Not to start a flame war or anything....

[jpeyton]

If you insists, why don't we go bottom and look at things from the beginning of electronic technologies?

Because I'm not really interested in 30 year old film cameras.

 

[deanx0r]

Nikon vs Canon wars are always fun. At least I am not a Pentax!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_H8TOKcfjg

 

[magomago]

Cause I hate the Canon grip? The Nikon grip is at least bearable for me.

And what is wrong with Pentax, huh?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You can phrase things however you like. However, the 7D is designed to be the competitor to the D300s and the 50d is designed to compete with the D90.

The 50D *does not and did not fill the same segment in Canon's lineup as the D300 does for Nikon*. The 50D fills the same segment as the D90. Yes, the pricing is not identical.

Yes, the 50D did cannibalize *some* sales from the D300. However the D300 took way way more sales from Canon because Canon just flat out didn't have a D300 competitor. A huge glaring hole in their lineup. The D200 wasn't a big deal because the IQ wasn't up to Canon standards but the D300 was a knockout amazing product. The 50d didn't really compete with it. The 50d's IQ was/is great, but features wise the D300 was a much more pro body and it (along with the D700) caused many to switch to Nikon. Which is fantastic for us Canon users because it made Canon get off their ass and focus on making a great product (7d).

Just because products are priced similarly does not mean they are positioned against each other. For example the D700 and 5Dmk2. Canon users whine about the 5d's af when Nikon puts their best one in the D700, etc, etc. Nikon users whine that they hafta spend $8,000 to get the IQ you can get from canon for $2,500 when you don't need the pro body.

Anyway, just a tangent

The Canon and Nikon lineup kinda worked at halfsteps on the lower end models to mid end.

You had the :
D40/D60 lined up against the XTI/XSi but the Canon XSi clearly won but Nikon had price advantage.
D90 is better than the XSi/T1i
50D beats the D90
D300 beats the 50D
D300 competes with 7D

Only now with the new D3000/D5000 does Nikon have something to truly challenge the Rebel line. It was always challenging the Rebel line with the DX0 series which clearly won, and then using a cheap D40/D60 to undercut the price, but the Canon Rebel was clearly better. Now the D5000 is a legitimate competitor to the T1i.

To the OP, it depends what part of the lineup are you looking at...

T1i vs D5000, you have to say D5000 gets a huge advantage. That sensor is just amazing. What about D90 vs 50D? You could go either way. D90 has some advantages, 50D has some others. 300D vs 7D? Could go either way. You have to recognize that Nikon has come a long way since 5 years ago though, and that in the low end I think Nikon has a huge advantage right now. The D5000 sensor in terms of noise and dynamic range is just beautiful.

 

[extra]

T1i vs D5000, you have to say D5000 gets a huge advantage. That sensor is just amazing. What about D90 vs 50D? The D5000 sensor in terms of noise and dynamic range is just beautiful.

Hmm, I actually think that in the very low end Canon is better, however I think that when you get to the T1i vs D5000 it's a wash. Completely based on personal preference only imho. Why do you think the D5000 has an IQ advantage over the T1i? I will give you this: Jpegs out of the camera on the D5000 at high iso do look better. That could be a big deal for some. However the T1i captures a little more detail and the *raw* noise levels from the sensors are quite similar. Both have fantastic sensors. The D5000 can't auto focus with all Nikon lenses. The articulated screen is nice tho for sure. But it's low rez compared to the excellent Canon T1i screen.

I don't get how the D90 vs 50D would be different there because the D90 has same sensor as D5000 right? Maybe I'm wrong, hell I thought the D3000 had live view for some reason and was totally wrong on that rofl. And the 50d has same sensor as T1i. Now, I know supposedly the 50d's sensor has the gapless micro lenses so is supposed to be better, but in reality the T1i's sensor is actually slightly better than the 50d's at high iso! Bizarre but true!

 

[DaWhim]

I bought my Nikon D40 with the kit lense + 55-200mm VR + extra battery, all for under $550 two years ago.

 

[jpeyton]

Imaging Resource posted D3s samples in their Comparometer.

It's staggering how much detail the new sensor is capturing at high-ISO.

All shots at ISO 25,600

D700: http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/D700/FULLRES/D700hSLI25600.JPG

5D2: http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/E5D2/FULLRES/E5D2hSLI25600.JPG

D3s: http://208.43.255.194/PRODS/D3S/FULLRES/D3ShSLI025600_NR2D.JPG

 

[ed21x]

this may be a dumb reason, but I found the kit lens for the nikon (55-70 and 55-200mm) are better on the nikon than the canon counterpart, and that is a pretty big deal if you're a beginner.

