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

_belial

_belial

Suspended / Banned
Messages
676
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I'm a big fan of night photography, so low-noise in low-light is important to me. I've currently got a 400D and a 40D with various lenses but after reading some reviews i've read the nikon D300 seems to have superior low-light performance to my canon's. I was wondering if anyone here at all had 1st had experience of the nikon in low-light and in particular compared to the canons?

Thanks in advance
 
Even though I have the D300, I'd say don't bother. From what I've seen, the D300 is only little bit better at noise handling than the 40D. Plus you would lose a fair bit of money on your lenses that you would have to buy all over again.

And another reason, is that Nikon and Canon models tend to leap frog each other. I would bet the 50D (or what ever it will be called) will be better than the D300.
 
I don't think the D300 is particularly superior to the 40D? The D3 blows everything else away, sure, but the D300 less so.
 
DSC_0874_036.jpg



exif should be intact hopefully let me know.

anyway iso3200 without any noise reduction i think-just a bit of sharpening.

Was a jet black night only lit by a couple of those bright yellow lights and a few dim lights inside the ones that show up as white light
 
I would stick with Canon unless you can afford the D3.

Can't believe i just said that.........:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
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
 
ooh a mixed bag of responses there then! i'm not fussed about the loosing too much money part as long as I end up with something that'll do the job in the long run. tbh (like most people) I wish canon would jsut announce the new 5D replacement so i could compare that one as I read in the latest AP that the 5D has great low-noise capabilities too (but would have to ditch at least 4 of my lenses if I went 5D anyway).

Thta's pretty impressive for ISO 3200 DM, comparable to what I get at 1600 with my 40D. I don't suppose you have anything at say ISO 800 + 400 nearer 30 secs do you?
 
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 guess post-pro is an option, thanks heavens this forum has a section on it, as tbh I'm not really clued up on the best ways to reduce noise in post-pro. CUrrently i'm just going around the image, removing any obvious big red or green dots manually :)
 
april fool? :lol:

seriously the d300 isn't really much of a step up from a 40d and not worth it to be honest. the d3 would be a different matter or wait for the 5d mkII :D
 
I don't think there is any huge leap in noise control from a 40D to a D300, the D300 might shade it but its not worth chucking out the 40D and a pile of glass for.
D3 maybe, but £££.
I don't think the D300 image @ 3200 is actually that usable, looks pretty damn noisy to me, better than a 40D or not, its still too noisy, so what's the point.
You are always going to need noise reduction software @ 3200 on a sub £1000 camera.
 
You'll need NR on a > £1000 camera .. its not a magic bullet solution, or we'd all be saving
 
What noise reduction solution do people recommend out of interest? I just had a search around, noise ninja seems pretty popular, will go hunt a demo of it out now, but is there anything else (Free?) available?


sportysnaps said:
so why not use low iso with long exposure?
Click to expand...

I do, but it depends on lighting conditions, if i'm taking star trail for example which may last hours, even at ISO 100 during a full moon i'll get a totally blow-out sky with very little stars because of how light teh sky is. Whereas I can stack 100's of ISO 400 30 second images together and get a nice dark sky with reasonable trails. The only problem is noise.
 
_belial said:
What noise reduction solution do people recommend out of interest? I just had a search around, noise ninja seems pretty popular, will go hunt a demo of it out now, but is there anything else (Free?) available?
Click to expand...

I use in camera NR
or
NeatImage the demo has no time limit but has reduced features.
or
Nikon Capture NX NR during pp.
 
Sounds like you're going to want a full frame camera at some point. Get a 5D or wait for it's successor or, if you have no full frame glass, get a D700 when they come out.
 
Man there's more to photography than a bit of noise, anyways there's modern software can clean up noise pretty well these days, and it will be a lot cheaper than flogging all your gear and buying new again.
 
joxby said:
I don't think there is any huge leap in noise control from a 40D to a D300, the D300 might shade it but its not worth chucking out the 40D and a pile of glass for.
D3 maybe, but £££.
I don't think the D300 image @ 3200 is actually that usable, looks pretty damn noisy to me, better than a 40D or not, its still too noisy, so what's the point.
You are always going to need noise reduction software @ 3200 on a sub £1000 camera.
Click to expand...

uhuuummm maybe sub 1000 now-not when first out was 1300 remember lol.

