Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs ...

[Kelly Grannell]

I am guessing that you shoot Jpeg.

The D200 is said to shoot a 5fps burst of 22+ RAW shots, where as with a 20D I am lucky to get 7 or 8(I imagine the 30D gets about 10). The $3000 Canon 5d can not even match that RAW performance, it maxxes out at about 18 RAW shots with a SLOWER 3 fps.

Well, you can't compare it with 5D because it's a full-frame camera with close to 13 MP and it shoots RAW+JPEG whereas Nikon D200 is only 10 MP and when it shoots RAW, Nikon's RAW is not uncompressed, it is actually Compressed NEF (Compressed RAW) format. So saying it can do 22 RAW shots is misleading (just like .TIF, there is compressed .TIF and uncompressed .TIF)

When comparing apples to apples, both cameras take 5 fps shots up to 37 shots (JPEG - Large).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Nikon, but to fudge their spec by using compressed RAW (as stated in their manual and brochures) is unfair in my book. The fact that both cameras can take 5 fps up to 37 shots using JPEG Large proves that both cameras buffer size and speed are about equal.

 

[Anewman]

Well, you can't compare it with 5D because it's a full-frame camera with close to 13 MP and it shoots RAW+JPEG whereas Nikon D200 is only 10 MP and when it shoots RAW, Nikon's RAW is not uncompressed, it is actually Compressed NEF (Compressed RAW) format. So saying it can do 22 RAW shots is misleading (just like .TIF, there is compressed .TIF and uncompressed .TIF)

When comparing apples to apples, both cameras take 5 fps shots up to 37 shots (JPEG - Large).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Nikon, but to fudge their spec by using compressed RAW (as stated in their manual and brochures) is unfair in my book. The fact that both cameras can take 5 fps up to 37 shots using JPEG Large proves that both cameras buffer size and speed are about equal.

Fudge a spec? it either shoots them or it does not. But you win, the D200 buffer is equal to that of a camera that costs twice as much.

Lets stick to the comparison vs the D30($300 cheaper), and since I do not shoot Jpegs.

D30 raw file size = about 10 mb
D200 raw file size = about 15 mb (compressed)

D30 burst = about 10 shots
D200 burst = about 22 shots

Again "I would be willing to pay the extra $300 just for that buffer." Not everyone needs to agree.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I don't disagree with you. I just find it strange that how come when using large jpeg, both cameras perform the same, but when using they are different by 100%. Also how come the uncompressed RAW is smaller in size by 30% than the compressed RAW.

I do understand that we're comparing 8MP vs 10MP but still it's against the logic of data transfer speed.

If Nikon can do double the RAW files than Canon PLUS Nikon RAW file is 50% larger than Canon, then when using large JPEG, Nikon D200 should be able to take up to 56 files.

Again, I'm not understanding the buffer memory logic on the Nikon side. Can you help enlighten me with this conundrum?

 

[Anewman]

I just find it strange that how come when using large jpeg, both cameras perform the same, but when using they are different by 100%.

I am not sure they do. I have heard(I dont own the camera) that with a fast enough card you cant burst till the card is full in Jpeg. But Maybe the jpeg is limited by the quantity of unwritten images instead of just the SIZE of unwritten images. In other words, I DONT KNOW.

Also how come the uncompressed RAW is smaller in size by 30% than the compressed RAW.

Different formats, you talked about comparing apples to apples. Well Canon and Nikon do not use the same type of raw files, maybe that is why Nikon is FORCED to compress. Canon has been at this Digital Raw format thing much longer and have been through more cameras and a couple different formats already.

If Nikon can do double the RAW files than Canon PLUS Nikon RAW file is 50% larger than Canon, then when using large JPEG, Nikon D200 should be able to take up to 56 files.

Some claim it does, I dont know. I do know that when transfering files over a Network or FTP, it takes longer to transfer lots of smaller files than it does to transfer one larger(total size) file.

Again, I'm not understanding the buffer memory logic on the Nikon side. Can you help enlighten me with this conundrum?

I tried but I know not about that kind of stuff.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Thanks for the info. They are more useful than Nikon's own brochure.

 

[dizneyrulz]

I am looking for some input from the pros so I thought no better place to ask here!

