Purchase Decision Between Nikon D100 & Canon EOS-10D

[Avatar]

Effective DOF on DSLR is deeper. Thus, it's harder to get nice out of focus background for portraits with f2.8. (See my post at http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=50797&page=2 )

Let me be a devil advocate on a Nikon forum (I'm a Nikon SLR user):

If one doesn't have an existing system to start with, I believe s/he should consider Canon seriously. Canon has been havng an edge in technologies among the other big manufacturers, including Nikon. (Considering that Canon is the 2nd top company in the world filing the most US patents and does all sort of things outside photography that Nikon doesn't, it is understandable. e.g. Technologies invented for photocopiers can be "reused" in cameras.) So far, every other manufacturer, probably excluding Sony, are playing only catch up with Canon in digital.

My only concern with Canon is it hasn't committed to a fixed FOV factor (Nikon's 1.5x). It makes it hard for a person "graduating" from a low-end body, say 300D, and move to a high-end body (e.g. 1Ds). The set of carefully selected lenses will have a different FOV on a different body...

Actually, in reality there is no significant difference since each company is adopting a different philosophy and stance in this area of photography. I depends on the perception of each individual to decide which is the more appropriate solution for them. There are many who like to harp that Canon is in the lead ... blah blah blah ... but they are only doing it without even knowing what had when on before and is still happening now. Let me elaborate ...

Canon places more emphasis on more variety of models, which in their book is loosely translated as wider choices (ie. FF for 1Ds, 1.3x for 1D and 1.6x for the lower spectrum of the DSLR market). There is an advantage to this move for EF mount users because they benefit by having more choices in the Canon arsenal.

Nikon, on the other hand, places more emphasis on adhering to a more usable, common standard (1.5x FLM). Their move to release DX lenses shows their commitment in making this otherwise "narrower" perspective possible and viable for users in their system. I am not sure about others but I welcome the 1.5x FLM with open arms cuz if you are into the super telephoto thingy (ie. 300 - 800mm primes, etc), you know how much more these really big guns are gonna cost you ... The DX thingy was scorned at, grossly ridiculed by many Canon users until they either see what these DX lenses can give/do or were "zipped" by their "new" EF-S standard, aka the 300D only lens mount thingy, basically the same thing as the DX format but it is clear that Canon is resisting the possibilty of being called "backtracking".

Sure, there are some who goes for the "cosmetics" citing that white tele L lenses are cool but in reality (again), I am sure not many can tell why are these lenses exclusively in white (while the other manufacturers can do it in both colors). Nope, it is not entirely for distinction although it somehow is commonly perceived this way ... there are more than meets the eye here. Nevertheless, this is NOT an important factor if you ask me ...

Now, IMHO, you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon, both companies provide excellent solutions for photographic community. The average photographer will have a helluva experience in either camp if he/she adopts the correct attitude in this art.

My advise to any would be adopters of either system is to ignore all the crap coming from fanboys from either camp and proceed straight to testing out the cameras and lenses, make sure you are comfortable with your choice, in ergonomics, feel and most importantly, its ability to perform what you need it to do. Like myself, my choice towards the Nikon system is never based on brand name but instead is the incapability of the Canon system to deliever the ergonomics and capabilities that I need the most. These are IMHO the most important factors to consider before taking the plunge.

Good luck to anyone in your purchases!

 

[johnyu]

Actually, in reality there is no significant difference since each company is adopting a different philosophy and stance in this area of photography.

Totally agreed.

Canon places more emphasis on more variety of models, which in their book is loosely translated as wider choices (ie. FF for 1Ds, 1.3x for 1D and 1.6x for the lower spectrum of the DSLR market). There is an advantage to this move for EF mount users because they benefit by having more choices in the Canon arsenal.

I won't say that Canon deliberately gives us choices by deliberately providing variety. Instead, Canon is being pragmatic--Canon has been showing its emphasis in pragmatism in its bold transition to EOS/EF, while Nikon has been showing its emphasis in commitment in its F-mount--that variety is only a by-product. Canon makes stuff for the price/performance demanded by the market segments.

Nevertheless, this precisely demonstrates Avatar's point on "different company, different philosophy".

I'd like to add two more points here as I believe I misled Avatar in my last post.

