low light? canon v nikon

[sassan]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

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.

[vilayat@ladakhi]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[sassan]

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.

[Don Hoey]

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

[miketoll]

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!

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by miketoll

Gosh Don this thread has got you going.

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

[miketoll]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

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.

[blackmarlin]

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

Alan

[miketoll]

Originally Posted by blackmarlin

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!

[Keith Reeder]

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.