I currently have the original Digital Rebel. The camera has been great and has lasted for years. However, I think it is time to upgrade the camera. We have taken literally tens of thousands of pictures with this camera and it works well. The only grip about it is we have a hard time taking any pictures in the dark at stage shows, etc. We just can’t accomplish them. Also have a hard time with fuzzy pictures when shooting fast items like fireworks, etc.

So the question is, do I buy the new Canon XSi or the XTi or switch completely to the Nikon brand? I don’t have any lens that would keep me on the Canon brand so I am open to your input. I am looking at buying in the next 4 months or so. So if something "new" is coming down the pipeline I have no problem waiting for it.

My wife uses this camera daily. The camera goes everywhere with us. It would be nice to have a lighter weight camera but definitely not a necessity. The absolute need is being able to still take great looking photos.

I appreciate any feedback that you may be able to offer.

 

[YesDear]

I have been a Nikon user for over 30 yrs so I have made my decision. I have never used a Canon digital, so my references are from friends that own Canons. My suggestion is that you go to your local photo store and play with both of them. Also consider how serious you wish to get and how much you want to spend. Both are more than willing to let you spend lots of money.

From your comments my only suggestion is that you spend more money on the lens than the camera. The fuzzy pictures in low light probably has more to do with a slow lens not the camera. The fireworks are more of practice than camera. I have taken great fireworks with a point and shoot and a multi thousand dollar camera and lens.

Since you say you are not tied to the Canon, try the Nikon. They have digitals that cover the spectrum of prices and complexity. I for the most part, I really like Nikon glass. Once again you can go consumer to the pro. I went today to help a friend look at a D40, the low end Nikon. It does everything she wants it to do.

I am sure you will get many opinons here from both sides. Once again go play and see which one fits you better.

Good luck!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've got a suggestion for that dilemma - buy Sony!

But seriously - if you are thinking about leaving Canon then you may want to go to a camera store and check out all the lines - Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Sony as well as the new Canon's and see first of all if one feels better to your wife than another. Then you can take a closer look at the specs and see if it will fit your needs for the low light situations either via higher ISO's or faster lenses.

 

[Robindianne]

Actually, it sounds like it's not the camera. It sounds like you may not have a lens that can perform for the task you are trying to accomplish. Stage shows are extremely hard to photograph. You need a very fast lens and a steady hand or tripod (usually not an option.)

As for fireworks, nearly any camera can do fireworks. It's the matter of a tripod and proper exposure. There are a number of threads on this board with great recommendations on shooting fireworks.

I agree with YesDear. Save you money for lenses and keep your camera. Rebels are very good boxes and should be able to take nearly any photo not related to deep space or (high action) sports.

 

[DVC Eric]

Do you have other canon lenses that would fit on the new canon. You would need i prime lens 50mm 1.8 or 1.4. I like my canon but i have always had a canon. Canon lenses seem to be more exp then nikon. I agree with yesdear.

 

[ukcatfan]

It sounds like your lens selection is holding you back instead of your camera. I am not just out trying to defend the Rebel, b/c I actually do not like the line, but why not keep the body you have and spend that much more on the lenses you need. That is considering that it is still in good working order.

If you really are going to invest in a new system, it would only make sense to throw in the other options like, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus. Some people like to make the argument that there are not many options to go pro with those lines, but it does not sound like you are headed in that direction anyway.

 

[Frantasmic]

This might help you. I too have the original Digital Rebel and am just learning how to use it. I'd love to get the Xsi, but the wife says not yet. We haven't taken nearly as many pictures as you have. I have recently gotten a new lens and it has made a difference at low light. I might be able to talk her into another new lens.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5326/camera-test-canon-eos-rebel-xsi.html

 

[Steve's Girl]

Although my brand of choice is Nikon, I agree with what others have said. I think you need to invest in a faster lens for your current camera. Simply buying a new camera with a kit lens probably will not improve your low light photos. I think you will be frustrated that you bought a new system and are getting the same results.

 

[Maka]

Hi, I was in the same situation a few days ago... Always had a Nikon but I started looking very closely at the Canon range. After spending hours on dpreview.com (the best review site imo) and trying as many cameras as I could in the shops I ended it up buying an Olympus ! And so far I don't regret it at all.
NB: I do a lot of u/w photography

 

[ukcatfan]

Maka,

Welcome to the Disboards and specifically the Photography board!

