It’s been long overdue, but both Nikon and Canon’s new flagship cameras (official specs) have landed and it’s certainly created a frenzy on the internet. There has however been no comparative testing whatsoever so it’s hard to say if these new pro-bodies are something revolutionary or just a minor upgrade. What will decide that for me is whether the cameras have made positive strides in the areas that their nemesis previously shamed them?
Most people have welcomed the fact that canon have finally decided to make the move to full frame, which has been the main difference between the two in the past. Now for the first time both brands are simultaneously releasing a fast, full frame, high resolution camera with near identical specs. If you look at the past timeline then it’s obvious that it took both companies longer than usual to develop these cameras and my guess is that they were so obsessed with the pixel race in the past that they fell behind in keeping the peripheral systems of their cameras on par with the pixels.
Even after 4 years of R&D they’ve had to settle for sensors of 16 and 18mp for the Nikon and Canon respectively, when both have had massive success with their 24 and 21mp sensors in slower cameras. So the peripheral systems are still far behind the pixel technologies. I’m especially interested to see how this new sensor from Canon will perform because Canon pushed the pixel race much further than Nikon with production models like the 7D featuring sensors of a monstrous pixel density and new individual-pixel designs. I’m confident that they learned quite a few lessons from that sensor which they’ve been able to apply in creating the ultimate “low” resolution full frame sensor.
Canon 1Dx
If the 4 years have been worth the wait, then these two new cameras will raise the bar on everything from dynamic range to noise performance and they’ll be doing it at a resolution just slightly under the 20mp we’ve been enjoying in much slower cameras. One needs to stop looking at individual specs of the cameras, but at what they will mean when combined to push the boundaries of what can be captured in nature. Faster processors, higher native ISO’s, better metering and focus systems and brand new sensors should open doors to photographers who have been technically limited in their creativity.
The rumour sites will now obviously turn their attention to wild guesses about what the yellow and red will produce on the slower high res side of things, but I’m of the firm belief that there needs to be some revolutionary technological advancement before sensors and lenses can truly resolve more than 25-30mp of detail in a 35mm sensor. Until solid facts can change that view, I’m not really interested in a 35mm camera with a 30 megapixel sensor.
Nikon D4
I can only speculate about how these cameras will perform in the fields crucial to me, but the past models of each brand have always held strong pros and cons and how the companies have improved on the cons will determine which one I’ll be buying. Below are my main problems with each system, which will be the crucial factors in determining which camera I favour.
Low Light Performance
In January last year we were three photographers shooting side by side in Deadvlei at night. There was a 5D II, a 1D4 and a D3s and we all had f/2.8 lenses shooting wide open at ISO3200 for 30 seconds. While the settings were identical it’s just as if the Nikon pulls an extra stop of light out of nowhere. The Milky Way came out brighter, the subtle blues and yellows in the sky were stronger. The D3s is just undeniably superior in that field.
Highlight Performance
3 months later I was hosting a seascape workshop in Arniston…I was shooting with my 5D II and between my clients there was a D700, D3s and D3x. It was a beautiful sunset with strong oranges and we were all shooting into the sun. My camera captured the sky as I saw it with my eyes with perfect white-orange-yellow tonal graduation, while all the Nikons produced a muddy clipped white-yellow graduation. We all know Nikon’s highlights are more yellow while Canon’s are more red, but that is a relatively incorrect way of stating it if you ask me. I would put it as Canon’s colours are true and Nikon’s are too yellow.
One of Nikon’s tricks to getting cleaner images is that the photo is slightly overexposed in the pre-raw stage which produces a cleaner image which is then darkened again to produce a raw file of the intended exposure. Because the image is slightly overexposed, the cleaner image comes at the cost of the quality of the highlights.
That many of Nikon’s lenses are sharper is no rumour. Lens design is a trade-off between contrast/colour and sharpness and while Canon sticks to a balance between the two, Nikon opts for sharper glass, sacrificing colour in the process. To compensate for it, the colour, specifically the yellows are then oversaturated. They can then do more pre-raw noise reduction to produce a cleaner image because their systems produce slightly sharper images.
The end result of these two things is that Nikon’s extreme highlights in red skies are clipped, yellow and have bad tonal graduation compared to Canon. While it is not really an issue in most photographic genres, it plays a big role in natural colours in landscape photography. Sunset skies come out too yellow and it’s not something that can be easily corrected in processing. Let’s face it, landscape photographers live in eternal pursuit of red skies.
Live View
Whether you like it or not, live view is here to stay and many people including myself have embraced it. It makes shooting ten times easier and gives you an exact preview of your image and how graduated filters will affect the exposure before you’ve even pressed the button. When you’ve set up a composition on your tripod, you can take a Light reading anywhere in the frame thanks to the metering block that can move to any position in the frame. You can also zoom in ten times and check that your focus is spot on within any part of the frame. Nikon’s live view is just plain terrible in comparison and I hope that they’ve worked on this area.
