Camera Choice

This area is for the discussion of what's new, what's on your mind, and general photographic topics. A place to meet, make comments on this site, and get the latest community news.

Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden

Locked
DaveW
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:00 pm

Camera Choice

Post by DaveW »

I gain the impression that Canon cameras predominate on this site? As Canon has 54% of the camera market and the next nearest competitor, Nikon, has only around 23% this is not unexpected. Choosing cameras though is not just about brand loyalty, but what camera suits you, because even different models from the same maker can vary as to suitability for your needs.

I don't know wether anybody has yet posted this link on this site but a very good site for comparing up to three cameras side by side is:-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

If you also click on the green "our in depth review" under the image of the camera you will get a review of it, up to 23 pages long in some cases!

Ladies with smaller fingers may prefer one of the smaller lighter cameras, whereas those like me with long fingers and from manual trades may prefer larger heavier cameras because the small ones are much too fiddly for us.

I think most of the major camera manufacturers have quite a good "macro" lens range, from close-up to around the 1:1 region. I think Canon has three macro lenses in this range and Nikon four.

Canon obviously leads in the beyond 1:1 range with it's unique MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Lens, that is if you do not wish to use bellows and special bellows lenses like the Nikon macro nikkors, or Canon macro photo lenses. See:-

http://www.macrolenses.de/start.php?lang=en

Nikon also has a unique lens in the 70-180 zoom micro nikkor which Canon does not have in it's range:-

http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm

Whilst we all buy cameras on what we hope we may be able to mount on them, we have to be realistic both as to what we will ever be able to afford, and what we will ever really need for our type of photography, then make our choice of cameras based on that.

Canon led the field for a long time with "prosumer" cameras like the 20D that upstaged Nikon, but lost the lead when it brought out the 30D that was not the leap forward users expected from Canon. Nikon then upstaged them with what looks like being one of the best sellers of all time, the Nikon D200.

No doubt Canon has something on the stocks it hopes to introduce to upstage the D200. The trouble for both manufacturers is that their pro/am cameras are getting a bit too close to their professional cameras in Megapixel numbers and features, so could soon affect the high end professional camera sales.

I noted the remark somewhere on this forum that the size of the Nikon lens mount was a problem. This was retained, unlike Canon's change, so all Nikon lenses made can still fit Nikon cameras, though with different degrees of automation retained. The D200 can work most lenses in different modes by simply programming in the maximum aperture of some "prehistoric" non-electronic lenses.

Also, the question has to be how successful the quest for a 35mm sensor for our SLR's will be. Nikon uses the APS sensor that is two thirds of the full frame 35mm one. Canon has a similar sized sensor as well as a 35mm full frame one for it's professional cameras. The lens throat size is therefore less important with the smaller sensor.

Canon have had some problems with their full frame sensors on their professional range of cameras due to vignetting. The digital sensor reacts differently to off axis rays to perfectly flat film. The digital sensor has it's pixel sites down little pits with a minute lens on top. Off axis rays strike the pits at the sensors edge at an angle and tend to hit the sides of the pits not the sensitive pixel site at it's base, hence the vignetting with conventional 35mm lenses designed for film.

To overcome this problem all present 35mm lenses would need to be re-designed with either a wider covering circle, or with a collimating lens as the final element so the off axis rays entered the outermost pixel sites vertically.

There are rumours that Nikon is working on a curved sensor, rather like the retina at the back of the eye to overcome the off axis ray problem using it's present 35mm lenses before it too introduces a 35mm full frame sensor, but this may be an unfounded rumour.

High pixel numbers too are not the be all and end all of digital photography, as most people know "size matters". Simply cramming in more but smaller pixels every year to the same sensor size can lead to a degredation of image quality, not to it's improvement!

Larger pixel sites capture more photons per exposure and so are more sensitive. This may also lead to better colour rendition and less noise. We are now approaching the useful limit as to how many pixels can be crammed onto a APS sized sensor due to pixel site size, and if more Megapixels are wanted may need to go to the 35mm full frame sensor rather than reduce pixel size anymore.