1. I'm not saying Canon's advance in technologies will directly traslate into better cameras and lenses. Instead, I'm saying Canon is a much bigger and more resourceful company and, in long run, whether a company can afford R&D matters. I'm a Nikon user and emotionally attached to it. When I look at Canon, its size, I have the impression/fear that it will eventually squash the other small players. This is what I don't want to see. But the dynamic of the market works in their favour.

I deem the business viability/health of the company important as we, photographer, are investing not into an once off equipment. Instead, we are investing into a system, which will evolve when we improve. The investment is a long term one. In this regards, the Canon system seems a better bet.

2. Since I believe in investing into a system, on the other hand, I'm unsatified by that Canon doesn't provide a migration path in their DSLRs. At least this is the case today.

 

[Avatar]

johnyu, thanks for your insights, they are somewhat like mine too, except for the better bet part but these are just each individual's perception, ain't it?

My apologies for not stating it clearly, my post isn't exactly directed at yours, I am just adding on to what you had said from my POV while attempting to correct some points I came to realise that are commonly mistook by others.

I will like to see more competition stepping up to make this scale more balanced, any company in the lead for too long isn't a healthy thing. One hopeful one will be Konica Minolta, I have a strong belief in their ability to deliver something in line with their excellent Dynax series in the form of DSLRs, this, I am sure, will bring about more pressure for the two leaders to press on for more R&D work.

Thanks again and nity!

PS. Actually, if you look what's "behind" Nikon, Canon isn't really a big company at all. From what I heard from a very reliable source, the LBCAST sensor for the new D2H is a product of a venture by Nikon and this force behind it, I am sure it won't be the last

 

[Watcher]

I won't say that Canon deliberately gives us choices by deliberately providing variety. Instead, Canon is being pragmatic--Canon has been showing its emphasis in pragmatism in its bold transition to EOS/EF, while Nikon has been showing its emphasis in commitment in its F-mount--that variety is only a by-product. Canon makes stuff for the price/performance demanded by the market segments.

I disagree. "Pragmatism in its bold transition"? More like not trying hard enough and taking the easy road. The main reason given for this "bold transition" was that it was too old to be able to handle future types of lenses. This has been proven false as the F-mount by Nikon has matched almost feature for feature what Canon has produced. AF-S to USM, VR to IS, etc. Tell me outright what mainstream feature that a EF mount is able to produce that F-mount theoretically cannot? "Bold"? Ironically more like a cop-out, or not willing to work hard enough to try. I also doubt those holding the old Canon mount felt the "boldness"

The "almost" part is due to what I had read that F-mount cannot produced a f/1.0 50mm lens. However, this is not a mainstream feature.

Instead, I will credit Canon for its willingness to take risks and make changes.

As for "makes stuff for the price/performance demanded by the market segments", does the Canon f/1.0 50mm meets this definition?

For 1) I do mainly agree, though I hope things like the 300D and upcoming 1D replacement does light up a fire under Nikon. I felt that Nikon is too slow, too conservative in the advancement. They behave as if by the brand, people will choose them :nono: .

2) Totally agree. EF-S mount anyone?

 

[johnyu]

My apologies for not stating it clearly, my post isn't exactly directed at yours, I am just adding on to what you had said from my POV while attempting to correct some points I came to realise that are commonly mistook by others.

Oh, no, I wasn't offended at all. Far from it.

I believe "collective wisdom" (on a forum like this) is "collective wisdom" because we can hold dialogs like this, able to have best ideas distilled from viewpoints from all different angles.

Thanks again and nity!

nighty. :wink:

 

[johnyu]

This has been proven false as the F-mount by Nikon has matched almost feature for feature what Canon has produced. AF-S to USM, VR to IS, etc.

A mount includes not only the phyiscal sharp fitting the lenses onto the cameras. It includes also the couplings. VR is only available in the G lenses. Are G lenses F-mount? G lenses don't have the mechanical couplings found on AIS lenses anymore. Well, I personally *speculate* why "G" is called "G" because it's the letter after "F". It symbolizes a leap into a new mount, a G-mount, but Nikon doesn't want to emphasize it.

What I'm trying to say is Nikon can catch up with Canon only by changing the mount, in a more subtle way though. (I learnt that without changing the couplings, VR is impossible to achieve.)

Canon saw the need of electronic couplings and the redundancy of aperture rings and made the hard decision 15+ years ago. This decision has served them and their users well.

