Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Photography Equipment

  1. #1
    pradeep jain
    Guest

    Default Photography Equipment

    Dear Friends,
    I have been Browsing several Indian and International Photography Related Websites.
    Many Including me are left badly confused after the exhaustive research,or at-least of which we seem to have illusion of having done.
    Reasons:

    NIKON v/s CANON
    1. Cost of Respective equipment
    2. Video Capability of One Manufacturer(Canon,of which one just cannot resist the temptation) V/S Superior Low light(ISO) Performance of the other manufacturer(Nikon)
    3. Nikon has UNDISPUTED Nikon 200-400mm(ALAS Thanks to Mr.Thom Hogan and alike who feels its a tad soft for farther subjects) and all the most loveable Wide Angle Lens
    4. *5* Some Contrast related issues between the two manufactures

    *_Subject_*
    Mainly wildlife
    #
    *1.*Small Birds
    *2.*Birds In Flight
    *3.*Incredible Tigers and massive elephants in close range(LOVE INCREDIBLE INDIA FOR THAT)

    *_Method of Shooting_*
    #
    *1.*Safari jeep(Most of the time)
    *2* Sometimes with monopod
    *3* When opportunity favours Tripod with Wimberly-2 Gimbal Head
    *_My QUESTION _*
    *_/Whats the best set of equipment??????????/_*
    I have two options in my mind
    #
    *_ OPTION 1._* _ALL The way Nikon_
    #
    *1.*Nikon D3s+ Nikon 200-400mm F/4 along with
    *2.* Nikon D300s +Nikon 500mm F/4 VR II(Not 600 as its too heavy, difficult to manoeuvre)
    *3.* Nikon 300mm 2.8 and Nikon 105mm F/2.8 Macro
    *Pros*
    A clear Speed : Superb Shutter Speed, Buffer for faster Shutter Speed and *Unparalleled* in* Low Light/HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE*
    *Cons*
    *NO HD VIDEO CAPABILITIES*

    *2.**_ OPTION 2._* _COMBINATION OF NIKON and CANON_

    *1.*Nikon D3s + Nikon 500mm F/4 VR II(Not 600 as its too heavy, difficult to manoeuvre) along with
    *2.* Canon 1D Mark IV + 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 (this is a compromise, any options )
    *3* 300mm2.8(N?? or C??) MACRO????
    *Pros*
    A clear Speed : Superb Shutter Speed, Buffer for faster Shutter Speed and a good HD Video compatibility 1080i @ 30FPS
    *Cons*
    A Let Down in* Low Light/HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE*
    Difficulty in *SWITCHING* Between two Legends ON-FIELD
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$
    /Well Friends this Long prologue is from and amateurs point of view and Comparison is with Limited Knowledge and limited to Canon and NIKON only , Lack of Hands on Exposure to Lieca/Pentax/Sony Etc Etc is attributed for the same, please feel free to correct any inadvertent errors./

    *_ I would request the readers to liberally contribute your views and suggestions to aid and guide thousands like me , am sure a healthy discussion such as these will help beginners and semi pros in a long way..... _*
    Warm Regards

  2. #2
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    102
    Threads
    6
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nikon D7000 does 1080/24p video and might be a good second camera with the D3s.

    Another option for video might be a Panasonic AG-AF100 paired with Nikon lenses on Nikon to 4/3 converter (2:1 crop factor).

  3. #3
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,940
    Threads
    288
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I think many people simply over-think. As far as Nikon and Canon is concerned, both work great. The fact that there are photographers using either of them successfully should testify to that.

    Here most use Canon. You can follow suit if you want to. I don't

    For cost-effectiveness, financial matters, etc., talk to your accountant or your bank manager

    Otherwise, just pick one and start shooting.

  4. #4
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Posts
    135
    Threads
    68
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I dont know if you have photograph wildlife before.
    if you havent, i wouldnt recommend you paying all of that equipment.
    you should master exposure theory, long lens tech. and so on (i havent either)
    i think theres is a learning curve.
    and you may want to start with a D7000 + 300mm F4 and TCs
    Hope you dont take this the wrong way.
    Cheers from Peru
    Alfredo

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Pradeep,

    I'll challenge some of the undisputable things in your list.

    First, low light performance. Low light performance is more a function of pixel size than manufacturer as sensor technology is quite mature, regardless of manufacturer. Nikon has chosen to make some cameras with large pixels, which is great if you can choose the focal length that fills the frame with your subject.

    Often in wildlife photography, the subject is small in the frame and we are focal length limited. In those cases the large pixel camera is NOT what you want. You want a camera with smaller pixels to get more pixels on the subject. And forget crop factor, as crop factor has nothing to do with pixels on subject. Smaller pixels give more detail on a subject with a given lens, but each pixel is noisier. So ideally, one has two tools: a camera with large pixels for low light when you can choose the best focal length, and a second camera with small pixels to get detail on a subject in focal length limited situations.

    Example, see: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/
    and in particular, look at Figure 2. You can imaging the images of the Moon in that figure are your favorite bird. The image on the left was made with a Canon 1D Mark II with pixels almost the same size as the Nikon D3s. Do you think that image is the best image of the 4 presented? It has the highest signal=to-noise ratio, but the least detail. The other images illustrate what other cameras with smaller pixels can achieve.

