Love your Nikon DSLR ?

MaxBerlin

You should. I am a former Sony mirrorless user documenting the many ways that my D810 beats the Sony A7r.

Maybe you're thinking of making a change to the easy breezy Sony. Read my blog before you do.

I am using some of the best lenses in the world (Zeiss Otus 55 and 85 and the Apo-Sonnar 135) to show the superiority of Nikon.

Additionally, while they fall short of the Zeiss mentioned above the Nikon's AF and AF lenses can be twice as good as the Sony equivalent. (Except the FE55 which is a pretty darn good lens (even on the Sony).

https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/

manhattanboy

The Admins generally frown upon self referral linking here, but comparing brands of Cameras is always interesting.

Has anyone taken the portrait test from this video?


I came up preferring the Canon LOL.
Not sure what that says, other than that's what I preferred.
The NX1 versus Canon 7Dm2 test was also in Canon's favor for myself.
Just curious what other people got.

CaMeRaQuEsT

I love my refurbished D3300. You need to spend at least twice what I paid for it to get better image quality from both stills and video, and you will be spending that money on another Nikon, the D5300, because the competition doesn't even come close, even at 3x what I paid. And the lenses, there are a ton of used lenses in great condition from all vintages at rock bottom prices. Brand new lenses are always on sale or available even cheaper on the gray market. Nobody beats Nikon on bang for the buck.

ThomasHorton

Different photographers prefer or don't prefer different cameras. It is a personal choice. The important consideration is to find a camera that is best for the individual photographer and their individual style of photography.

Sounds like your choice of Nikon works out well for you. That's great. Many of us here like Nikon. However, I do recognize that there are photographers who would prefer the Sony system. And that's great tool

tcole1983

@manhattanboy I didn't do all the pictures, but it seemed like I came up half and half. Kind of weird that in one picture the Nikon would be darker and the next the Canon. Seems like there are infinite number of factors that could play into it including switching settings to create an image more preferable to ones liking. Of course the pictures can always be edit as well.

I love my Nikon gear. When I first decided with a slight push from a friend who shot Nikon I noticed at the lower level bodies Nikon has better ones. They feel better made and in most cases spec better also. Canon's lower cameras feel very cheap and plasticy. I liked the feel of the Sony bodies a close second to Nikon, but their lack or past history (I know they purchased Minolta), and their lens choices made me shy away.

All that being said I know people who shoot Canon and charge tons of $$$ shooting weddings and events all over the country. I also know people who shoot Nikon and are just as successful. I have no doubt if yo gave either sets of people the opposite brand cameras that they could take great pictures...of course after learning the way each brand it setup.

I have been pleased with my choice of Nikon. I don't feel left out of envious of any of the other brands. I think Nikon is innovative even if they keep releasing small steps of innovation instead of large single ones. I actually think it is nice for people that aren't upgrading each new body release. It allows you to wait out a couple of generations before you upgrade and then there are some relevant changes...I think we see that usually one model change isn't making huge leaps and bounds at this time. Some issues aside, Nikon has been releasing great products. Of course Canon just released their 50 MP beast, but years now after Nikon released the D800. Nikon did it first...

MaxBerlin

A few quantitative data points from my testing of the A7r and D810

1. Sony's sensor glass astigmatism results in losing ~ 20% of resolution in same lens testing.

2. Same glass, same composition, same settings testing and RawDigger analysis shows that a Sony RAW file has as little as 10% of the discrete color values as the Nikon uncompressed RAW file.

3. Similar system (A7r and D810 with 70-200 native lenses) show that at f4.0 the Nikon resolves 2x the Sony system.

Lastly, the D810 live view with 3x hoodloupe produces more detail than the Sony at 14.4x (if you can't see it how can you critically focus it? )

sevencrossing

I am a self confessed Nikon fan boy

I had 4 Nikon Fs' in the 60s and 70s

I then gave up professional photography, to pursue a different, better paid, and more interesting career, flying hot air balloons

I needed a DSLR to illustrate the company web site and bought a D70 it did the job splendidly

A few years ago I sold the balloon businesses, bought a D700 and returned to photography

Although now somewhat retired, the only thing that make me sell my D800, would be something with even higher IQ and significantly lighter

MaxBerlin

I don't think it's being a fanboy when the equipment and results are better. A sony fanboy tried to point out that the A7r and FE55 are great examples of Sony's best (and they are). With Imatest resolution scores at 4000 they're quite good. But they don't even come close to what the D810 and Otus 85mm can score.

Msmoto

Love, maybe that is not the word I would use. For some thing s Canon seems to have better controls, but I really cannot complain about either my D800E or D4 as they both perform way beyond my abilities.

