Sorry, but I gotta ask--Nikon vs. Canon

I hate bringing up comparison issues between Nikon and Canon but I'm in the market for a digital camera and am trying to gather all the relevant info I can before plunking down $ for overpriced equipment.

I've narrowed down my search to the 5D and the D2Xs. Aside from the obvious cost and sensor size differences has anyone had the opportunity to compare the two in terms of image (sensor) quality, noise, etc? Also, I have been told that Nikon wide angles are "better" than Canon's. Any comments on this as well?? (No flame wars, please...I accept full responsibility for this post ).

I'm not current on the Canon line, but will tell you that my early experiences were good with the exception of their strobes and how they interface with the camera. It made me absolutely nuts! The experience was enough to drive me back to Nikon. If you use a strobe for fill, you will flip at the combo of the D2X and SB-800.

Aside from that, I'd let your current lens selection have a voice in the pick. If going with one system means all new lenses, you should factor that cost in along with the cost of the body.

Take your pick.
There's nothing new anyone in here can add to an already well played out debate (if debate is the right word).

Both systems are highly regarded.


John

Yes I have a strong preference... buy one and get out shooting.

Technically speaking - noise handling is better on the Canons; and Nikon's aren't full frame last time I checked. All other issues are personal taste IMHO.

Hey Mark

The 'answer', for want of a better word, will probably depend largely on what you like to shoot.

Cheers

Carl

I'll be brave.
For landscapes I would choose Canon: full frame, 3 lenses with movements, best low light performance.
For critters, Nikon may be a better choice: higher pixel density in higher-end cameras. But many use Canon in this area too.
There's a double rebate on the 5D now.

I expect you would enjoy either system.

Spiratone, that's it.

Pete D.

If all else is equal in your mind, go down to your nearest camera store and take the 5D and handle it, if possible, try it with several lenses, put it through it paces, as much as the salesman will let you. Then go to the D2X and do the very same thing. The one that feels better in YOUR hands will probably be the best for you. It may sound stupid, but the feel in your hands is very important. They are both fine cameras.

I think they're both great cameras with different strengths, the D2X is weather sealed, better for sports photography and I prefer Nikon lenses. The 5D has better noise performance and is full-frame if that's important to you. So I think they are equal in terms of performance. If none of the above are deal breakers look at the price and buy the 5D. I think the D2Xs is poor value & I would rather spend a bit more and get a 1Ds Mk2.

Ask Richard Bernabe he's had both!

Ebony, with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses


Sorry, I couldn't resist that (and yes, I know it has nothing to do with your question). I shoot Canon, but when I was first picking a camera system, it largely came down to the camera itself. What could I afford? At the time, I didn't understand IS - I knew it was a good idea, but on lenses I was never going to buy. Now I own three of them. Depending on what you shoot and already have, I would give preference to Canon specifically for IS, but in all fairness to Nikon, their VR system is also first rate. Canon also has the 65 mm 1x-5x macro, which is a pretty unique lens. If neither is a concern, either system, based on your personal preferences.

I've shot Nikon for 30+ years and (for me) their ergonomics can't be beat. I shoot the D2X and it is incredibly intuitive and easy to shoot. That said, I think the specs probably lend themselves toward Canon presently. I think Fred's answer above is the best advice - shoot what's comfortable to hold and handle, otherwise you'll be grumbling everytime you pick up the camera, and that's too much money to spend to be grumbling.

I don't believe that the feel of the camera is particularly important for landscape photography. Also, it seems that people prefer the feel of the camera brand with which they are familiar.

I had the opportunity to compare the two side by side. I have a 5D and a friend has a D2X. We shot a test target from the same tripod. We viewed the files at 300%, so we were getting very picky. The 5D had less noise and better resolution. Both were noticeable and distinct differences. I know there are lots of variables such as lens differences, etc., but this was as good as we could do.

BTW, it was his idea to do the test. He has been contemplating a move to Canon and wanted to compare the bodies.

I have no intention of fueling the brand wars, since I think they are pointless, but Mark asked and I had done the test.

Buy a 5D and be done with it.

The Canon 5D is better for night shooting (less noise,) but I think the Nikon has a better meter. The RGB-2 is state of the art! The remote capabilty of multiple SB-800 wireless TTL flash is also important to me. For bird photos, the Canon (as a system) would be better. And really, that's what it always comes down to for me. I ignore the cameras since they are rapidly evolving (and crashing in price!) and instead look at the system (e.g. flash, lenses, etc.) You might look into availability of a factory refurb on either model. At any rate, I personally would not let a camera body be the primary thing I looked at. From my POV, the camera is generally the least important part of a system.


Kent in SD

Never used any of the two, but I guess I'll still make a couple of comments. My understanding is that the D2Xs is a class above the Canon 5D - the equivalent would be a Canon 1D of some sort. So you'll probably get a "better" body (build, sealings etc.) with the D2Xs.

