low light? canon v nikon
 

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:cool:

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.

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! :)

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. :eek: 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 :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

Don

7 Watts that is almost daylight ;) Don

Just to turn up the pressure a tad :cool:

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

I think the label of the camera says Canon :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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

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

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 :mad: ).

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

Hi Don, my comment about Andy Rouse, whilst true, was put in tongue in cheek for a bit of fun. His criteria is obviously wildlife photography so presumably follow focus among others. Robs comments on focusing on the mug agree with my comments about working around problems by using the single central focusing point and finding an edge for greater contrast. Given two lenses of the same 'speed' and focal length one sometimes seems to focus better than the other which I have always put down to one lens having better contrast than the other. Any thoughts on that?

Things have moved on a ways since then, Nikon focussing is a different beast now - eat your heart out Andy Rouse!

nirofo.

Mike,
I do not have two similar A/F lenses to check out the lens resolution bit but I guess when you reach the boundarys everything counts. :)
So I have just looked at Photozone reviews of the Sigma and Tamron to look at the MTF charts and the Tamron has it by a nose.
Now going back through the thread to crazee horse second post and he says " we both put the cameras on auto and then program and focused on the same thing. ". In this case that may also have relavence. What auto/program mode was used ? From my experience of the 350D then if it is on basic program ALL A/F points are live just the same as the D50. In this case his friend may have set Vari program on the D50 and that would allow him to set a single central A/F point.

From a specs point of view ( DPR ) the 350D A/F range is EV -0.5 to + 18, D50 range EV -1.0 to + 19 so the D50 has it by 0.5 EV
Lenses from photozone MTF at 300mm, Sigma on the 350D MTF centre 1676 edge 955, Tamron on the D50 centre 1849 edge 1489. Advantage the Tamron on the D50

The unknown is then selected focal length. As these are both variable aperture lenses if the guy with the D50 was at less than 300mm and crazee horse at 300mm then it would be advantage D50. Could have been f5.6 on the 350D and say f5.25 on the D50.

Hardly scientific, but add all these factors up and the result would be as described.

Don

Some info from a Canon write up on AF

"The camera's AF sensors require some details in the image to determine the phase difference. It's harder for the camera to find focus when the light is dim or there is little subject detail. Contrary to recent remarks on another topic, the camera CAN distinguish contrast between equally bright hues of red and green just as the eye can--the sensors are color corrected. Although the sensors can distinguish some quite subtle detail differences, they don't see quite a sharply as the eye. If the lens starts from a very out of focus condition, it can miss very fine detail that the eye sees clearly, such as the mesh of a speaker grill from across the room. In this case, it can be helped if the photographer manually moves close to "focus" and allows the camera to find the actual focus."

Well Andy Rouse buys and pays for his own gear (much to his annoyance- he feels Canon should do a deal with him) so if he feels Nikon are that much better and would get him shots he would otherwise miss I guess he would jump brands. Then of course it would all change around again at some point!
Don , interesting answer to my question. I don't pretend to understand MTF charts etc but it certainly shows there is a lot more to it than simply pointing two cameras at the same subject to see which is better! My bother-in-law
went out the other morning with his 400D and at 6.30am in woodland in very poor light got his photos of deer with no problems.

Forget low light, try focusing on fog, or a clear blue sky, my D400 does, my mates Nikon............um.............dosen't!

:D :D

Better is what you decided to buy for whatever reason. Just enjoy using it.

While taking pics for a thread today I thought of watches as an analogy. Some people have a Rolex, I have a Seiko. Mine might not maintain time to a nano second but it does for me.

For Rolex owners then I can understand why you have one. I bought a F2's because I appreciated the mechanical precision but I took no better pics with them than I did the relatively lowly FM's that I traded in to get them. Just enjoyed using them more. :rolleyes:

Don

Trying to understand the motivation behind that one. :confused: :confused:

I think I'll pass unless checking sensor for dustbunnies. :)

Don

Well I guess this is where we first came in, playing with some one elses camera for fun and curiosity. As you say Don I just enjoy taking photos and also just playing with cameras (sad I know). I have a niece who is a psychologist but I daren't tell her! :D

Best statement in this thread so far.

I bet you the Seiko will keep better time than the Rolex. ;)

Duncan, you underestimated the Casio that not only take a better time, but does it in a lot more hight tech fashion including giving you still picture, video picture, mp3 music playing and of course gps navigation capabilities all under $99.

Low light shooting
 

No, I am a professional photographer from Leh Ladakh and i have used NikonD50 and currently using Cannon EOS 400D. I really dont think that Nikon performs better in low light than Cannon. Its mor to do with the number of settings to be adjusted while shooting in low light. In your case the lens both of you were using are not the same and yes Lens can make a difference specailly if you are using Auto mode, and i think here it was because of the lens and nothing else.

I thought it is universally accepted that Canon's sensor at each comparable class, act better that counter part form Nikon (Even by Nikon itself). See other sites for product reviews.

Universally accepted ??? When I bought my camera, and for my needs, then A/F response was not even on my radar, so I never studied this

Interested .... not particularly as I have never ever been in a situation when I could not take a picture through lack of A/F, or focus confirmation light for manual focus. For night time street scenes I generally use a manual focus 28mm lens and set it by the distance scale even though the specs say I can A/F or get focus confirmation down to EV -1.

