Nikon - low specs?

Dolby

Dolby

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
39,131
Reaction score
6,138
Before everyone jumps down my throat, I haven't used either Canon SLR or Nikon SLR. I've own P&S and bridge Canons - but never a Nikon.

Over the past few months I've decided I'd like to go the SLR route and naturally looked at Canon. Not only what I could afford, but most the range.

I decided yesterday to stop being brand blind and checked a few Nikons ... But it seems they're pretty low on MP? I'm not fooled by the MP myth - but surely they count for something?

It looks like the average Nikon is 12MP - while the average Canon is 18MP.

They releasing new Nikons soon?
 
They say canons are designed by engineers and nikons are designed by photographers. I've also found generally higher "specs" on canons when you're comparing in the same price range. It also doesn't help that there's a bit of a premium on nikons in SA due to lower volume. I was basically set on canon because I had a canon superzoom so figured a jump to a canon slr would be easier. I tried a nikon once and bought a nikon instead...
 
Dolby said:
I'm not fooled by the MP myth - but surely they count for something?

It looks like the average Nikon is 12MP - while the average Canon is 18MP.
Click to expand...
Do the Nikon cameras have the same size sensors as the Canons you compared them to? You're right, MP count isn't everything. Best would be to test both cameras before buying.
 
Nikon sensors have a crop factor of 1.5 and canon of 1.6 so basically yes they have the same size sensors. The only other size would be full frame which is basically 35mm for both.
"They" also say that the 3 most important factors of what goes into a photo are photographer skill, lens, camera in that order. I figured better to go with Nikon since if it's easier to use it's easier to do what you want. Of course it's just a personal thing that it's easier to use. Lens quality wise they seem pretty much on par (when comparing similarly priced lenses). Canon does have a much wider selection though, especially in the macro dept.
 
I don't see why Nikon would want to increase the resolution. I'm hoping Canon will come to their senses and reign in their megapixel madness.
 
noxibox said:
I don't see why Nikon would want to increase the resolution. I'm hoping Canon will come to their senses and reign in their megapixel madness.
Click to expand...

Well said! I still use my 8MP Canon 350d camera regularly, and for what I use it for, it will beat any 10⁷²⁹MP camera out there ;)
 
The new generation of Nikons will have higher MP sensors (one is rumoured to be announced tomorrow btw and the other one on 15 September)...

I once read a review/interview about Nikon where it became clear that they are quite conservative and don't like to sell something unless they are comfortable about the quality of the feature. This means they are very often lagging Canon ito features. (Personally I think they dropped this mentality when they added the d-movie feature to the D90/D5000...) :)

That said: Use both in a shop and also look at the higher end models that you might go for when you upgrade (or their successors). Look at the price of lenses that you might get in future. If someone in your immediate family has one brand it makes sense going for the same brand in order to borrow lenses. The thing I really like about Nikon is their lens compatibility that they have maintained since 1959... I occasionally use a full manual 55mm f/1.2 from the early 60s - a great lens. If you intend to do flash photography and creative lighting etc, the Nikon CLS system is really awesome - also something to consider.

That said, I really like the higher end Canons as well, and given unlimited funds, I would have both systems.
 
noxibox said:
I don't see why Nikon would want to increase the resolution. I'm hoping Canon will come to their senses and reign in their megapixel madness.
Click to expand...
Even though I shoot mRAW I like knowing the 7D has 18mp when I need it. It's nicer than not having it - something I regularly regret with my 10mp 1Dmk3.
 
lol. Higher MP out of a same size sensor means more noise, especially at higher ISO. Canon is very bad at that at the moment. If you need to compare SLRs based on megapixel and have no idea about what it involves to get quality pictures, and how sensor size and everything fits into the picture, go buy yourself a nice Fuji point and shoot. The last thing this world needs is another "pro" photographer with a DSLR that has no clue.
 
whatwhat said:
lol. Higher MP out of a same size sensor means more noise, especially at higher ISO. Canon is very bad at that at the moment. If you need to compare SLRs based on megapixel and have no idea about what it involves to get quality pictures, and how sensor size and everything fits into the picture, go buy yourself a nice Fuji point and shoot. The last thing this world needs is another "pro" photographer with a DSLR that has no clue.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you serious?? Bwahahaha...
:wtf:
 
plazma said:
Huh? Are you serious?? Bwahahaha...
:wtf:
Click to expand...

Yes. Look at the ISO performance of the Canon sensors vs the Nikons. Use DXOMark as a reference, you will see that although Nikon has 12Mp in their current gen (only now bumped to 14Mp with the D90 replacement being 16Mp) their noise handling is much better than Canon. If you look at the 50D reviews when it first came out, people were doing tests and saying that although it is a 15Mp camera when you look at the resolution (detail etc) it captures, it's really comparable to a 12Mb image.

There is much much more to the cameras than just a megapixel count, but if you base your decision on that alone, then you should go buy a point and shoot. Like others have said, go and test them out and see which one feels more comfortable in your hands as well - the layout and controls are different and everyone will find their preference.
 
noxibox said:
Shouldn't the 7D do better than marginally more detail?
Click to expand...
I think these days cameras are so good it's all marginal. What's important was that the 7D was canon finally catching a wake up call wrt high ISO performance, especially in their non-professional ranges.
 
I think that Nikon and Canon are pretty much on a par. For me when I got a Canon it was because all the people I shoot with use Canons so I can borrow lenses if I want to. It comes down to which one do you like in your hands...
 
DylanS said:
I think that Nikon and Canon are pretty much on a par.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I use to have Nikon envy before the 7D came out as Nikon did have the edge on the Noise Reduction side. But with the release of the 7D Canon showed that they can handle the noise well. Either brand are release good cameras, and sometimes a clunker too. But, as is always said, invest in the lenses. Both companies make stellar lenses, which will last you much longer than your body. Then just upgrade the body when a good enough and worthwhile body is released from your brand of lenses :D

As always the best advice is to go into a store and play with the both systems. Research both systems. Either way you go, the biggest factor that will determine your photography is your skill. (and less so your brand of equipment)
 
SubliminalThought said:
But, as is always said, invest in the lenses.
Click to expand...
I see it all the time when people starting off get told that starting off with old technology like a 30D is fine as long as you have good glass but as far as I'm concerned they're starting off on the back foot and totally missing out on 4 years of technological improvements.

Of course glass is important but the day I took the 70-200 f/4 off my 400D and put it on my 1DMk3 marked the single biggest improvement in my photography. These days even so called "bad glass" is way better than anything I had starting out twenty odd years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X