In any case, from your portfolio I guess that you shoot mostly landscapes, and there the 5D would probably be favored due to the full frame sensor. The 12-24 DX Nikkor is a very nice lens too, however... handle them and see which one suits you better.

Basil

Nikon apparently reserves the cmos sensor for their higher end cameras while keeping the ccd sensor for their mid-range models such as the D200 and D80. Canon stays exclusively with the cmos sensor for all their DSLR's. If this indicates that the cmos sensor is superior to the ccd then I think Canon has the edge in this regard because they don't reserve the best for only their high end cameras. It has me rethinking my choice of getting a Nikon or a Canon.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Interesting point Will. All my experience in Canon, Fuji and Nikon has been with the cmos sensor, and I do a lot of shooting in the dusty Southwest, as well as dusty Kodiak. Many shooting companions have ccd sensors, and there is a noticeable difference in dust accumulation between the two.

Hank, since you indicate that dust accumulation in sensors is more likely in ccd sensors then that is something to take into consideration. Mark, I also noted (in my research for this thread) that the cmos sensor in the 5D (36x24) is significantly larger than the cmos sensor in the D2Xs (23.7x15.7). Wether that makes it more prone to dust due to its size is unknown to me. Would the larger sensor be superior to the smaller one? I would tend to think so.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

If you believe Canon, the CMOS sensors also require less power and a host of other advantages:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

The bottom line though - if I had a great image on file I doubt I'd be too concerned whether it came from a 5D or a D2X. I've been very happy with the image quality from my 5D but if I had a previous investment in Nikon gear I'd likely be every bit as happy with a D2X or D200.

Guy

Hank - you say there is a difference. But in which way? Better for CCD or CMOS? Sorry if that's a stupid question...

William - yes, the 5D sensor ("full frame") is larger than the D2X sensor ("APS-C format"). I don't think dust problems are related to that. But a full frame sensor is usually regarded as being better for wide-angle shooting and high ISO photography.

Basil

Hi Basil.

According to the techs, there's a difference between the way smos and ccd function, with the ccd somehow carrying a small charge on its surface (or at least more charge than a cmos), making it more of a "dust magnet." I'm not a tech, but I can say that shooting side by side with ccd's, those folks have more trouble with dust, and an especially difficult time getting rid of it. With cmos sensors I can almost always get rid of it with a simple blower bulb, while the ccd's I've seen frequently require swabs. I hadn't realized that the D200 was ccd, but that will be enough to make my wife forego it in favor of a D2X like mine or potentially another Fuji product. She's not shooting outdoors as much as I am, but she gets really nuts about chasing dust bunnies around the inside of cameras when she gets them.

Also regarding CMOS or CCD, I believe the biggest reason that Canon went to CMOS is that they were able to reduce their manufacturing cost and improve battery performance in their cameras. It was my understanding that the reject rate and raw material cost on CMOS was lower than on CCD. A possible downside I seem to remember was that the CMOS system could not be used for live capture, that it acted like a piece of film that needed to be reset after capturing an image.

good info from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMOS

Thanks Hank! I just couldn't figure it out from your original post.

Basil

As a D2X owner, I can't say I'm at all unhappy with the quality I'm getting out of it. Nikon doesn't apply as much in-camera NR or sharpening as Canon does, and many people don't account for that in their comparisons. I like less-processed images - they're easier to work with on your computer (though you have to do more work yourself...).

In general: For high ISO situations, the full-frame sensor on the Canon can't be beat. For wildlife, having that extra 1.5x magnification factor has been a blast on my Nikon. Either is fine with wide-angle now, provided you're willing to invest in a new wide-angle lens for the Nikon. I think Nikon has the better technological workings: metering, flash system, and VR. Canon has the edge in lens options: tilt/shift, large IS selection.

Specifically 5D vs. D2Xs: The 5D is a lighter, smaller piece of equipment; the D2X is a luggable pro body, almost identical to carrying around an F5/F6. The D2X is more feature-full, and is definitely a Good Thing when you get into action photography.

It's your choice - either is great. If you don't have an existing lens collection for either system (or have a collection for both), choose based on what you plan to do and how the ergonomics and system functionality work for you. If price is a factor, the 5D is obviously a winner.

Which nearly obsolete camera do you want to buy?

Which nearly obsolete camera do you want to buy?

Doug you're so full of crap! Too funny!

Doug: one whose images I can process on my nearly obsolete computer using my nearly obsolete software. I think I'll stick with film, which in itself may become obsolete.

Jerry, Guess I pushed your button huh? But then if it weren't so BIG and right in the MIDDLE of your forehead, I might miss it.

Won't be long til you scrap that 5D for a 1Ds Mark III.

Doug, you didn't push any buttons of mine! I now know for sure that you're full of do-do with your silly comments. As I said too funny! I think you've been trying way to hard to emulate Mark H. but the difference is that he puts them through such a well thought out process and delivers them so eloquently (no joke Mark!). You seem to just disgorge your rhetoric at such reckless abandon without any deliberation what so ever. You should really take time to learn from the master!