Anyone Prefer Canon Over Nikon

steve · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject:

does the same thing happen on the canon with the newer of there lenses adrian, appreciate the input

thanks

steve
[btw yes ALL my lenses are dx]

uncle aj · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject:

I would imagine if Canon make lenses specifically for DX format cameras, they too would reduce the actual pixels used when fitted to a full frame camera. I'm not sure but you may not be able to fit a Canon Dx lens on a full frame body. You would have to ask a Canon expert about that.
_________________
I'd feel lost without my GPS

steve · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject:

The D300 isn't a full frame sensor i thought

does the crop not only occur if this is the case

steve

uncle aj · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject:

valentino · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject:

Ken Rockwell gets sent new cameras from Nikon and Canon for review. He gives the better of the two the Nikon badge.

Me, I'm a canon man. My lenses swap nicely between my 3 bodies, 35mm film, 5d and a 350d. The Nikon lenses are designed for the crop factor as are EF-S canon lenes. In other words there is no cropping as such if your lens is designed for the cropped sensor.

What is the benefit of a full frame over a cropped sensor? Well a 12mp full frame will have much more detail than a 16mp cropped as the pixels are bigger - you actually get a much better colour register as a result. If you use a full frame (canon AF/EF fitting) on a 450d you get a cropping effect of about 1.6x. Run an EF-S lens (as you can use both) and it will work at 1.0x so 50mm = 50mm.

The main thing about the two is they are both great makes each stronger in some areas over the other. The main thing to judge which to buy is how it feels in your hand as that is the most important. You will spend more time with it in your hand than looking at neglegable comparisons on output. I went canon for the greater choice (in my view) of lenses - there is just a wider range. Plus the shipped software and ergonimics won me over.

If you shoot raw, and eventually you will at some point, I am not sure Nikon ship any RAW software - certainly my friend didnt get any, instead a free version of some software he had to purchase. Canon ship everything you need and the software is bloody good.

In other words, ignore the branding and get it in your hand and see how it feels as that is the most important bit. Both will take good and bad photos

uncle aj · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject:

I thought that was a load of crop.

_________________
I'd feel lost without my GPS

valentino · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:52 am Post subject:

That was a good pun, actually for the first time since 2001 you made me laugh with you - not at you ;)

valentino · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:56 am Post subject:

uncle aj · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:01 am Post subject:

valentino · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:49 am Post subject:

another thing to consider is that running a lens designed for a full frame (ok typically that means 35mm film body) that not only do you get a crop factor but you are potentially beyond the sweet spot for the focus - so images can appear a little softer.

I said about raw earler, some people argue that if you get the shot right first time that you can shoot direct to jpeg. What that doesnt give you is flexiblity to adjust sharpness. Yes you can adjust jpeg sharpness but its not as good as adjusting it in the raw file.

Running Canon software you get Digitial Professional 3.0 which is so bloody powerful that so long as you dont want to crop your images etc you would never need Photoshop as an example. When you shoot digital the sensor has a clear protective cover which, by design, introduces softness to images.