    More on the signal-to-noise and pixel size and sensors at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/

    Personally, I use a full frame camera with moderately large pixels and a second camera with smaller pixels for wildlife in focal length limited situations.

    For example, you compare the Canon 1DIV and the Nikon D3s. The 1DIV has 5.7 micron pixels, the D3s 8.46 micron pixels. The 1DIV will give 8.46/5.7 = 1.48 times more pixel on a subject (linear measurement) than the D3s, but the pixels will be lower in signal-to-noise ratio by about 1/1.48 = 2/3. If going Nikon, I would choose a model with smaller pixels for wildlife.

    Roger
    Last edited by Roger Clark; 02-07-2011 at 01:11 AM.

  6. #6
    Co-Founder James Shadle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Valrico, Fl
    Posts
    5,108
    Threads
    1,419
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    The camera that feels best in your hand and makes you happy when you look at it, that's the camera to buy.

    Both system are so good, both with positives and negatives. You can't go wrong with either system.

    Look at the images posted on BPN, without looking at the shooting data, tell me what camera was used.
    You won't be able to.

  7. #7
    Bill Stubbs
    Guest

    Default

    Pradeep,
    Trying to go through all these comparisons can get a bit mind-numbing. Let's try to break this down a little differently. First, let's establish what's most critical for what and where you shoot. How often do you really expect to shoot in poor light (for right now, let's define that as needing ISO 3200-6400 to get the shot)? If you're going to shoot a lot around dawn and dusk, and/or shoot birds in deep shade under dense canopy, that's where the high ISO performance of the D3s will be a slight advantage over the 1D MKIV. The 1D MKIV is a pretty good low-light camera in its own right, and has somewhat better resolution.

    How much of your shooting will be birds in flight? Since this will usually involve shooting in somewhat better light, resolution will be more of a priority than high ISO performance (you're not likely to need ISO above 800-1600, if that). In that situation, the D3s and MK IV will both do fine, with an edge to the MK IV; better resolution, which means more ability to crop your images.

    How much will you be shooting small birds, where you need all the reach you can get? Remember that you'll have less ability to heavily crop full frame images from the D3s, so if you stay with the 500 as your long lens, that means you'll have to get closer to get the image size you may want.

    Nothing is perfect for everything. The Nikon 200-400 is a superb mammal lens, and combined with the D3s, is a fantastic choice for anything from small deer to larger subjects, especially in poor light. It's also not a bad bird lens on a 1.5 crop body like the D300s. The closest Canon equivalent lens is the new 70-200 f2.8 IS II paired with a 2x TC, which effectively gives one a 140-400 f 5.6; Artie Morris has had excellent results with this combination on the MK IV; I've just started using it, but my early results look promising. It's also light, and easily hand held. Budget permitting, I like this combination over the Canon 100-400 you mentioned. incidentally, both this 70-200 Canon and the 200-400 Nikon focus close enough for long distance macro work with larger moving subjects like dragonflies and butterflies.

    As good as the D3s is in very low light, a 500 f4 with a 1.4 TC may or may not be enough to get the reach you need for many bird shots; there's a reason a lot of people find the 600 a better fit with this full frame body. For birds in flight at a distance the 500 is at its best on the Canon MK IV. Also, for birds high in the canopy the Canon MK iV also gives you the option of using the extra reach of the Canon 800 f5.6. This is actually lighter than the current Canon and Nikon 400 f2.8 and 600 f4;while bulky and best on a gimbal head or at least a beanbag, it can actually be hand held in a pinch.

    Ultimately, it all comes down to your own shooting conditions, choice of subjects, and personal preferences. It IS a pain to use two different systems in the field, as it's more difficult to change a setting in a hurry, without having to think about it. For what it's worth, here's how I've set up:

    Mammal work, dusk/dawn, and/or deep shade, shooting from vehicle: Nikon D3s, 200-400 f4 VR II, 400 f2.8VR II, TC 1.4 E II, TC 20 E III, ground pod with Wimberly head, beanbag. (If I were doing any wide angle and/or real macro work, I'd use this body, as its's full frame.) , D300s body for a narrower field of view if lighting permits. Essentially special purpose rig.

    All-Around, or "walking around" setup: Canon 1D MK IV, 70-200f2.8 IS II, or occasionally 300 f2.8 IS, (had been using 400 f4 DO), 2X TC. handheld.

    Birds in flight setup: Canon 1D MK IV, 500 f4 IS, 1.4X TC, hand held, gunstock support (Bush Hawk) or tripod with Wimberly 200 gimbal head. (doubles as close range bird setup)

    Small birds, waterfowl, shy subject setup: Canon 1D MK IV, 800 f5.6 IS II, 1.4X TC, ground pod with Wimberly head/beanbag/ tripod with gimbal head, ghiilie poncho or instant blind. Second body with 70-200, or 300 f2.8, 2x TC, for unexpected closer opportunities.

    This gives me a lot of flexibility without carrying a lot at any one time, and I have a couple of lenses I can substitute for special situations (such as shooting from a permanent blind).