Specs. Been there, done that, spent a fortune, so now only I am interested in those that will impact on what pics I want to take. If I was really desperate about A/F response then from what I have read I would need to save pennies for a Nikon D3 and then when Canon beats that perhaps I should re-mortgage the house to enable me to switch brands.

Going back to the original post, shows that in this case specs are going to be compromised once lens choice is added to the equation. That post illustrates the reality of those on a budget, as two different brand independant lenses were in use, and the ' universally accepted ' theory appears to have gone right out the window. As I see it if ' universally accepted ' applies, then it must be based on exactly similar kit specs otherwise it is fairly worthless.

I know I am a bit of an oddball on this forum. Using a top flight body and mainly manual focus, and non zoom lenses at that, oh and occasionally a hand held light meter, but here is my take on kit generally. If your kit choice is based only on a specs shoot out you will NEVER EVER be happy, as your joy with your new toy will only last as long as it takes to bump into someone with kit that beats yours on specs. Would those specs be relavent to your photography ................. YOU DECIDE. I will example my last purchase. I bought the outgoing model as nothing of the incomming models specs had any relevance to my type of photography. Now a newer model has been announced, and so it goes on.

Am I happy with what I have ............ you bet. Will I change it anytime soon? What of the newer spec relates to the type of pictures I take. Mmmm not much.

I have yet to take a picture that I could not have taken with a camera from a different manufacturer, and I have been through a few over the years.
I personally like Nikon and others go for Pentax or Canon, makes no difference to me.

So here is the challenge. Post any pictures you have taken that could not have been taken with an equivalent camera from any other brand and PLEASE state why.

Don

Gosh Don this thread has got you going. :) I know what you mean, I have for instance got a mobile phone that you can make phone calls on and text and that's it-perfect. Don't need a new one. If you look at my gallery many and possibly the majority are taken with a compact. All my shots could have been taken with any make of camera in the same class (ie compact or DSLR). However I can think of a few rare occasions when make and model might make a difference, for instance astro photography is probably best with the Canon 20Da as the sensitivity of the sensor has been optimised for the infra red and I notice the forum member who uploads those wonderful shots of galaxies uses one. Some sports and action photography are best done with very fast auto focusing and fast motor drives. Not essential probably but easier with more ''hits''. High pixel counts are a bore to me but pros need them to meet the demands of publishers file sizes. Not make specific as the pixel count steadily increases but Canon are ahead here and this allows for cropping. This is not meant to be a pro Canon rant by the way as like you the actual make does not matter to me, I just happen to have Canon gear and always will because of the money invested in lenses, flashgun etc. So, basically I agree with you but have tried to think of a few things to meet your challenge although personally I cannot think of any of my pictures I could post that would meet your criteria unless they were badly distorted ones taken on one of my early cheap childhood cameras. Takes a special camera to be that bad! Maybe this thread has me going too!
:D

Mike,

I think there is a fair deal of my frustration with myself here.

Just back on WPF after months away and some images taken with flash leapt out at me. Mark ( mw aurora ), Christine ( Saphire ), Duncan and Debbi ( yelvertoft & Mrs). So I jump in feet first in Marks thread ' Anyone want to reverse engineer an image? ' with a yep I'll have a go at that then.

BUT ..................... I appear to be suffereing from creative photographers block. Seriously frustrating. So off I went and did the Nikon lens mount thread in the hope that would do the trick, but not yet. So when I saw a post that suggests a particular camera, and it could have been any, over all others is the answer then I guess I bit. Mark and Christine use Canon and Duncan and Debbi use Pentax but it was their vision that created those pics not the camera brand.

So I guess I was striking back for the photographer over the kit, even though I am failing a bit on that score at the moment.
Got the kit but imagination gone on walkabout. :( :(

I realise that for certain applications like Astrophotography ( Dave and his 20Da ) you benefit from a bit of specialist kit. In terms of kit each of us makes our choice based on all sorts of factors, and a market that caters for a wide product range is good for us all. In time we will all become quite heavily invested in a particular brand and brand loyalty is a fact of life. We all like to think we have the best be it cars, cameras, or whatever.

Good kit will help us take photographs, sometimes great kit will help even more, but it is the photoraphers imagination and skill that creates the masterpiece, and that really was my point.

Don

Absolutely agree. I think I will start a new thread about how do people break the inspiration block.

I can't help thinking it's not the eqipment it's the way that you use it!

Alan

Yes, as in so many walks of life!

Hmmm...

Strange that nobody has mentioned that Nikon bodies have a dedicated AF Assist light, whereas XXD Canons need to have the flash popped up and AF Assist enabled in the menu to get a similar function.

I'd expect a properly set up Canon to do every bit as well at low light focusing as any equivalent Nikon body.

As an aside, my Canon 40D has amazing low light AF, even without AF Assist enabled.

I do not know how built in A/F assist would have helped here. I doubt any assist would be much use in this situation.

Anyone know the range of these A/F assists ?

Like your 40D my D2X has amazing low light A/F without focus assist. Not built in to the D2 series, but then it is hardly comparable with a D50.

D50 - Multicam 900 v D2X - Multicam 2000, so it is not really relevant to the origional post.

Don

Please ignore my last post in this thread. :o

Way too much to drink in celebration of breaking my mental block. :D

Don