Kevin

 

[thomas998]

While it may or may not be a good time to upgrade your camera... I suggest you wait till the fall... Not because you'll likely want to buy the next pro level canon that will be hitting the stores but because Sony is expected to put there pro level camera on the market.. and no I'm not suggesting you get it... but if the rumors on its price are correct it could result in both canon and nikon dropping there prices quite a bit.... and if your not in a hurry then its a good reason to put things off for a few months.

 

[Michele]

I have the original Digital Rebel too, and like you have taken ten of thousands of pictures with it. Watch out, my shutter failed in May, after 4 years. I get pictures with the bottom 2/3 black.

I haven't even taken it to get fixed yet, because I am weighing upgrading to a new body. I would like to look at switching to a different brand, mainly because like some mentioned, the lenses are not as $ other companies.

The main thing holding me back from switching is, learning my way around a new camera, the menu, buttons, etc. Sticking with a Canon it all seems so familiar. You, and your wife since she uses it alot, might want to take that into consideration too.

 

[DizzyV6P]

I made the jump from my Digital Rebel to Canon 40D back in november and have never looked back since. It hopes that everything is very similar. Granted, there still a learning curve on all the new features of the 40D, but it isn't a steep one.

Also, to repeat what the other said, its not the body...its your lens and your technique.

This picture I took last August in Paris, France was taken with a Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens, sitting on top of one of the traffic pylons in the middle of the street right after the sun set

Don't let the megapixal wars fool you. I've sold quite of few of that arc de triomph photo, shot in jpg, enlarged to 11x14, and printed on metallic paper......at 6 megapixals.

The biggest reason for me to upgrade to the 40D was the fact that I shoot a lot of RAW and the 300D's buffer was just too slow. The 40D's buffer is more suited to my photography. If your 300D is doing fine for you, then I would recommend investing in better glass.

 

[jann1033]

if you are happy with the body, i agree, try a better lens. i didn't see where you mention what you have for lenses but when i first got my rebel xt i had 2 lousy 3rd party lenses( sigma and quantray...hub bought that one, not me) and almost cried the first time i use the camera, the photos looked awful. so i started researching lenses and spending more money there.
not sure i agree with the "canon lenses cost more", cost more than what? all brands you can get cheap lenses and pro level lens, a couple hundred or less lenses or thousand dollar lenses. it depends on what you are after. quality may or not not be in accordance with price. canon and nikon you can pretty much be assured of getting third party lenses (in those mounts, which cost less than the major brand lenses) canon makes 50 some lenses for eos ( ie you can use all the electronics etc, some other brands you can use old lenses but the electronics don't always work), guessing nikon would be about the same. ( i just read an article about this, maybe on bob atkins but don't remember the specifics for nikon. pentax has a number of lenses but according to that, older ones don't always work as well or completely, ie electronically, the others had many less lenses or the same type of problems...i as usual didn't bookmark so no idea if it wasn't bob atkins where it was, i just read some articles on bob atkins but other places as well)
check out http://fredmiranda.com for reviews on lenses and maybe go from there. since you use your camera a lot you probably know what range of lenses you would use most and can look for one rated 9 or better in the price range you want to spend

 

[jann1033]

I made the jump from my Digital Rebel to Canon 40D back in november and have never looked back since. It hopes that everything is very similar. Granted, there still a learning curve on all the new features of the 40D, but it isn't a steep one.

Also, to repeat what the other said, its not the body...its your lens and your technique.

This picture I took last August in Paris, France was taken with a Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens, sitting on top of one of the traffic pylons in the middle of the street

Don't let the megapixal wars fool you. I've sold quite of few of that arc de triomph photo, shot in jpg, enlarged to 11x14, and printed on metallic......at 6 megapixals.

The biggest reason for me to upgrade to the 40D was the fact that I shoot a lot of RAW and the 300D's buffer was just too slow. The 40D's buffer is more suited to my photography. If your 300D is doing fine for you, then I would recommend investing in better glass.

whoo whee, nice photo! you might have just sold me on the tamron lens as well ot but did you need to search for a good copy of the lens?( just wanting to know how safe it would be to buy online)