low light? canon v nikon

[crazee horse]

i went out at silly oclock this morning (5.30am) with my mate to try and get some photos of a stag, it wasnt till about 6.15 (sun rise!) that i could use my auto focus! my mate was using a nikon d50 with a tamron 70-300 lens, and i was using my 350d with a sigma 70-300. he could auto focus a shocking amount quicker than mine, which i found hard to believe, is the nikon series better for low light shooting? i always thought the canon took no prisoners in low light

[greypoint]

The D50 is a very good low light/high ISO camera - sometimes regret selling mine. Out today in much the same dull, flat light as yesterday - I have a feeling the photos taken with my Canon 40D will be as bad as the ones
I took yesterday too! It's not really that cut and dried which cameras are best - from my experience anyway.

[miketoll]

How did you have your camera set up? Centre focus only is far better in poor light as more sensitive than the other focus points. I find it varies depending on which lens is attached as well even if they have the same f-stop with one hunting and the other locking on easily. Also your mate may have been using the old trick of focussing on something near the subject with better contrast, say the edge of a tree trunk next to the stag or on the antlers rather than the main body of the animal. Nikon better than Canon at focussing? No way . Andy Rouse chose Canon because of the better focussing!

[crazee horse]

a tree trunk next to the stag or on the antlers rather than the main body of the animal. Nikon better than Canon at focussing? No way . Andy Rouse chose Canon because of the better focussing! [/quote]


rofl we never saw a thing! the only animal we did see was a dog walker and her dog. as for the focus etc, we both put the cameras on auto and then program and focused on the same thing. like i said i was shocked how much quicker his was than mine. still never mind, i made up for seeing nothing in the morning by seeing a kingfisher this evening flying at mach ten. pictures? no chance, it was gone in about three seconds flat

[Don Hoey]

I just could not resist this.
The light is a 7 watt night light. Focussing instantanious with no hunting. The next brick up not quite instantanious but no hunting. The brick above and hunting begins.
Exif shows lens wide open at f4.4.
Exif is in the main pic.
Attatched screen shot shows the focus area.

Camera ............... oh yes nearly forgot, its a Nikon.

Don

[robski]

7 Watts that is almost daylight Don

Just to turn up the pressure a tad

a diffused 1 watt touch light ( Flash light for our US friends )

I think the label of the camera says Canon

Sorry f4 lens in for repair so had to make do with an f2.8

I think the main problem with AF systems is having a subject with enough contrast.

[robski]

On checking your Exif Don I see my last shot was probably pretty much on par with yours.

So with my next shot I thought I push the boat out a bit further.

Lens 100mm f2.8
Exp = 10 seconds f5 @ 200 ISO.

The shot makes the scene look much brighter than is was. To the eye it was pretty dim I could just make out the cat on the mug.

Subjects with less contrast failed in the same light.

[Don Hoey]

Super job Rob, I could have guessed you would join in.

My point in doing this was not from a Canon v Nikon or any other brand, but to point out that different models within a single brand could have different performance. I wondered how long it would take for someone to read the exif and say " not a level playing field as D2X used Multicam 2000 a/f system". So consider it as a bit of bait to encourage discussion.

Mikes post refers to Andy Rouse and his choice of Canon for its better A/F. In this case I am sure he made that decision using comprarable pro models and his A/F requirements would be totally different from mine and no doubt some other folk. I am assuming within the Canon range pro bodies have better A/F systems than budget models which could also skew that particular comment. Your photographic style and budget has to be similar for his choice to be relavent.

I know from the Nikon range the D2X has a vastly superior A/F system to the D100. So any comparison is a waste of time. Does this make the D100 a poor camera choice ( yes I know its obsolete ), the answer depends on the type of photography you do. For birds and low light action then others would do a lot better. Its A/F response could also be improved by spending a bucket load of cash on f2.8 lenses as opposed to my f4.5 - f5.6 kit. For Landscape or studio then it will stand up well when compared to any of todays 6 - 8 cameras. Its downfall for me is no metering with M/F lenses ( cannot afford all the A/F kit ), and its by todays standards relatively dim viewfinder ( penta mirror design ) important when using m/f lenses.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

Lens 100mm f2.8

Been spending saturday money then Rob.
Been away a while so I have loads to catch up with in the gallery.

Don

[robski]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

Been spending Saturday money then Rob. Been away a while so I have loads to catch up with in the gallery.

Don

I've had it almost a year - bought if from Jessops - big mistake - they sold me a duff one. One in 50 shots the Iris does not alway close down. Still got a week to take it back if I recall.

Been waiting to hear about my 300mm repair ( another tripod accident ).

I agree with your points on AF. Get what you pay for.
Bit of a black art really.