Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200

In message ,
Rich wrote:

Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled
them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the
noise is more chromatic.

Any differences in the chromaticity of noise in different cameras using
the same net white balance are due to interpretations made the the RAW
converter.

There is no distinction between luminance and chromatic noise in RAW
data. Noise (random-pixel, line, or posterization) is colorless until
bayer-minded interpretation colors it.

Images taken in the native light color of the camera (usually somewhere
around magenta), display the least chromatic noise when colored.
--


John P Sheehy

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:57:00 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:


"Rich" wrote in message
.. .
Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

Let's see the same image shot with the Nikon. (I'm presuming you did do a
proper comparison -- right???)
Bob


No, I did other shots. At 1600 ISO, both cameras produce similar
images, with the Canon (IMO) handling the noise better both in the
type of noise it produced and the quantity. However, because of the
Nikon's production of noise in shadow, I'd like to do the test again
with subjects of wider dynamic range just so the Nikon gets a more
thorough test. The differences I noticed were not confined to
noise and I'd like to do daylight outdoor shots as well because I saw
problems with the Nikon's WB (in terms of how it handled the indoor
lighting) compared to the Canon.
-Rich

On 23 Mar 2006 10:27:54 -0800, wrote:

Rich wrote:
Well, I've seen the shots from these two cameras and handled
them both. For noise, the Canon wins, having less noise but the
noise is more chromatic. The Nikon has more noise (this was a 1600
ISO) it is "monochromatic" and really gets bad with under exposure.
Shots underexposing human flesh should be avoided at all costs.
A noise program is going to have more trouble dealing with the Nikon
noise and will likely destroy more fine detail when removing it than
when removing noise from the Canon. The so-called "granular" or
film-like grainy noise is not desirable, owing to the difficulty of
removing it from images. The colourful blotchy noise is easy to deal
with. The noise differences between the cameras at correct exposure
are not radically different but the differences are there.

As for the cameras themselves, the D200 wins.


So we get the highly detailed 'explanation' when Canon has a better
picture, but then you say, "the D200 wins" and that's it?? In what way
did the D200 "win"?

Come on Rich, can't you just let it go man!! I am amazed you even
touched a Canon (If you truly did) so that is progress. However,
please stop the insistent whining about how great Nikon is and how
Canon sucks when we all know you're just the poster boy for Nikon and
you can't really make any other argument.

I mean a couple of days ago you start a thread about spending $300 more
to get the D200 vs. the D30. Now it's the D200 wins? Talk about an
unbiased opinion....NOT!

Read the context. the D200 wins from an aspect of shutter/mirror slap
damping and (IMO) body design and build. Thats all I meant.
From a visual standpoint, from what I've seen so far the Canon
takes the brass ring, at least under the circumstances I shot in.
My opinion is completely unbiased. I'm not tied to any brand
and if one looks bad in one way, or good in another, I'll say it.

My opinion of the Olympus E-330? Cheaply constructed for what it
costs, no WAY would I pay $1370 Can. for it and not $1600 for the 30D.
but it produces images that are reasonable and perhaps not
as "bad" as has been implied by dpreview.com.

My reasons for attacking Canon this past few months were because I
felt (rightly so, I think) that Canon's industry-leading sensors and
internal software were being let down by Canon's insistence in NOT
upgrading their lens line. Thats all.
-Rich

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:51:19 GMT, D-Mac wrote:

wrote:


So we get the highly detailed 'explanation' when Canon has a better
picture, but then you say, "the D200 wins" and that's it?? In what way
did the D200 "win"?

Come on Rich, can't you just let it go man!! I am amazed you even
touched a Canon (If you truly did) so that is progress. However,
please stop the insistent whining about how great Nikon is and how
Canon sucks when we all know you're just the poster boy for Nikon and
you can't really make any other argument.

I mean a couple of days ago you start a thread about spending $300 more
to get the D200 vs. the D30. Now it's the D200 wins? Talk about an
unbiased opinion....NOT!

