Posted by Larry Fischer on October 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM
In looking at bird photos I've noticed a huge preponderance of Canon cameras.
I know some of them don't have an anti-aliasing filter which for astrophotograpy is desirable.
Why is Canon at the forefront, at least on NPN site?
I'm interested more in technical data (which I hope I can understand) rather than costs, etc.
PS: I have Nikons (D300 and D700).
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I don't know how much substance there is to this - it just be that you are noticing more Canon's. I use Nikon and the other day was just thinking how it seems that Nikon's dominate. However, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Canon has been the better glass maker (especially when it comes to larger glass) up until recently and as such a lot of people who have been shooting for sometime are using these original large Canon Lenses. I could be totally off base though . . .
Posted by Drew Fulton on October 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Larry,
Canon's dominance in the wildlife and sports world ended a couple years ago and now the numbers are evening out a lot. It used to be that only Canon offered the big glass with Image Stabilization (Vibration Reduction for Nikon folks). Those that primarily shot with long lenses often went Canon's way because of that particular feature. At the time, the 1D series also seemed to be favored due to the high frame rate and impressive performance (the 1DM2 had many issues but otherwise they were good).
Nikon fired back by first releasing the D3 and though it is full frame (crop can be useful for birds), it has a great frame rate, high ISO, and was a game changer for many sports photographers. Right about the same time, Nikon finally released their 400, 500 and 600mm lenses with VR and that really leveled the playing field.
I personally am a Nikon user and wouldn't change if I could. It is fairly expensive to switch from one system to the other, particular from Canon to Nikon, especially if you have big money invested in big glass and high end bodies. I think a lot of people favored Canon back a few years and while Canon may not be as big a favorite on paper now, its expensive to switch.
This weekend, watch a football game or some other sporting event. A couple years back all you saw was white lenses. Today's its a different game.
I don't have any scientific data to point to but having followed the photo world for the last 8 or 10 years, thats what I have observed.
Drew
Posted by bill meikle on October 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I use Nikon D300 and D200.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I know some of them don't have an anti-aliasing filter which for astrophotograpy is desirable.
All of the Canon cameras (actually, I think every mainstream SLR - Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, etc.) come with anti-aliasing filters in front of the sensor. If someone doesn't have one it's because they paid to have it removed by a third party.
I'd like to see this kind of thing actually become an option on some cameras, as for some people, the negative of not having an AA filter (mainly moire) doesn't really exist - or can be dealt with in other ways. And the positive is that you don't lose any detail to the AA filter. Certain cameras DO have stronger or weaker AA filters that seem to affect their sharpness, but it's a smaller factor than overall resolution of the sensor and lens.
And I think your main question is answered correctly above - bird photography (and most wildlife and sports photography) involves long lenses, and for a while long lenses were mainly Canon's domain.
I remember a Nikon ad many years ago, back in the eighties, that said that 93% of professional photograpers used Nikon cameras.
I noticed years ago that Canon seems to be more popular among nature photographers, especially wildlife photographers.
I saw a poll a while back on another popular nature photography website. Of the respondents, about 2/3 used Canon, about 1/4 used Nikon, and the remainder used other brands.
Posted by Larry Fischer on October 8, 2009 at 9:14 AM
the fisch back again--thanks for the comments.
Canon did make one camera without anti-aliasing filter. It is highly sought after by those who do astrophotography. I presume the rest now have the filter. I don't recall the older model.
I've seen data on Nikon bodies being more robust than Canon. That doesn't affect image quality. The report was on a blog with professionals that I monitor. The report indicated no Nikon bodies or lenses "failed" in Antarctica while other camera bodies did, including Canon. And not just one but several.
I do get the feeling that Nikon's glass is improving. I'm still using old manual stuff on my D700 because of expense. The new 14-24? is supposed to be tack sharp. I hear good things about their 400 mm.
Regardless, we are fortunate to have competition driving the impetus for better and better. And I'm still impressed by Canon's input, esp. in the bird section of NPN.
Now I wonder how the concept of competition measures in present day policies driven by politicians?? (oops, I probably shouldn't have said that... not about photo, right... but a strong impulse)
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 8, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I shoot with a Nikon digital, however I started out with a Canon SLR.
If I had a Canon camera it is likely that my image quality would be the same as it is when I shoot with a Nikon. If I had any other make of camera equipment I am still confident that my image quality would not suffer unduly, I may only need to make adjustments that are directly related to that gear.
It is not always about the gear, it is about the photographer, their skill level, their techniques and their "eye" for color, comp and details.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on October 8, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I use Olympus equipment, which is built on the 4/3rds system, which makes everything smaller and a bit easier to carry. It's all about tradeoffs: in the case of the 4/3rds system, smaller, lighter ear for a smaller sensor and reduced lens selection.
That said, I haven't begun to use my gear at it's full potential. My skills are the limits of my work, not my gear. Lia has it right.
Posted by Larry Fischer on October 8, 2009 at 1:47 PM
the fisch, again,
Helen brings the real question: Would there be any difference if the same photographer used the different equipment? Probably not, but I don't know. So much is done in the light room that the initial image, to some degree, become a non-issue.