It was a bloody dark image though to be fair and i did sharpen it without doing any noise reduction which made it worse.

Id say get rid of ya colour photocopier and get a real camera LOL
 
The noise on the 5D is almost non existant below 800!! and hardly noticable past that..

And i saw a comparison between the 1D MkIII and the D3. It said that the MkIII was slightly better with noise.. The MkIII is much cheaper than the D3.. so.. :shrug:

The bottom line is id stick with Canon.. unless there was a huge difference but there just isnt..

As Sporty said, if you're doing night time shots then use a low ISO! that is if you use a tripod..

Or under exope if you use RAW and compensate in PP..You'll get away with a stop or two.. Just an idea..
 
If it was me I'd be getting the Nikon so we all get a chance at some cheap 2nd hand glass and a chuckle to boot ;)
 
Maybe i should join the Nikon forum instead-quick spy in the ranks LOL
DSC_0874_0361.jpg


with slight quickly done nr
 
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.

I am not kidding.

I am a photojournalist and have had a shot at 6400 ISO with the D300 printed on the front page of a national newspaper in the UK.

The same shot was also printed in numerous magazines, and I have had no complaints about quality.

Buy the D300 mate, you won't be sorry.
 
joxby and fraggle101

with all due respect, you guys are in a dream world, half of London's night paparazzi have shifted to Nikon because there is no comparisson between the Nikons and Canons in low light at the moment.

The difference is HUGE.
 
Manamarak said:
joxby and fraggle101

with all due respect, you guys are in a dream world, half of London's night paparazzi have shifted to Nikon because there is no comparisson between the Nikons and Canons in low light at the moment.

The difference is HUGE.
Click to expand...

Well, that and the fact that you can't focus with a Canon :naughty::naughty:
 
Damn, you guy's don't make life easy do you :P

I don't suppose anyone with a D300 could post some 30 second ISO 400 + 800 shouts could they at all please?

I'm still undecided what to do, I wish Canon would announce a new 5D replacement and make life easier!
 
Manamarak said:
with all due respect, you guys are in a dream world, half of London's night paparazzi have shifted to Nikon because there is no comparisson between the Nikons and Canons in low light at the moment.
Click to expand...

So it's Nikon I have to thank for the pictures of Lily Allen's backside I see plastered all over the front cover of the red top rags?

Thanks Nikon.

Thanks a lot.

:bang:
 
I was thinking of ditching my canon set up for the Nikon D3 and I emailed Nikon about my plans. They sent me a D3 and a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 G AF-S VR IF ED Lens plus the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens, for a 2 week trial. After using it for 2 weeks I decided to keep my Canon 1 series set up for the fact that the D3 just didn't deliver what I need. 12 mp is a bit short on £3500 camera and when you want the frame rate you have to drop it down to 6mp. The ISO was great but not a great deal better then the 1DMKIII only a few stops. Also the 1DMKIII as a number of aspect ratio settings the D3 has only 1. So for me it was the Canon set up that won on a number of things and the D3 had a slightly better ISO performance.
 
Manamarak said:
joxby and fraggle101

with all due respect, you guys are in a dream world, half of London's night paparazzi have shifted to Nikon because there is no comparisson between the Nikons and Canons in low light at the moment.

The difference is HUGE.
Click to expand...

Uh, all the paparazzi shots I've seen of celebs leaving clubs, Prince Harry throwing up etc. are taken with flash. Same as shooting in daylight as far as the sensor is concerned?

If the celeb toggers were trying to get arty shots with their 50mm's at f/1.2, I could understand it :D

A.
 
Anorakus said:
Uh, all the paparazzi shots I've seen of celebs leaving clubs, Prince Harry throwing up etc. are taken with flash. Same as shooting in daylight as far as the sensor is concerned?