 

[ElFenix]

i wonder why imaging-resources can't keep the exposure consistent between cameras? exif shows all were at f/8, the D700 has 1/3 stop longer shutter than the D3s, and the 5D2 has 1/3 of a stop longer than that. and that's with both the D700 and D3s shot in M mode! (the 5D2 was shot in A for whatever strange reason). only the 5D2's exif has sensitivity information. comparing between them all, you can easily see that the D700 was given more apparent exposure as the picture is brighter. the 5D2 and the D3s look like they got the same apparent exposure, which is strange considering the 5D2 had 2/3 of a stop longer shutter (so the D3s had sensitivity set 2/3 of a stop higher than the 5D2?)

another problem is that the position of the cameras isn't quite the same in each one. the D3s is clearly closer to the subject than the 5D2 (everything is slightly larger). the D700 is also closer to the scene than the 5D2 and offset a bit from the D3s (though it looks like the they were just about the same distance away). all of the cameras used a focal length of 70 mm so i assume they were each using the respective 24-70 lenses set to the long end.

 

[Cattykit]

i wonder why imaging-resources can't keep the exposure consistent between cameras? exif shows all were at f/8, the D700 has 1/3 stop longer shutter than the D3s, and the 5D2 has 1/3 of a stop longer than that. and that's with both the D700 and D3s shot in M mode! (the 5D2 was shot in A for whatever strange reason). only the 5D2's exif has sensitivity information. comparing between them all, you can easily see that the D700 was given more apparent exposure as the picture is brighter. the 5D2 and the D3s look like they got the same apparent exposure, which is strange considering the 5D2 had 2/3 of a stop longer shutter (so the D3s had sensitivity set 2/3 of a stop higher than the 5D2?)

another problem is that the position of the cameras isn't quite the same in each one. the D3s is clearly closer to the subject than the 5D2 (everything is slightly larger). the D700 is also closer to the scene than the 5D2 and offset a bit from the D3s (though it looks like the they were just about the same distance away). all of the cameras used a focal length of 70 mm so i assume they were each using the respective 24-70 lenses set to the long end.

I find it strange that you find it strange. I thought you'd be the last person to not know such differences exists between cameras. Classic case is 5D: its ISO was 1/3 lower meaning its ISO 1250 was acutally ISO 1600. On top of that, there's also 'color exposure' and 'Auto Lighting Optimizer' to consider.

Same goes for positionion of cameras. Even if tripod remains in the same place, Canon's 24-70 angle of view is different than Nikon's 24-70mm. Even same 70mm provides different angle of view on same brands' different zoom range lenses. Good example here would be Nikon's 70-200mm VR1 and 70-200mm VR2. New VR2 lens shows far shorter telephoto especiallly if shot at close distance.

 

[ElFenix]

i wouldn't expect the field of view to change on professional level glass. maybe they should be using a different piece of glass to test then. ideally they'd be using the exact same lens with a high quality adapter. or maybe they should make sure they get the same field of view by slightly shifting the cameras.

the logical conclusion is that indicated ISO speed isn't quite the same as actual (though, ISO's definition is so slippery that actual is practically whatever the camera makers want, at least for any program setting which is why it should be in M), though i thought we'd moved past that 'issue.'

 

[OulOat]

another problem is that the position of the cameras isn't quite the same in each one. the D3s is clearly closer to the subject than the 5D2 (everything is slightly larger). the D700 is also closer to the scene than the 5D2 and offset a bit from the D3s (though it looks like the they were just about the same distance away). all of the cameras used a focal length of 70 mm so i assume they were each using the respective 24-70 lenses set to the long end.

Didn't you just answer your own question? The 24-70 doesn't come with mounts, so the cameras were probably mounted to the tripod. Each camera has a different mounting point and sensor location on the body, which results in a different pov.

 

[ElFenix]

that doesn't excuse them from having a different fov. it's sloppy testing. further, the tripod mounts are all in line with the lens center (so left/right shifts are entirely on them) and vary very little from each other in relation to the respective film planes.

 

[Cattykit]

Because they are measured @ infinity, FOV does change (based on focusing distance) regardless of their being professional grade or not. Again, good example here is (though every lenses can be good examples) Nikon's 70-200mm VR1 and 70-200mm VR2. Compared to VR1 version, VR2 is more like 60-160mm lens if used in shorter distances.

The easiest way of distinguishing such difference is looking at magification factor. Thought it doesn't tell the whole story, it's better than just assuming FOV solely based on focal length.

 

[ElFenix]

and why anyone would use a zoom lens, even a professional level zoom lens, to test cameras, is beyond me. at least dpreview gets that right (even if they do focus far too much on pixel-level tests)