My question was based on the preponderence of what I preceived as a Canon skew. It appears, from this brief discussion, that Canon had some advantages in the past of fast film rates and vibration reduction lenses. If there is more I haven't picked up on it.
Hey, a good photographer, it was said years ago, could get results with a Brownie camera (for those old enought to remember what that is/was)... I'm looking at the equipment, not the skill with which it is used, and perhaps that isn't fair.......................
the fisch
Posted by David Bostedo on October 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Nothing unfair about considering the equipment Larry. It may be true that a good photographer would get good results with a Brownie, but they certainly wouldn't get the same results. No matter how good you are, you won't, for instance, get as many sharp bird-in-flight shots with a Brownie (maybe none) as you would with a D3 and 500mm lens. You also won't be able to take pictures at the same times of day. Cameras do matter. The issue, I think, is when we expect minor differences between brands or models to make major differences. In that case, a person is probably off track. (I.e. if you can't capture images you like with a 1DsMkII and L glass, you certainly won't be helped by getting a MkIII or switching to Nikon.)
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Helen Keller is the person whom I quoted with this line"When we do the best that we can, we never know what miracle is wrought in our life, or in the life of another. I'm not Helen :-)
Larry you can put the world's most expensive equipment in the hands of an ape and the image will look like an ape took it.
If you put that same equipment in the hands of an experienced photographer, give them time to learn the functions and dials of the camera and the image will not look like an ape took it.
The camera is a means to create the image desired, it does not compose the image.
It does not have the ability to think about the light, the angle, or what background will look like in the finished image.
The camera gear does not recognize the species, know thier habits & behavior and can not anticipate what the bird might do next in the way a human being can who has studied the species thoroughly.
If the image is exposed and composed correctly in the field then you do not need much post processing at all, which negates your comment about light room.
No matter what brand of gear is used it is the photographer who ultimately decides the IQ of the image based on their techniques, skill level and knowledge.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Oh, and for the sake of discussion, I don't believe I can get an effective 840MM focal length with a Brownie like I can with my Nikon & lens, so I would have to take that into account, wouldn't I?
Posted by Larry Fischer on October 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM
guys and gals,
Your points are well taken.
After reading and agreeing with what you all have written I think my observation has been, and I'm sure it is in error, the sharpness issue.
The reason for the thread was that I perceived that Canon had done, or did, better. But, as has been written, Nikon has probably addressed that issue with their new generation of glass, etc. Heck, I'm still using Nikon's stuff from the 1980's and some shots I've taken are really nice at 100%.
Unless this thread continues a lot farther, I'll just make the comment that besides decent equipment and learned photographer's eye, the only thing that lacks is "be there and see"-- wherever that might occur.
The best photographers and eqipment do nothing unless the art is used, eh??!!
Go forth.........
the fisch
Comments?
Posted by bill meikle on October 8, 2009 at 4:06 PM
If you go down to Bosque or to Yellowstone I think you'll see every camera brand under the sun, with lots of Nikon and Canon.
Posted by Nate Chappell on October 9, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I don't think there's a big difference between Canon and Nikon, when I first bought my equipment it seemed Canon had a bit of an edge but now I'd say that Nikon has caught up and even passed Canon as far as the quality of their cameras. However, Canon will continue to come out with new cameras (the 7D recently) and Nikon will continue to as well. They are both great systems. If like me you have already invested a lot in Canon lenses, it doesn't make a lot of sense to change. The difference is huge though between Nikon or Canon and something like a Tamron lens and the difference between a Canon 500mm and a Canon 70-300mm lens is very big and makes a big difference in image quality.
As far as so much being done in lightroom that the initial capture doesn't matter very much, I couldn't disagree more. First and foremost you have to be where the animal or bird is and capture the unique behavior or rare species. Then your technical skills such as making a sharp image, composing it correctly and getting the exposure correct in the field, possibly with the use of flash make all the difference in the world. There's only so much you can do with an average photo in lightroom, photoshop or anywhere else to make it a good photo. Great photos are made in the field, not in the lightroom.
Discussion
15 repliesI know some of them don't have an anti-aliasing filter which for astrophotograpy is desirable.
Why is Canon at the forefront, at least on NPN site?
I'm interested more in technical data (which I hope I can understand) rather than costs, etc.
PS: I have Nikons (D300 and D700).
Canon's dominance in the wildlife and sports world ended a couple years ago and now the numbers are evening out a lot. It used to be that only Canon offered the big glass with Image Stabilization (Vibration Reduction for Nikon folks). Those that primarily shot with long lenses often went Canon's way because of that particular feature. At the time, the 1D series also seemed to be favored due to the high frame rate and impressive performance (the 1DM2 had many issues but otherwise they were good).
Nikon fired back by first releasing the D3 and though it is full frame (crop can be useful for birds), it has a great frame rate, high ISO, and was a game changer for many sports photographers. Right about the same time, Nikon finally released their 400, 500 and 600mm lenses with VR and that really leveled the playing field.
