikon's challenge directly. Only when enough users have switched will they alter direction. Can't blame them in a way, the market is always right, and if people are so stupid not to see the diff, so be it. In the P&S area they *did* lower the megapix count of the G11 as a direct consequence of the threat /insult of Panasonic's great LX3 low light caps that trounced the G10.

So why is high iso performance so important ? Not for your average daylight shot - but for those more interesting shots . .like that one - being stuck with all my Canon gear... had to shoot at 1/60 and ISO 1250 - so this shot of this woman's beautifully decorated legs is just OK, but not sharp enough for larger size prints

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4521832430/

[Colin Southern]

had to shoot at 1/60 and ISO 1250 - so this shot of this woman's beautifully decorated legs is just OK, but not sharp enough for larger size prints

Slightly off topic, but ... You'll get higher noise by shooting at intermediate ISO steps; if you'd shot it at ISO 1600 and around 1/100th you'd probably have had less noise and less motion blur / camera shake.

[nycandre]

Slightly off topic, but ... You'll get higher noise by shooting at intermediate ISO steps; if you'd shot it at ISO 1600 and around 1/100th you'd probably have had less noise and less motion blur / camera shake.

Uh? less noise if i'd shot at ISO 1600 ... care to elaborate ???

[uspandey]

So why is high iso performance so important ? Not for your average daylight shot - but for those more interesting shots . .like that one - being stuck with all my Canon gear... had to shoot at 1/60 and ISO 1250 - so this shot of this woman's beautifully decorated legs is just OK, but not sharp enough for larger size prints

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4521832430/

You've hit the nail on the head, Nycandre. Canon isn't getting any better stuffing their DSLR sensors with megapixels and microlenses. Apart from the number game, most Canon optimizations appear to be video oriented too. No wonder recent Nikons are producing a lot cleaner high ISO images. Incidentally, I immensely liked the tattooed legs in the subway!

[Colin Southern]

Uh? less noise if i'd shot at ISO 1600 ... care to elaborate ???

ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc are accomplished by changing amplifier gain; intermediate steps are accomplished by a combination of amplifier gain and digital manipulation (much like ISO "L" and "H" modes). The digital manipulation side of things at the intermediate steps tends to emphasie noise; the difference is small, but noticeable.

Personally, I think people worry about noise far too much - even at high ISO settings (1600 / 3200) (assuming a good exposure) the noise is still only "objectionable" at higher magnifications, so it you're down-sampling for web display for only printing a relatively small image it's just not that noticeable - and neither is it noticeable when printing a laarge image and viewing it from a proportionally greater distance.

So all an d all I'd suggest that people are better off using as high a ISO setting as they need to get the shutterspeed and/or aperture that they need; movement and/or insufficient DOF is usually does far more damage to a potentially good image than high ISO noise (and there are better tools available to deal to it if required / desired).

[nycandre]

ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc are accomplished by changing amplifier gain; intermediate steps are accomplished by a combination of amplifier gain and digital manipulation (much like ISO "L" and "H" modes). The digital manipulation side of things at the intermediate steps tends to emphasie noise; the difference is small, but noticeable..

Ah - interesting - thanks, good to know for future shots - as to whether noise is all that relevant, I personally do need on occasion to shoot at professional publication levels so for me it is - not to mention that lower noise allows me to crop and still get usable shots - like this one of a magnolia in the distance which is about an 1/8th of the original http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4525240397/

[Colin Southern]

Ah - interesting - thanks, good to know for future shots - as to whether noise is all that relevant, I personally do need on occasion to shoot at professional publication levels so for me it is - not to mention that lower noise allows me to crop and still get usable shots - like this one of a magnolia in the distance which is about an 1/8th of the original http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4525240397/

No worries

Personally - given the opportunity - I usually take a bracket of shots at different focal lengths to give me more options with the final composition, although with ever-increasing MP counts is becoming more and more of a moot point.

Co-incidentally, this point was re-inforced to me just the other day ... I purchased a 40" LED TV for tethered shooting in my new studio. As one would expect, it's wide-screen and high definition ... so how many megapixels to you think would be needed to take advantage of this "cutting edge" technology? 21MP? 45MP? Nope ... just 2MP will do it quite nicely thank you. I'm sure there's a message there somewhere.

[nycandre]

No worries

Personally - given the opportunity - I usually take a bracket of shots at different focal lengths to give me more options with the final composition

Well sure .. if you have got the lens for it, why not .. the shot above was at 400mm, the extreme of my 100-400 - the 1/8 crop is barely good for the web ;-)