Nikon, Pentax follow suit. Nikon, which has been denying the need of changing, has gradually been copying what Canon has done 15+ years ago.

I suppose this justifies to call Canon a pioneer, which naturally implies "boldness".

(This reminds me, for years, Nikon has been denying the need of SWM/USM. But obviously they'd planned it all along: What is very telling is when the first AF-S lens became available, the then old F4 could drive it! Nikon enigneers had put software in F4 at the time Nikon said no one needed SWM/USM.)

 

[Watcher]

John,
I'm afraid I have to disagree. The "G" represents that there is no aperture control on the lens. That means that it is to be controlled by the body. Furthermore, VR requires additional power to drive it.

Now, this is not physically possible if a body does not have the electrical contact. Can you expect them all, with bodies going back at least 10-15 years ago to have the ability to drive a VR lens? Batteries then would be too bulky on the body or too low capacity, even if the lens can talk with the body.

Older bodies would not be able to drive G lenses, much less VR as do not have the electrical power/CPU/firmware to know how to use these features. Do you really expect say FM2 to use VR :nono:

As for the other way round, I think the D2xx series bodies will all be able to use the old manual AIS lenses. Already the D2H can do so. I don't see a big reason why the other upcoming ones cannot.

Copying Canon? Debatable. Nikon actually came up with something like VR before Canon, but due to a total lack of interest, they decided to stop investing in it until Canon started to make it popular. Can I then say that Canon is copying Nikon as Nikon came out with the D1/D1H/D1X and announced D100 before D60?

My view is that with competition, both "copy" from each other, just like (a bit OT here) Microsoft "copies" from Apple, Linux "copies" from Microsoft. I don't care who came out first; that is only a bragging point. I want end results. So far, IMO, Nikon has done very well here.

 

[mpenza]

for me the choice is easy - the first to come up with a sub-$2K and lightweight DSLR gets my choice ;p

 

[johnyu]

Furthermore, VR requires additional power to drive it.

SWM also requires power to drive, doesn't it?

I stand by my *speculation* that G implicitly implies G-mount, a change of mount. :wink:

(Think about it, Nikon has the history of naming their stuff based on functions: AF-D stands for "Distance", AF-S stands for "silent", "AI" stands for "auto indexed", "F-mount" stands for "mount for the F body", and even "F" stands for "foto". But G doesn't associate with anything functional.)

Nikon actually came up with something like VR before Canon

My view is that with competition, both "copy" from each other, just like (a bit OT here) Microsoft "copies" from Apple, Linux "copies" from Microsoft.

Wasn't Nikon's first VR only possible on non-SLR compacts? :think:
Is there any pointer on Nikon prototyping VR on SLR (e.g. url or magazine) you have find?

But it's very true competitors copy each other.

 

[hackie]

SWM also requires power to drive, doesn't it?

I stand by my *speculation* that G implicitly implies G-mount, a change of mount. :wink:

(Think about it, Nikon has the history of naming their stuff based on functions: AF-D stands for "Distance", AF-S stands for "silent", "AI" stands for "auto indexed", "F-mount" stands for "mount for the F body", and even "F" stands for "foto". But G doesn't associate with anything functional.)




Wasn't Nikon's first VR only possible on non-SLR compacts? :think:
Is there any pointer on Nikon prototyping VR on SLR (e.g. url or magazine) you have find?

But it's very true competitors copy each other.

if G is a new mount, then why can u still mount and use them on older FM bodies??
G is associated wif lenses without aperture rings... isn't aperture ring functional? :dunno:

 

[johnyu]

for me the choice is easy - the first to come up with a sub-$2K and lightweight DSLR gets my choice ;p

Architects argued "Form before Function" vs "Function before Form", until one day they realized it is "Finance before everythiing".

Sadly, the same truth applies to photography. :sweatsm:

 

[Watcher]

SWM also requires power to drive, doesn't it?

Without more knowledge about the pins and protocol, your assumption can be invalidated. Eg, pins for the SWM function may have been overlayed or co-oped with the AF-D lenses. VR significantly requires more power (read the various post comparing power consumption using VR) and could include protocol that only the newer cameras can use. However, it does not mean that VR lenses could not be used or mounted on bodies espcially those that can work with AF-D, just that without the aperture ring (aka G lenses), the aperture is fixed at the maximum.

