Wouldn't it be nice...Nikon v Canon

[Adrian]

I have been following another thread about the new 5DS, which once again raised the comparison between cameras of today and the near future from Canon, Nikon and sometimes Sony.

For reasons lost in the mists of time (but possibly because I did not like the red flash on the face of Nikon cameras...I know, a silly reason!) I happened to plump for Canon years ago and have stuck with that brand since then as acquiring lenses gradually locks you in. Now I have a fairly full range of L glass and so it would be illogical to switch brand.

However, this does not stop me being curious about, for example, what it would be like to have a Nikon 810, or whether I would prefer Nikon. Or is Sony is ultimately a better way forward for lighter bodies and glass and high performing sensors.

I am not a professional and could not justify changing, as the lump behind the camera is the main limiting factor, but I wonder if other members sometimes have a similar dilemma and how you dealt with it.

Adrian

[Shadowman]

Knowing what you know now, couldn't you make the change with only one lens? Meaning you could get by with only needing one lens. I'm not saying I could; just wonder if anyone could.

[tclune]

Knowing what you know now, couldn't you make the change with only one lens? Meaning you could get by with only needing one lens. I'm not saying I could; just wonder if anyone could.

Nope. I could get by with only two lenses, but that is as low as I could go. I use my 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron for all my walk-around shooting and my Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 for all my birding and wildlife photography. I sometimes use my Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro for macro work, but I could live without doing that. And I use my Tokina 12-24 f/4 for UWA, but I seldom do that at all. I have a Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 that I would never miss and may just sell one day. I have a Nikon 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 and Nikon 35 f/1.8 that I use as a light-weight travel combo, but the Tamron 28-75 would do me for that if I had to cut down on my lenses.

[DanK]

Your reference to the lump is usually attributed to Ansel Adams, who supposedly said something like 'the most important piece of photographic equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.'

Frankly, I don't worry about this. I think that for a few things I do, the 810 would probably be superior to the 5D3 I use now, and if I were starting from scratch, I would consider it seriously. But for the most part, I don't think it makes any difference. That is not what limits the quality of what I produce.

If I end up switching at some point, it will probably be because of weight, so an 810 wouldn't be in the cards. Eventually, the weight of my gear may just be more than I want to lug, given my age and a bad back. When I pack to travel with most of my gear, my Pelican case weighs well over 20 pounds, and that doesn't even count things like my tripod. For now, however, I'm content.

However, that's just me.

If you really want to switch, you could minimize the financial loss by buying used glass, at least for a Nikon. I don't know how big the used market it yet for Sony.

[Shadowman]

Nope. I could get by with only two lenses, but that is as low as I could go. I use my 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron for all my walk-around shooting and my Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 for all my birding and wildlife photography. I sometimes use my Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro for macro work, but I could live without doing that. And I use my Tokina 12-24 f/4 for UWA, but I seldom do that at all. I have a Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 that I would never miss and may just sell one day. I have a Nikon 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 and Nikon 35 f/1.8 that I use as a light-weight travel combo, but the Tamron 28-75 would do me for that if I had to cut down on my lenses.

If I had to choose one lens, it would be my 85mm f/1.8 or maybe the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6. 1st choice would be the 85mm, there have been times when I traveled with only this lens and yes there have been times when I needed something shorter/longer but I changed my style to make up for the limitation.

[chauncey]

Hindsight being what it is, were it 2008, I would go with a MF camera and one long lens.

[Adrian]

It's not that I want to switch, it's just curiosity coupled with the typical enthusiast's propensity to collect equipment! Obviously I can go along to a shop and check out other manufacturers. Fact is though, it takes me ages to get used to a camera.

[rpcrowe]

I have no desire to switch camera brands or even to upgrade cameras.

If I "HAD TO", I could live with two lenses for my 7D cameras, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS. However, this would limit me fairly drastically but, that is the gear that I take on trips with photography in mind.