However, people now find the APS and similar sized sensors provide all the resolution they need and result in smaller cameras plus smaller, lighter, cheaper telephoto and macro lenses, than do full frame 35mm sensored cameras. So the old 35mm format size may die a death for other than some professional use.

After all, the 35mm format was only a downscaling of medium format size by Oscar Barnak to make his camera more portable on his hikes. The APS and 4:3 format may yet prove to be the one that replaces 35mm film cameras due to it's extra portability.

The above remarks are what I have gained from surfing the Web, if any of the above is incorrect I am sure one of the experts on the site will put us all right?

DaveW

DaveW
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:00 pm

Post by DaveW »

To add to the above information on the 70-180 zoom micro nikkor, a history of it's development is on the following web site. The Japanese English is a little quaint in places, but none the less informative:-

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfol ... /n18_e.htm

DaveW

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

DaveW wrote:To add to the above information on the 70-180 zoom micro nikkor, a history of it's development is on the following web site. The Japanese English is a little quaint in places, but none the less informative:-

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfol ... /n18_e.htm

DaveW
I'm one of that 54% of Canon shooters, but the 70-180 zoom is one lens I've always envied the Nikon shooters for. I'd heard that Nikon had stopped producing this lens, but not sure. It would certainly be convenient to use. I don't think there is enough demand for such a lens that Canon is ever likely to produce one, alas.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

I shoot Canon, and have no desire to change. I based my choice on the broad choice of lenses, and especially on the availability of long lenses with image stabilization (I was really into large mammal shots when I started this).

FORTUNATELY, Nikon is still a contender, and they have some excellent and innovative new lens choices. I say fortunately, because I don't want Canon to get lazy and complacent. I want competitors to keep them scared and innovative! :-) And with any decent brand of camera, a good photographer will take good shots. I don't have any illusions that Canon is somehow "better" than other brands. Anyone who thinks Canon is better should check out the lamentable quality of the Canon wide angle lenses....*sigh*

If I were getting into this for the first time, I'd take a serious look at the new Sony Alpha DSLR. Sony has taken over the Minolta lens line, and built this new DSLR to move forward. Ten megapixels, built-in image stabilization that apparently works well with all lenses, and it appears some sort of gizmo that fights dust on the sensor--I wonder if the dust removal really works? Sure looks interesting. Sony has the money and presence to be a real player in this industry, if they can get off the ground. I hope they persevere, shooters of all brands will benefit if they are a success. And their camera has some awesome-sounding capabilities.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

DaveW
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:00 pm

Post by DaveW »

Mike

I don't think Nikon ever stopped producing the 70-180 zoom micro nikkor. What I heard was that it was your Nikon main agent in the USA who stopped importing them, so they were no longer available in the US except on the grey market. I gather they have always been available in Europe, although I am still waiting for mine!

The Sony Alpha apparently uses the same 10.2 Megapixel sensor as the Nikon D200, because Sony already supplies this to Nikon. It may also be used in some other brand cameras too I hear. However all the electronics surrounding the sensor are different on the Sony to the Nikon I gather.

Nikon puts their vibration reduction circuitry in the lens not the camera. That of course means you have to buy it with every lens, not once in the camera. I don't know where Canon places it? Nikon's latest award winning lens with VR is the new 105mm micro nikkor:-

http://www.tipa.com/awa_detail_2006.las ... eyValue=84

The dust removal system on the Minolta/Sony is simply ultrasonic shaking of the sensor I believe. No doubt this will remove loose or dry dust, but how it will deal with sticky dust I do not know. The Olympus E system also has a similar dust removal method.

Competition is good for the consumer, but wether the others will ever be able to break into the big two's market is debateable. Far from camera makers proliferating many of the traditional ones are now going bust. Both Nikon and Canon though seem to be increasing their profits.

DaveW

Locked