Conclusion
Things that immediately caught my attention are the 1Dx’s whopping 100-51200 native ISO range and the D4′s Iphone/Ipad wireless control function. If by some miracle the Canon can produce a ISO6400 image at the quality of a ISO3200 image of the D3s, then the D4 stands no chance on my shopping list!
If this new Canon sensor can give Nikon a run for its money in capturing a night sky, then I’m definitely not changing brands. If it doesn’t and Nikon has improved on its highlights and live view then I will most probably be joining the dark side. While it’s fun to speculate and waste away your nights arguing with people you’ve never met, I prefer to wait and see the real results. It’s taken 4 years, but I’m sure these cameras are building the next plateau in digital still photography. Let’s hope that both hit the shelves on time and that the companies have placed them in the right hands for testing…
If the 5D III is as good value for money as the 5D II was, then I know I’ll rather buy two of those than either of these pro bodies. It’s going to be an exciting year in this field and I can’t wait to see what Canon and Nikon deliver!
Loading...
Yo Hougaard , plain simple and very well put. Either way , its the next level in digital imagery
Comment by Andrew Aveley — January 7, 2012 @ 9:45 pm
Maybe a sign of improvement in low light condition from Canon : http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=9371
Still, wait and see.
Comment by Pierre-Marie — January 7, 2012 @ 10:26 pm
I would prefer more wild speculation!
On the top of a resolution limit….
The canon 20D is 8mp, the Canon 5DmkII is 23mp. The two have EXACTLY the same photosite size.
The 7D is 18mp, it STILL achieves pixel sharpness on Canons L zooms and primes. Therefore, if center sharpness is the only criteria then 54mp full frame resolution should give the same sharpness as the 7D. Granted the corners might not be as good but we are a LONG way from a resultion limit! I just think Canon have started listing to photogrpahers
Comment by Alex Nail — January 7, 2012 @ 11:31 pm
Very interesting commentary but still, you are really just reading spec sheets and manufacturers blurb and making deductions based on “what if’s and what if not’s” with regard to the two new top end cameras. The proof of superiority in my mind, is going to be in the actual comparative testing, not to mention the fact that each photographer will form their own opinions based on what they actually shoot. Having used both brands and opting to switch to Canon years ago, I share you view that Canon has superior colour interpretation, the principle reason for the switch and secondly, the 5D is just an all round winner and has been from the start. It will be hard to top this box of tricks.
One thing that always bothers me is this talk of the high ISO range. Personally, I don’t place much value in being able to shoot at an ISO of 25000 or 51000. I understand the theory and the practical applications of this. Having cut my teeth on film the colour limit was an ISO 400 and you could push that a few stops and get a bit of an edgy feel to your pics and then with BW @ 3200 with the same capacity. The grain on the image would tend to be as rough as a bears backside but, tolerated if need be in commercial application and in arty circles embraced as cool and funky. Bear in mind that there is a vibrational plane constantly in operation while the camera is switched on and this is were digital noise is generated unlike in the lab concocting chemical emulsions of film. For the images that I capture and for the fineness in colour and detail that I am constantly striving for , I try and shoot everything at a range of between ISO 50 (L) and max 800 and at the 800 level I am balking at the grain and sprinting over to Noise Ninja and refining.. but really at the end of the day and from the images that I have seen coming off the box at these high level ISO’s, it is not something that would be a major factor in my decision making process as most of the low light work I do is static and the shutter can quite happily stay open for 25 – 30 seconds and in need longer. I also believe that actual testing of these two boxes in studio or controlled lighting conditions will also have to be considered.
I think there are interesting times ahead and personally, all this talk about switching brands for the differences mentioned here, mmm. I think when one does an actual calculation on the cost of switching rigs and lenses (without sponsorship or deal sweetening interventions by the manufacturers), it may just continue to be talk and speculation on “what if’s and what if not’s”, the individual will find that they can work around the issues. I know that when I made the switch some years ago, Nikon to Canon, there was a cost implication of around 30 odd thousand rand but, I made it based on what I could see both immediately and where I saw things going long term. I must say that to date I have not been dissapointed.
Lastly, decisions are also influenced by the people behind the product, the support that you get as a pro and the interventions of the brands in producing high quality products over a period of time and I believe that loyalty and commitment from our side should be considered as well. In my experience, Canon are far more prolific in this area and always have been. There is a tangible commitment from them and they are not scared to get there hands dirty.
Thank you for sharing your views and insights, it will be interesting to see which way you swing. I wish you Good Shooting.