Wesley

I don't think it's being a fanboy when the equipment and results are better. A sony fanboy tried to point out that the A7r and FE55 are great examples of Sony's best (and they are). With Imatest resolution scores at 4000 they're quite good. But they don't even come close to what the D810 and Otus 85mm can score.

Oh great...MaxBerlin from SAR is here now also.
Just go shoot and use your time to improve on your photography craft than looking at graph charts no photographer would understand.

kanuck

Not surprised the D810 is superior to the Sony A7R in every way possible that I conceive of. I know DXO gives Nikon plenty of love compared to other manufacturers as well thats for sure. Hold onto your hats once the Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R hit the scene though. I think it will really give Nikonians a run for their money.

tcole1983

Not surprised the D810 is superior to the Sony A7R in every way possible that I conceive of. I know DXO gives Nikon plenty of love compared to other manufacturers as well thats for sure. Hold onto your hats once the Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R hit the scene though. I think it will really give Nikonians a run for their money.

Maybe megapixel wise, but I doubt the ISO performance will be there. It will be a tradeoff in that aspect...and I wouldn't be surprise if there were several other components like the dynamic range that are still better on the D810.

PB_PM

Indeed, and most of the previewers said that in terms of dynamic range and ISO performance that the new Canon's are no better than the 5D MKIII. Not bad, but worth $4k? Haha, not a chance!

As for loving Nikon? Bah. I don't love cameras, I love taking pictures of things I enjoy. Way too much focus on technical mumbo jumbo in the photography enthusiast movement these days. I find it hard to hear myself say that, because I like gear, but geez, I don't go out and buy resolution testing equipment to see if one camera is 5-10% better. If I cannot see the difference with my eyes, there is no difference in my mind.

Ironheart

You can easily see the difference between the sony A7r and a d800/810, I think @MaxBerlin is just backing that up with actual measurements, which is what you would need to quiet the fanboys and girls.

...and basically you have a crap sensor with a lot of megapixels.

At first I thought you were talking about the D400, then I realized you said "crap" not "crop" ;-)

sevencrossing

. If I cannot see the difference with my eyes, there is no difference in my mind

I going to guess, like me, you can see a difference between the D700 and D800
If Nikon manage a similar improvement with the D900, I will be buying one

PB_PM

. If I cannot see the difference with my eyes, there is no difference in my mind

I going to guess, like me, you can see a difference between the D700 and D800
If Nikon manage a similar improvement with the D900, I will be buying one

I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of this question and statement. In any case I own both, so yes I can tell the difference. As for the D900, as with the D400, I care little for things that don't exist.

kanuck

Hold onto your hats once the Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R hit the scene though. I think it will really give Nikonians a run for their money.

As I've said, I'm in no way a Nikon fanboy, but this is ***extremely*** unlikely. Canon's sensor technology is way behind that of the ones used in Nikon cameras. There has been technology for a long time to build 50mp+ sensors, but the problem has always been throughput. If you take Canon's latest 7D Mark II sensor and upsize it (1.6 crop) you get the size of the 5Ds sensor, and basically you have a crap sensor with a lot of megapixels.

I hope the new Canon 5DsR gets a 98 rating on DXO so my brother a long time Canon shooter of the 5DM3, 5DM2 and original 2005 5D can finally get a body that really allows you to get the most out his numerously expensive lenses. It's time Canon passes a Nikon body I think. I for one would be really impressed if it happens early this summer once the body begins shipping. I always cheer for the underdog haha come on Canon beat us!

kanuck

The day a Canon sensor gets a 98 Dx0 rating is the day the D400 comes out. I predict a sensor rating of 86.

Yes this is why I am keeping my fingers crossed and hoping Canon can do it. It actually bothers me that Nikon dominates the top 10 list on DXO it's not good for the consumer I think as healthy competition among competitors helps create better products for everyone in the long run.

NEFastus

This seems to be the thread onto wich I'll justify myself for some decisions I've made and hear from people
if I am mad or not...