For comparision, try mounting the EF-S lens on a 10D. Technically, the EF-S is a new mount. Compared to Nikon, I can even use DX lenses on film bodies with only certain limitation...

 

[johnyu]

Without more knowledge about the pins and protocol, your assumption can be invalidated. Eg, pins for the SWM function may have been overlayed or co-oped with the AF-D lenses. VR significantly requires more power (read the various post comparing power consumption using VR) and could include protocol that only the newer cameras can use. However, it does not mean that VR lenses could not be used or mounted on bodies espcially those that can work with AF-D, just that without the aperture ring (aka G lenses), the aperture is fixed at the maximum.

For comparision, try mounting the EF-S lens on a 10D. Technically, the EF-S is a new mount. Compared to Nikon, I can even use DX lenses on film bodies with only certain limitation...

On power: Right, I see.

On protocol: I doubt special body-lens protocol is required. I suppose--wild guess again--since the VR sensor, the VR controlling logic and the VR controlling mechanics can be all built into the lens, unlike AF, the body doesn't participate in the VR process? :think:

On EF-S mount: I see. I haven't tried EF-S myself. Should go down to try it in a shop one day. (Maybe I should join the next SEED as a newbie to meet up with all old timers and borrow one to try out. :light: )

[size=-2]Speculation is speculation. It's fun to discuss but no one knows for sure.[/size]

 

[Watcher]

On power: Right, I see.

On protocol: I doubt special body-lens protocol is required. I suppose--wild guess again--since the VR sensor, the VR controlling logic and the VR controlling mechanics can be all built into the lens, unlike AF, the body doesn't participate in the VR process? :think:

On EF-S mount: I see. I haven't tried EF-S myself. Should go down to try it in a shop one day. (Maybe I should join the next SEED as a newbie to meet up with all old timers and borrow one to try out. :light: )

[size=-2]Speculation is speculation. It's fun to discuss but no one knows for sure.[/size]

Heh, sure is nice to have a proper discussion here

The VR part should mostly be on the lens itself. Without a Nikon engineer here, like what you say, they are mostly speculation. I did get some hints while reading DP Review but you know how that forum is like; too much to read...

The issue of EF-S mount is that it is only usable on 300D and no other. This is to accomodate the extra wide angle for the kit lens. Unlike a DX lens, the EF-S lens, even if you managed to saw off the plastic tab to prevent it from being mounted on a normal EF mount, the back of the lens will hit the mirror.

 

[erwinx]

It has been mentioned several times on the net that Nikon VR requires an AF module with at least 5 sensor points, I've always wondered where this 'information' originated from....

 

[johnyu]

It has been mentioned several times on the net that Nikon VR requires an AF module with at least 5 sensor points, I've always wondered where this 'information' originated from....

FYI, VR/IS is achieved by employginn pyshical motion sensor build inside the lens, not image sensor (e.g. AF info). Thus, I doubt it requires any special AF module.

See http://popularmechanics.com/technology/photography/2001/5/shake_the_shakes/index2.phtml

 

[moriarty]

VR is only available in G lenses!!!!???? Who says?? 80-400 VR is not G lense. It is AFD.

 

[erwinx]

FYI, VR/IS is achieved by employginn pyshical motion sensor build inside the lens, not image sensor (e.g. AF info). Thus, I doubt it requires any special AF module.

See http://popularmechanics.com/technology/photography/2001/5/shake_the_shakes/index2.phtml

That's how i assume Canon IS works, but for Nikon's VR, we have no less an authority than Thom Hogan saying:

"Because the VR works by looking at all five autofocus sensors all the time"

which clearly implies that VR is linked to the AF sensors....

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

____________


edit: Hey, even Moose says so, it must be true

The VR technology only works on camera bodies with the five AF sensors, the D1, F5, F100 and N80. The five sensors are part of the VR operation which is why it's required.

http://www.moose395.net/gear/mcb80400vr.html

 

[johnyu]

moriarty and erwinx, you're right. My bad. :mad2:

 

[Zplus]

for me the choice is easy - the first to come up with a sub-$2K and lightweight DSLR gets my choice ;p

Heh! That is true. The pocket ultimately has the final say.....


But its also true that Nikon and Canon outputs have some differences. Why not take your CF and test both systems if your pocket is flexible.