My general travel kit is two 7D cameras, the above two lenses, 1.4x TC, small lightweight tripod and a carbon fiber monopod. I also carry a few filters: UV protective, CPL and ND as well as a hotshoe flash or two and some minor lightweight accessories such as remote releases. And of course, many CF cards which weigh hardly anything. I carry all this (minus tripod and monopod which go in my suitcase) in a Lowepro Mini Trekked AW backpack which weighs right at 5 Kilograms filled with the gear.

If I have wildlife in mind (as when I went to Alaska), I will include my 300mm f/4L IS lens. I will then wear the 7D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens around my neck and put the 300mm in my Lowepro bag.

BTW: A photo vest is really handy to wear traveling. I can lighten my carry-on load by switching gear from my Lowepro to the vest. THE HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO WEIGHT TRAVELERS However, the only place I have traveled that they have weighed carry-on gear is local Chinese airlines flying from city to city in China. Of course, the load allowance on Alaskan float planes is quite Spartan.

My wife always brings her notebook computer which I use to download images and save to a couple to small size remote hard drives.

If I don't expect to shoot very much (as when visiting relatives) I will carry the tiny Canon SX50-HS with a table top tripod and a very light weight monopod. The entire kit weighs a kilo or two...

[pnodrog]

I sometimes wonder what I would buy if all my Nikon gear was destroyed in a fire and the insurance company gave me piles of money to replace it all. Apart from sticking to FF I would consider all of the brands and look very carefully at Sony.

[jcuknz]

When I basically changed to MFT, though keeping the rest of my gear as paperweights, I found the kit lens very frustrating and realized I really wanted was a larger sensored bridge camera as I had been used to. So a single lens, the 14-140, answered my 'needs' .... it is a compromise with features I avoided in the past but best I could do given what is being offered. The larger sensor generally compensates and after two years I am used to it
So I see a change of maker quite viable, though in my case brand loyalty was preserved.

[inkista]

...I am not a professional and could not justify changing, as the lump behind the camera is the main limiting factor, but I wonder if other members sometimes have a similar dilemma and how you dealt with it.

I ended up shooting multiple systems and spending too much money. I never swapped wholesale--I just accumulated more stuff. I still have my 5DMkII and 50D and L lenses.

Two very dangerous thoughts:

"Oh, it'll just be a supplement, not a replacement." [Bought a micro four-thirds Panasonic G3 with what I thought would be casual walkaround gear. Ended up supplanting a lot more of my Canon shooting than I thought and I now own six lenses in the mft mount, with thoughts on getting two more).

"Oh, I'll just rent it to see what it's like and then I won't want it any more." [Rented an X100S. Didn't buy one for ever a year. But then caved and succumbed to the lure of a shiny X100T].

I live in fear of the day an XPro-2 gets announced. ("Oh, I'll just rent it...")

[Bud Ralston]

Adrian:
There is exciting news for all Canon and Nikon legacy folks. Sony is just released the new full-frame, 42MP A7R MK II. It has in-camera stabilization, and with an adapter, accepts most Nikon, Canon, and Sony lenses with no degradation of auto focus. Check it out.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/432...th-sony-a7r-ii

I think many (including me) will be going this route in the near future. Remember, Sony makes all Nikon and Canon sensors these days.

[IzzieK]

However, this does not stop me being curious about, for example, what it would be like to have a Nikon 810, or whether I would prefer Nikon. Or is Sony is ultimately a better way forward for lighter bodies and glass and high performing sensors.

I used to buy a camera every two years even though I had not had enough time to learn about one or the other...but when I decided I want a D810, I did not hesitate. And I am not sorry either and learning so much about its operation that it amazes me everytime I find something new I do not know about its operation. If I had hesitated and thought about it, I would have ended up not buying it, e.g., too much wasted researches and thought on lenses I ended up not buying...yet...because I am "still researching" ... hesitation causes more confusion, especially researching reviews which is really different from one person's use of the gear than the other.

[Manfred M]

Remember, Sony makes all Nikon and Canon sensors these days.