If the celeb toggers were trying to get arty shots with their 50mm's at f/1.2, I could understand it :D

A.
Click to expand...


The above is correct they always use flash.
And it's a myth that sports togs a switching to Nikon as well, check the Canons out at the football.
 
PapaLazarou said:
I was thinking of ditching my canon set up for the Nikon D3 and I emailed Nikon about my plans. They sent me a D3 and a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 G AF-S VR IF ED Lens plus the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens, for a 2 week trial. After using it for 2 weeks I decided to keep my Canon 1 series set up for the fact that the D3 just didn't deliver what I need. 12 mp is a bit short on £3500 camera and when you want the frame rate you have to drop it down to 6mp. The ISO was great but not a great deal better then the 1DMKIII only a few stops. Also the 1DMKIII as a number of aspect ratio settings the D3 has only 1. So for me it was the Canon set up that won on a number of things and the D3 had a slightly better ISO performance.
Click to expand...


You must have very specific needs.
You don't say what 1D set up you have, so we cant compare 12mp @ £3500
D3 has 5x4 aspect ratio setting besides default 3x2
It only crops to 6mp a 11fps, it'll shoot all day at 9fps fullframe, I don't think 2fps is gonna tip the balance on its own, or aspect ratio settings unless you have particular needs.
You make no mention of other areas that it is superior.
12mp being not big enough seems to be the only credible reason to be un-impressed.
It impresses me, everytime I use it, but so does the mk3.
 
There was a lot of reasons why I did'nt make the switch, one being that I found the Canon AF far better than the Nikon. Also handling, the 1DMKIII handled a lot better than the D3.

My set up is based around:
Canon 1DSMKII
Canon 1DMKIIN
Canon 1DMKIII X 2

So for me Nikon cant come close in resolution or speed.
I think they are 8mp short of having the best camera.
 
PapaLazarou said:
I found the Canon AF far better than the Nikon.
Click to expand...

They must have finally sorted it then, I know one very ****ed off Canon-using pro up here who, the last time I spoke to him, was considering dumping all his canon gear because his two new MKIIIs had to go back to get the af fixed.

Handling is a personal thing (obviously). If you've used Canon for years then the Nikon set-up no doubt takes a while to get used to. I've always shot Nikon and every time I've considered a change and borrowed a Canon I decide to stay with Nikon because I don't like the Canon ergonomics.
 
PapaLazarou said:
There was a lot of reasons why I did'nt make the switch, one being that I found the Canon AF far better than the Nikon. Also handling, the 1DMKIII handled a lot better than the D3.
Click to expand...

If you are used to using Canon equipment wouldn't the Nikon, or any other camera, feel odd to handle until one got used to it?

I have a Nikon and whenever someone asks me to show them certain things on their Canon camera (I'm a teacher) the Canons seem particularly alien to me.

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 assume the cameras higher up the range are better handling(one would hope), but I've never had a play so don't know for sure.


As for someone saying earlier Nikon and Canon leapfrog each other all the time, in most aspects that is right, but when it comes to handling noise, Canon have had that advantage for a long time. It seems Nikon has gone ahead now, to some extent with the D300, and if the reviews are to be believed, a huge leap with the D3.

I'll get a D300 at some point, but the low noise, amongst other things, of the D3 are way beyond me financially or ability wise. :( :lol:
 
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 assume the cameras higher up the range are better handling(one would hope), but I've never had a play so don't know for sure.
Click to expand...

You can set the centre "set" button to do various things and one of them is to change quality. I leave it to do nothing, as I always use RAW.
 
_belial said:
CUrrently i'm just going around the image, removing any obvious big red or green dots manually :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
They must have finally sorted it then, I know one very ****ed off Canon-using pro up here who, the last time I spoke to him, was considering dumping all his canon gear because his two new MKIIIs had to go back to get the af fixed.
Click to expand...

Yep, reviews of the latest MkIII's in the pro mags now have the af fixed and the frame rate right up there. They reported every shot in a burst at 10fps was pin sharp.

I think it's fair to say that Canon cocked up with wonky viewfinder alignment and inaccurate af, you can't release a product to a pro market with faults like that.

Hopefully they will have learned lessons from this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top