I personally am a Nikon user and wouldn't change if I could. It is fairly expensive to switch from one system to the other, particular from Canon to Nikon, especially if you have big money invested in big glass and high end bodies. I think a lot of people favored Canon back a few years and while Canon may not be as big a favorite on paper now, its expensive to switch.
This weekend, watch a football game or some other sporting event. A couple years back all you saw was white lenses. Today's its a different game.
I don't have any scientific data to point to but having followed the photo world for the last 8 or 10 years, thats what I have observed.
Drew
All of the Canon cameras (actually, I think every mainstream SLR - Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, etc.) come with anti-aliasing filters in front of the sensor. If someone doesn't have one it's because they paid to have it removed by a third party.
I'd like to see this kind of thing actually become an option on some cameras, as for some people, the negative of not having an AA filter (mainly moire) doesn't really exist - or can be dealt with in other ways. And the positive is that you don't lose any detail to the AA filter. Certain cameras DO have stronger or weaker AA filters that seem to affect their sharpness, but it's a smaller factor than overall resolution of the sensor and lens.
And I think your main question is answered correctly above - bird photography (and most wildlife and sports photography) involves long lenses, and for a while long lenses were mainly Canon's domain.
I noticed years ago that Canon seems to be more popular among nature photographers, especially wildlife photographers.
I saw a poll a while back on another popular nature photography website. Of the respondents, about 2/3 used Canon, about 1/4 used Nikon, and the remainder used other brands.
Canon did make one camera without anti-aliasing filter. It is highly sought after by those who do astrophotography. I presume the rest now have the filter. I don't recall the older model.
I've seen data on Nikon bodies being more robust than Canon. That doesn't affect image quality. The report was on a blog with professionals that I monitor. The report indicated no Nikon bodies or lenses "failed" in Antarctica while other camera bodies did, including Canon. And not just one but several.
I do get the feeling that Nikon's glass is improving. I'm still using old manual stuff on my D700 because of expense. The new 14-24? is supposed to be tack sharp. I hear good things about their 400 mm.
Regardless, we are fortunate to have competition driving the impetus for better and better. And I'm still impressed by Canon's input, esp. in the bird section of NPN.
Now I wonder how the concept of competition measures in present day policies driven by politicians?? (oops, I probably shouldn't have said that... not about photo, right... but a strong impulse)
If I had a Canon camera it is likely that my image quality would be the same as it is when I shoot with a Nikon. If I had any other make of camera equipment I am still confident that my image quality would not suffer unduly, I may only need to make adjustments that are directly related to that gear.
It is not always about the gear, it is about the photographer, their skill level, their techniques and their "eye" for color, comp and details.
That said, I haven't begun to use my gear at it's full potential. My skills are the limits of my work, not my gear. Lia has it right.
Helen brings the real question: Would there be any difference if the same photographer used the different equipment? Probably not, but I don't know. So much is done in the light room that the initial image, to some degree, become a non-issue.
My question was based on the preponderence of what I preceived as a Canon skew. It appears, from this brief discussion, that Canon had some advantages in the past of fast film rates and vibration reduction lenses. If there is more I haven't picked up on it.
Hey, a good photographer, it was said years ago, could get results with a Brownie camera (for those old enought to remember what that is/was)... I'm looking at the equipment, not the skill with which it is used, and perhaps that isn't fair.......................
the fisch
Larry you can put the world's most expensive equipment in the hands of an ape and the image will look like an ape took it.
If you put that same equipment in the hands of an experienced photographer, give them time to learn the functions and dials of the camera and the image will not look like an ape took it.
The camera is a means to create the image desired, it does not compose the image.
It does not have the ability to think about the light, the angle, or what background will look like in the finished image.
The camera gear does not recognize the species, know thier habits & behavior and can not anticipate what the bird might do next in the way a human being can who has studied the species thoroughly.
If the image is exposed and composed correctly in the field then you do not need much post processing at all, which negates your comment about light room.
No matter what brand of gear is used it is the photographer who ultimately decides the IQ of the image based on their techniques, skill level and knowledge.
Your points are well taken.
After reading and agreeing with what you all have written I think my observation has been, and I'm sure it is in error, the sharpness issue.
The reason for the thread was that I perceived that Canon had done, or did, better. But, as has been written, Nikon has probably addressed that issue with their new generation of glass, etc. Heck, I'm still using Nikon's stuff from the 1980's and some shots I've taken are really nice at 100%.
Unless this thread continues a lot farther, I'll just make the comment that besides decent equipment and learned photographer's eye, the only thing that lacks is "be there and see"-- wherever that might occur.
The best photographers and eqipment do nothing unless the art is used, eh??!!
Go forth.........
the fisch
Comments?
As far as so much being done in lightroom that the initial capture doesn't matter very much, I couldn't disagree more. First and foremost you have to be where the animal or bird is and capture the unique behavior or rare species. Then your technical skills such as making a sharp image, composing it correctly and getting the exposure correct in the field, possibly with the use of flash make all the difference in the world. There's only so much you can do with an average photo in lightroom, photoshop or anywhere else to make it a good photo. Great photos are made in the field, not in the lightroom.