Not true - Sony is just one source of sensors for both Canon and Nikon; both companies source sensors from other suppliers (and Canon makes many of their own sensors too). If you look at the reviews at DxO reviews of sensors, Nikon has a history of getting better images out of Sony sensors than Sony does.

http://www.dxomark.com/

[tao2]

As Manfred says (above), Canon/Nikon don't exclusively use Sony sensors. Canon produce(or produce in concert with Toshiba) much more of their own than Nikon, that's due tae the AF system employed by them. Canon are, reportedly, in talks with Sony tae produce a joint 50mpx sensor with Canon's af system and Sony's class-leading sensor tech.

Nikon's top of the range cameras are all Sony sensors, with the exception of one or two made by Toshiba. Nikon only makes a handful of sensors for their cameras.Even the great majority of their compact cameras are Sony inside.

DxO Mark is weighted tae Nikon but don't take my word for it...


http://photo.stackexchange.com/quest...ores-and-tests

http://photo.stackexchange.com/quest...er-than-canons

Ah think this site is better...http://www.sensorgen.info/

Nikon has a history of getting better images out of Sony sensors than Sony does.

Links?

[Krawuntzel]

Hello Adrian
I have a dilemma, although I do not consider switching from Sony to Ni/Ca. I could use a faster AF and higher (low-noise) ISO, so I am pondering to buy the new Sony A7R Mk II. It would also reduce the burden on my back a little bit (300g less). BUT: the camera is so small, that I doubt my hand/fingers could adapt to it. (Why can't we have a lighter body of the same size as the DSLRs before?) Regarding the lenses, friends tell me, that the adapters work very well on the A7 cameras, so I could keep mine.

Manfred wrote: "Nikon has a history of getting better images out of Sony sensors than Sony does."
That is true and I always wondered why; is Nikon employing better software engineers? That must not be true: A friend of mine who worked for some years in East Asia got hold of a Sony firmware update for the A 77 which produced better pictures by continents (higher ISO without noise, faster AF) compared to my own A 77 . The firmware update, however, never made it to Europe. When he had to repair his camera (for an entirely other reason) in Europe, the licensed repair-shop HAD to replace the better software with the old one
So I will have some more weeks to compare advantages/disadvantages
Erwin

[tao2]

Hi Erwin,

what was the firmware version that your friend had? AFAIK the 1.07 version was/is the latest and last version for the A77 (worldwide). Ah've never heard of separate firmware for different continents. There is a version 2.0 for the Sony A77II which improved ISO/AF and added movie modes.

[Manfred M]

Manfred wrote: "Nikon has a history of getting better images out of Sony sensors than Sony does."
That is true and I always wondered why; is Nikon employing better software engineers?

My understanding is that Nikon has its own sensor design team but do not have their own fab, so contract out their sensor fabrication. This means that while Sony (and others) may produce the sensor, but they may or may not be to the published specs of these companies (i.e. even though Sony and Nikon use the same underlying technology, the sensors might not be identical). Of course, a sensor is just part of the image processing chain, so the other components and camera firmware will also impact the image. The published sensor data is not taken from the sensor itself, but from the final image produced, so the sensor readings in the published data are actually based on comparing input data and the output file, so all the other parts of the camera system that touch the data impact the results too.

My understanding is that a number of the newer Nikon cameras use Aptina sensors.

As for the drivers being different around the world, that really makes little sense to me. If he saw that much difference, my suspicion is that he must have loaded a "beta" driver that was never released. Maintaining different drivers based on geography makes no business sense at all. Companies want to minimize the different code bases.

If you want to understand the specifics, companies like Chipworks do a teardown analysis on chips and sell this information to others. Be prepared to spend a lot of money...

https://chipworks.secure.force.com/c...searchText=imx

[3Wheels]

And here's me seriously considering trading my Canon gear in for a couple of The Fuji XT-1s. I had been on the brink of trading in for Sony however, I got to try a Fuji and loved it, it really worked for me.

[Krawuntzel]

Hello Boab
I contacted my friend, and he remembers that the version for his original A77 was 1.2 or 1.3 - he got it from an aquaintance
It must have been - as Manfred suggested - a beta version, that was never released for the original A77. The code probably made it into the version 2.0 for the A77 II
From the point of view of Sony I can understand that they "spared" the better version for the A77 II, yet as a customer....
Erwin