Comment by Paul Hofman — January 8, 2012 @ 9:25 am
Regarding higher MP than 30 it is almost 100% confirmed that the Nikon D800 will be 36 MP.There has been many comments made about both these cameras, on Canon sites people disliking the 1Dx, on Nikon the same, it seems what people forget is that these cameras are targeted to specific fields of photography and I think there has been enough improvement made on both these. Its like people expect the manufactures to create these cameras which work miracles…in fact they do. Just step back 5-10 years and see how limited the cameras were then. I shoot mainly weddings, events and portraits and in my comparisons I found my Nikon to have more accurate color and better color. The nikon seems to produce near perfect images straight out of camera where the Canon needs some tweaking. (Adobe has made it in a way irrelevant what the camera’s produce as we can fix so much anyway) Thats why focussing is a big issues for me and I think both these will be bad boys and that field!
I think both will be very exciting! I have been very happy with full frame images @ 12MP so anything more at a better ISO performance will be amazing. I think files of 20mp + cameras take too long to edit anyway.
In my conclusion I thought the D3s was an amazing camera so anything better will be epic. I already thought that a photographer with a D3s was spoilt so now even more.
There is gonna come a day where cameras are so good that you dont need to be a pro to shoot with them and then people will complain again. There has to be room left for skills. Give me an older camera and I will still produce, but with more effort, at the end as a pro I focus on the art and craft more than the gear to stand out in this “Photoshoped actions” world!
Comment by Jean-Pierre Uys — January 8, 2012 @ 9:49 am
Thanks for the comment Jean-Pierre and I agree a lot with what you say.
I’m very eager to see what the high res 35mm cameras will do as it’s something I’m very skeptical about. I would never think I’m right, I just need to see the proof before I start applying that potential resolution to my visions and dreams! The other issue is of course is whether it’s really necessary? There are obviously many uses that require 20+ mp, but it’s marginal compared to the uses that dont.
I also agree that people expect too much. I’m 100% certain that these cameras will improve on every aspect and they will do so at a higher resolution than their predecessors.
About the color issue, being one of the top people in the S.A wedding field I will absolutely take your word that Nikon produces better results for you. I should perhaps have stated more clearly that my highlight and color reference was to landscapes, I wouldn’t do the idiotic thing of applying the experience of my field to other genres. I don’t think there’s any other field that deals with the range of extreme colors and contrast that one gets in dramatic skies, which is probably also why so many landscape photographers are still shooting MF and LF film. I’ve also heard repeatedly that Nikon’s AF is better and that is obviously a major issue when shooting weddings.
The very reason I’m tempted by the D4 is because of what I saw the D3s can do at high ISO’s, but the D4 is simply a major upgrade using the D3′s winning recipe, while the 1Dx is a completely new camera from Canon. So how these two will stack up against each other is anyone’s guess!
A lot of people will be buying these cameras when they hit the shelves, but I doubt that it will make a difference in even 1% of the buyer’s photography. As I mention in the article, these cameras will open doors to photographers who have been technically limited in their creativity and only the very best really push the cameras to 100% of their potential. The thing that excites me is how these cameras will improve the photography of those talented people, not to whom it will just be a faster and bigger toy.
Comment by Hougaard Malan — January 8, 2012 @ 10:28 am
Thanks for the insightful comment Paul!
You also just reread the spec sheet and did exactly what I did in making your own deduction based on your intended uses of such a camera!
In 99% of situations I don’t have a use for any other ISO than 100-200 either. I had a look at your website and it’s obvious that most of your work is also shot from a tripod, as mine. The high ISO capabilities of recent cameras have however opened the night skies to landscape photography in a way that has never been possible. While an f/2.8 30 second ISO3200 image of the milky way may look fine at 900px, it’s not really printable. My excitement for these two cameras is that they will hopefully be pushing this field two or three stops further, which could mean print quality ISO3200 and web quality ISO6400/12800. It’s a new field and photographers are showing earth in a new way with this technology.
Another reason I have also strongly considered Nikon is for it’s 14-24mm, which is hands down the ultimate nightscapes lens. It’s super wide and tack sharp throughout the frame at wide apertures. I can of course use it on a Canon using an adapter, but that’s another R2500. The crux in which one I buy will lie with the high ISO performance of these two bodies. Even if I buy it, I won’t technically be switching, because I’ll never sell my 5D. I’ll be buying a second body and a new lens, so there won’t be a switching cost for me. I love my 5D and I think it will be the best value for money and a legendary camera for many years to come.
We’ll see if Roger Machin is willing to lend me one of his demos for a day or two!
Comment by Hougaard Malan — January 8, 2012 @ 10:43 am
You say; ‘I prefer to wait and see the real results.’ That sum my feelings regarding any new tech up. I’m in the IT industry. In the beginning I could not wait to download beta versions and see what is new. Nowadays I wait till the early adopters installed and tested and report bugs on new releases. I wait for the first service pack to be released before I install ‘n new release. With cameras I will wait and hear what all the early adopters have to say. Maybe even wait for the first firmware upgrade. But I am actually waiting for the 5D III. I am very happy with my 5DII but would love to have a second body.
Thanks, great article anyway.
Comment by Hannes Thirion — January 9, 2012 @ 7:30 am