The Sensor used in the Nikon is a CCD which has good and bad points. I
think these are better suited to less than harsh lighting but having
said that, the Canon 20D/30D is not a well made camera when compared to
the Nikon. I would have a D200 in a heartbeat over a 30D if I knew
absolutely I'd never take an outdoor picture in bright sunlight or a not
need ISO 3200 every once in a while.

It's the same sort of thing when looking at Evolt Olympus cameras.
Absolutely superb optics, magic handling and less than great image
processing. I'm afraid when the quality of your image is critical and
you absolutely cannot afford lost highlights or missing shadow detail,

You buy a Fuji S3?

"Rich" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:57:00 GMT, "Robert Brace"
wrote:


"Rich" wrote in message
. ..
Here's a Canon image, 17-40L 1600 ISO taken in a store.
Noise is well supressed.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

Let's see the same image shot with the Nikon. (I'm presuming you did do a
proper comparison -- right???)
Bob


No, I did other shots. At 1600 ISO, both cameras produce similar
images, with the Canon (IMO) handling the noise better both in the
type of noise it produced and the quantity. However, because of the
Nikon's production of noise in shadow, I'd like to do the test again
with subjects of wider dynamic range just so the Nikon gets a more
thorough test. The differences I noticed were not confined to
noise and I'd like to do daylight outdoor shots as well because I saw
problems with the Nikon's WB (in terms of how it handled the indoor
lighting) compared to the Canon.
-Rich

Oh, well, that completely explains it then!!
Bob

Here is what I mean when I said the noise was different.
The first image (both are crops from underexposed areas) is from the
Nikon.
Notice the noise in the darker area of the slats on the wall and on the
fellow's face.
It appears mostly greyish and rough.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655518

Second is the Canon. Notice the overall even, coloured noise on the
slats.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655520

l e o wrote:
D-Mac wrote:


It's the same sort of thing when looking at Evolt Olympus cameras.
Absolutely superb optics, magic handling and less than great image
processing. I'm afraid when the quality of your image is critical and
you absolutely cannot afford lost highlights or missing shadow detail,
Canon is presently the only choice. Sad as it is for me, the new 1Ds I
just ordered is not going to be a substitute for the car I sold to pay
for it.



This is funny for doug to admit Canon has better dynamic range. He had
tried very hard to convince us the Panasonic FZ20 is better!

That's a good one leo.
I supposed it never occurred to you in your rush to take a stab at me
that this is a thread specifically about 2 DSLR and the Panasonic FZ
cameras are not SLRs?

Apart from that, I have only ever said (and I have the evidence to
substantiate it) that the FZ is a better low light camera than Canon
DSLRs. In fact, most non reflex digitals of reasonable quality are
better low light cameras than Canon DSLRs. Even my wife's 3 year old and
much abused Olympus 760 Ultra Zoom is a better low light camera than a
Canon 20D or 5D. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/lighting.htm

It's all about shadows and how Canon CMOS sensors and DIGIC processors
create major noise patterns in deep shadows which cannot ever be
repaired. The Kodak and Panasonic sensors don't do this. That makes them
better low light cameras. The fact they don't like other lighting
situations as well as Canon DSLRs is immaterial. Nothing has ever been
said by me to compare them in any other way except in a price for
quality comparison.

Enjoy...
Douglas

"jb" wrote in message
m...
snip

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon lenses are more expensive.

That's not completely true, if you compare prices across the entire range of
lenses, from wide to tele, you'll see that it averages out for the most
part.


Hmm. Have you done the math? What are the numerical results?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

The problem with the Fuji is that it is a great sensor in a $100 body.
The viewfinder accuracy is terrible, if you need any precision. The
door to change the card was a bad design on the S1, and it is still the
same. No weather sealing at all, that card door would leak like a sieve
in a rain storm. That said the image quality is wonderful, that is how
they have kept their market nitch.
I have used Canon F1s (both models) and Nikon F3 and F5, on all these
cameras look in the viewfinder place an object, that is where it comes
out on the image, the D200 is that sort of camera, I've used Fuji S1&
S2 cameras, there is always some shift in the viewfinder, the S3 uses
the same basic camera. Also the Fujis won't meter with older Nikon
lenses.

Tom