  8. #8
    Bill Stubbs
    Guest

    Default

    Roger,
    Excellent observations in your last post. It's key that we understand the difference between being light limited, and focal length limited. In a lot of wildlife photography, it's more often the latter, which makes the extreme low light capable camera more of a specialized tool, I think.

    Crop factor tends to be misunderstood, (all it really does is simply narrow the field of view), but it does have one key benefit; because it increases the apparent size of the subject in the viewfinder, it often makes it easier to keep the autofocus sensor more precisely where we want it on the subject

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Stubbs View Post
    Roger,
    Excellent observations in your last post. It's key that we understand the difference between being light limited, and focal length limited. In a lot of wildlife photography, it's more often the latter, which makes the extreme low light capable camera more of a specialized tool, I think.
    Bill,
    You have both the D3s and the 1DIV, correct? I would be interested in seeing the same subject imaged with the two cameras with the same focal length lens at the same f/stop and exposure, and at the same high ISO. Then viewed at the same image size. Which camera sensor does better will come down to signal density and perceived detail, but I think it will be hard for the 1DIV to look worse. This is not a Nikon versus Canon thing, but a pixel size thing. Technically, if both sensors had the same efficiency, the larger pixels would provide the higher signal-to-noise ratio, but with our perception most would choose the higher resolution image for the extra detail even though each pixel is noisier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Stubbs View Post
    Crop factor tends to be misunderstood, (all it really does is simply narrow the field of view), but it does have one key benefit; because it increases the apparent size of the subject in the viewfinder, it often makes it easier to keep the autofocus sensor more precisely where we want it on the subject
    Interesting idea, but crop cameras seem to also have smaller viewfinders, like they are using the same optics in the viewfinder and the viewfinder is cropped too. There sure is a big difference between a full frame 5D2 and the 1.6x crop bodies, for example. Perhaps the Nikon bodies are different in this regard?

    Roger

  10. #10
    Bill Stubbs
    Guest

    Default

    Roger,
    Taking the last point first, a lot of crop sensor bodies in the past did not have 100% viewfinders; that of course makes a tightly-framed subject a bit problematic. If I remember correctly, both the 7d and D300s do have 100% viewfinders. My feeling is that the AF advantage remains in either case; it's easier to keep an AF sensor point where we want it on a moving subject. Other than that,we get the same effect as we would get by cropping in post, in that whatever noise we have becomes more apparent. All else being equal, we can have more densely-packed (hence more noisy) pixels, or larger, less noisy pixels; you've explained why this is the case quite nicely. What's interesting, is that with sensor technology maturing, we are getting close to having resolution (with acceptable signal to noise ratios) approaching the theoretical limits of resolution of our lenses. More and more, further improvement is going to yield increasingly diminishing returns.

    As for the 1D MK IV vs D3s, at more usual ISO settings, images from the 1D MK IV appear to have better resolution when cropped to the same size (at least to my aging eyes); theoretically the D3s images should show less noise. However, below ISO 3200, there doesn't appear to be enough noise to degrade the MK IV image anyway. The D3s has no advantage until we get to low light where we have to shoot at at 3200 or higher; that's where those big pixels have enough signal to noise advantage to make apparent resolution better than that of the 1DMK IV. In my thinking, this makes the D3s less of a direct competitor with the MK IV than a specialized tool that complements the MK IV's capabilities in very specific circumstances. Of course, someone who already has an extensive collection of Nikon lenses, or prefers the ergonomics of the D3s body, could choose it for those reasons alone, and get perfectly acceptable images; there just would not be a technological advantage in image quality to be had by doing so (at least for most wildlife photography).

    I suppose the truth is that what we have available to us currently from both Nikon and Canon is so good that in the end, choices come down to what we think we can make the best images with, given our own style and shooting conditions.

  11. #11
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,940
    Threads
    288
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Stubbs View Post
    [snip]
    Of course, someone who already has an extensive collection of Nikon lenses, or prefers the ergonomics of the D3s body, could choose it for those reasons alone, and get perfectly acceptable images; there just would not be a technological advantage in image quality to be had by doing so (at least for most wildlife photography).
    There you have it Pradeep and others, Canon is the way to go ! That's so even if you can shoot "Incredible Tigers and massive elephants in close range "
    Last edited by Desmond Chan; 02-07-2011 at 11:41 PM.

  12. #12
    Bill Stubbs
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desmond Chan View Post
    There you have it Pradeep and others, Canon is the way to go ! That's so even if you can shoot "Incredible Tigers and massive elephants in close range "
    Desmond,
    That's not what I said. Roger and I were discussing two specific camera models, (with two different design philosophies), not Canon vs. Nikon. Note in my earlier reply to Pradeep what my "mammal setup" is. At least in my case, that often means low light, and heavy cropping not needed, which is exactly where the D3s is at its best. Where high ISO performance is not an issue, and for small subjects which might require heavier cropping, there are both Canon AND Nikon models which have a resolution edge over the D3s (D3X, for example). That's it; I have no intention of trying to rekindle the Canon Vs. Nikon debate. I use both.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics