Tempted to ditch my canon's and go Nikon (shock horror!)

"CUrrently i'm just going around the image, removing any obvious big red or green dots manually"


On the other hand you may just have a faulty ccd with stuck pixels - that's how they would show up on an image.....
 
oldgit said:
Its your money. You can spend it all on Canon then throw it away and trade it in on Nikon if you want. Your choice.

Sounds daft to me. The two are always ... equivalent... (ish).

If I was you I'd save my cash and learn how to get the best out of what I've got. That includes post processing if you need to
Click to expand...


I am totally with Old Git here the only Nikon I have seen that would totally surpass the quality of the 40D is the D3,if you can afford that and the cost of all the new lenses then so be it but in the real world work on your technique and Post Processing skills with the Canon.
 
I agree with most of what's been said already. I know a fair amount of people who shoot with 40Ds and a couple with D300s (including my business partner). On the whole I'd say the better shots come from the D300 (marginally) but that's more than likely down to the 'tog.

Overall the 40D and Canon's Digic III in general seems to do a pretty good job when it comes to noise. To be honest, DM's D300 shot looks overly noisy to me.

OT:

Redhed17 said:
"The one that always catches me out is changing to RAW on the 350D/400D/450D/20D/30D. It takes a lot of tracking down for a non Canon user."

I don't get that.. it's the first option when you press the menu button.. I've always found Nikon's menus to be convoluted, but that's beside the point.

Jamie.
 
does all this matter?, isnt photography about the image, uposed to the camera? i shoot with both a new 40d and a old nikon d1x, both are great, and in all fairness... if i showed two photos taken of the same subject, 1 from each camera, to a non-toger, they wouldnt have a clue, that 1 has 5 mega pixels more, and 1 is better at handling noise...
in the end, does all this really matter?, or should time spent comparing the noise and technical specifications of what ever new piece of kit, that one of the companies has produced, not be spent out and a bout taking photographs, and enjoying the hoby we all love?
just my thoughts
nathan
 
RobertP said:
Not read the rest of the thread but that comment makes me wonder if you have long exposure noise reduction turned on in the camera settings? If it is on the camera will take a second dark frame subtraction shot after the shot you take and subtract the noise. So a 30 second exposure will take 60 seconds before you can press the shutter again.
Click to expand...

I dont use long-exposure noise reduction at all because of 2 reasons.

My longe exposures, are VERY long, i.e 2 hours or so at a time, so having the camera processing for 4 hours will more than likely drain the battery before it's done.

Or if i'm not doing a continuous exposure i do 100's of 30 second stacked ones, to have a 30 second gap between each shot whilst the camera does the NR would cause constant gaps in my star trails :(
 
The fact is if you buy Canon or Nikon you can't go wrong can you.
Both make class cameras and they will always be pushing each other.
I always used Nikon untill I switched over to digital, so I am not anti Nikon.
In fact I still own a full Nikon System, Two Nikon FA's and a few lenses and in my eyes the Nikon FA is the greatest camera ever made. As for the Canon 1DMKIII AF problems, I have never had any, and for me it's the best AF I ever ever used. But I would love Nikon to make a digital back for the FA and I would go back to using that all the time.
I can dream.
 
:agree:

It doesn't matter a damn which flavour you have dark or light side. They are both *VERY* good makes. Generally speaking its the monkey behind the lens that's the problem not the kit that the monkey is holding.


(lordy is'nt this a rambling thread?)
 
fallen_mathi said:
does all this matter?, isnt photography about the image, uposed to the camera? i shoot with both a new 40d and a old nikon d1x, both are great, and in all fairness... if i showed two photos taken of the same subject, 1 from each camera, to a non-toger, they wouldnt have a clue, that 1 has 5 mega pixels more, and 1 is better at handling noise...
in the end, does all this really matter?, or should time spent comparing the noise and technical specifications of what ever new piece of kit, that one of the companies has produced, not be spent out and a bout taking photographs, and enjoying the hoby we all love?
just my thoughts
nathan
Click to expand...

your right it is about the image, but to capture the image you need the right equipment. The OP has very specific needs and obviously is after the camera to best suit his needs. sometimes the system you pick to start with isnt the best for you later on.

every camera is slightly different across the makes, but classed as competitors.
 
Guys, it's certainly true that in the past all the night paps shot with flash at close range, but the beauty of a sensor that allows you to shoot at 25600 ISO, is that if you don't want the celeb to know that you are there, then you can get it with a 200mm 2.8 and they will never be the wiser.

Granted, the vast majority of shots are still done the old fashioned way, but believe me, you are seeing more and more exclusive sets, which have been taken in low light. I sold a Huge set of Charlotte Church recently, and I would have been able to get the frames if she knew I was there. Thats 10 grand I would have lost had I been on Canon.
 
I sold a Huge set of Charlotte Church recently, and I would have been able to get the frames if she knew I was there. Thats 10 grand I would have lost had I been on Canon.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, here's one of the frames, originally shot in RAW, at 6400 Iso, with available light.

http://pro-snapper.com/DSC_6287.jpg

I have done no noise reduction to this image, just corrected the color balance and saved as jpeg.
 
I took a few at a show in Thailand with my D300, never used a flash and i was quite away from the stage using the 18-200mm vr lens, the exif hopefully is intact on this one.

LOWLIGHT2.jpg
 
Manamarak said:
Sorry Canon boys, but you've got it wrong.

The Nikon D300 blows anything the Canon has out of the water.

I have worked with both the D3 and the D300 and, though the D3 is marginally better, the D300 is still spectacular in low light. You can still get magazine pritable shots on a D300 at 6400 ISO.

<snip>
Click to expand...

As a Nikon user who also has a D3 and D300 I have to wonder what you're doing wrong with your D3 if you think it's only 'marginally better' IMHO the D3 is light years ahead of the D300, and the D300 is better than my D2x, but not the huge leap some would have you think.
 
Thank you all very much for your opinions on this one. After careful deliberation i've decided that.... yes, i'm going to go the D300 route and sell all my canon gear. The Noise issue alone wasn't what pushed me, but also realising the D300 has a built-in GPS port to geotag my images as well as better remote flash support than my canon's do.

Now all i've got to do is the sell the lot
 
_belial said:
Thank you all very much for your opinions on this one. After careful deliberation i've decided that.... yes, i'm going to go the D300 route and sell all my canon gear. The Noise issue alone wasn't what pushed me, but also realising the D300 has a built-in GPS port to geotag my images as well as better remote flash support than my canon's do.

Now all i've got to do is the sell the lot
Click to expand...

There may be a few hardly used D300's for sale very soon ( mine included ) in the very near future too ;)
 
oooh how come?? tell me more, not because of the rumoured d700?
 
Yep. If the D700 is full frame, I'm getting one. Then the D300 will be going.
 
Ooh ace, perhaps i'll hang on for a bargain on a D300 then :))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top