Having always liked photography, I got technically interested in the area in 2012 for a college project( I'm 22 by the way).
My father always liked photography, aswell as my grandfather, and we had a Sony superzoom for 3 years for general family photos, wich my dad had to sell in 2007. When he bought another camera, back in 2011, he went for a silimar thing as he had before, wich happened to be a Cybershot Hsv-100 (16.2mp, 30x zoom).
One day, a friend who had bought a D3100 allowed me to play with it and, after not much, I liked it but didn't understood it, and was trying to use it to impress some girl (it didn't work...Dammit!) and tought to be the same of what I had at home.
Then while I started researching and learning the ins and outs, I got my hands onto my grandfathers Minolta Srt-101 (wich I basically took for myself and love to bits). I've gotten involved in a archive digitization project, wich gave me an excuse to get a digital camera. I also had no way to properly digitize my negatives, it being expensive as hell were I live ( about 70 cents of a dollar per usable resolution scanning...guess were is it)
My fathers CyberShot was rotting in a shelf so took it to us as an everyday camera.
Eventually I realized that the I.Q. on that P.O.S. was beyond terrible. After one month I already hated it.
For 2 years, I carried it everywere, and I cry everytime (evretiem) I see the photos (about 3000 moments of my life wich I will never have again to photograph better) i've taken with it. It is noizy without any croping. The Cybershot H5 we've had and loved was sooo much better
(later i've understood what resolition had to do with noize)
I, then, wanted, a Canon T3i wich was what I could afford with the cash I would get for the entire project.
The 5D MkIII was being launched when I took the turn for DSLR's, and it became a dream.
Involved with this project I've learnt about image quality and eventually saw an image comparison between the T3i and the D5100 on DPreview.
I was stunned. The colors were so much better than Canons...
After the disapontment the Sony was, I wouldn't leave it for luck.
Later, after discovering DxO, I understood that my camera would be a Nikon.
To this day, I wonder why people disregard DxO, when I SEE the difference in image tests.
After loaning the entire money for the camera to my mom, and six months of financial issues, walking to save the bus cash and even skipping meals to avoid spending, in february 2013 I bought a D5100.
I still look at the pics and go "wow".
My kitlens was a rather poor copy, only delivering at f 8.
When the Vr went nuts I traded it for a 18-105, wich is MUCH better.
I've gotten trough similar problems to get myself a the 35 ( Fantastic little thing) and
I'm now paying a 50 1.4 af-s wich is also stunningly good.
When I started my camera craze, I've dreamt of all kiond of camera.
But there is nothing like an SLR...(thank god I didn't shot any Leicas)
The Cybershot was dead-slow, and it's images were awful.
When I understood the DSLR, a quiet monster always waiting for it's wake, I was dumbfounded.
I actually grown hatefull of slow, moronic cameras,
As a someone traumatized by crappy cameras I can truly say I LOVE my Nikon DSLR.
I'm still working as an intern onto a project that will be my thesis, and, month by month,
has been hard to justify my spendings/income attitude.
I don't starve anymore, but cash has been low.
I AM mad?
Cheers

kanuck

Cheers NEFastus, this brings back memories for me while I was doing my graduate work, which I will never forget from 2011-2013. Some of my poorest, but most interesting life experiences occurred during this period in my life. I really grew to love and appreciate my Nikon gear during this time as well no question about it...

CaMeRaQuEsT

I hope the new Canon 5DsR gets a 98 rating on DXO so my brother a long time Canon shooter of the 5DM3, 5DM2 and original 2005 5D can finally get a body that really allows you to get the most out his numerously expensive lenses. It's time Canon passes a Nikon body I think. I for one would be really impressed if it happens early this summer once the body begins shipping. I always cheer for the underdog haha come on Canon beat us!

As long as Canon keeps using its old silicon fab to churn out its newest sensors, they won't be able to match the rest of the industry in noise, dynamic range and sensitivity performance. They are physically constrained by the size of the smallest silicon track etchings they can burn in their dinosaur fab. But because a new fab is a huge capital investment, and because of the highly specialized nature of image sensor manufacturing, Canon might not have yet broke even on the investment on their current fab, and that might be the reason why they keep on wringing the hell out of the sucker. Nikon, on the other hand, outsources its image sensor manufacturing, so they not only don't need to fork out the huge capital investment on that regard, but can also cherry pick the best fab technology currently available for their needs and designs. Canon, in a sense, just made a bad management decision when they took on building their own fab for their image sensor manufacturing. It might have been a sound decision at the beginning so that they could keep their trade secrets juju in-house, and back then they made huge amounts of P&S to volume-justify the investment, but they have basically become cornered after that market imploded with the advent of the smart phone.

Wesley

The day a Canon sensor gets a 98 Dx0 rating is the day the D400 comes out. I predict a sensor rating of 86.

Does DxO sensor rating mean anything in the real world?

They show scores tested by print (8MP, 300 dpi, 8x12) but this seems only fair if every DSLR had the same MP. So I would only look at their numbers tested by screen which is buried in their measurements tab & those look like more real world usage.

Wesley

The day a Canon sensor gets a 98 Dx0 rating is the day the D400 comes out. I predict a sensor rating of 86.

Does DxO sensor rating mean anything in the real world?

I really hate the phrase "real world" or "real world test." It implies that somehow pictures that I take shooting my cat are relevant. They aren't. Dx0 Mark tests give me a hell of a lot of information in terms of what I can expect my files to look like when I get them into my computer and start working with them. Detail? Super important. Dynamic range? Super important. Noise at high ISO? Super important. Picture of a cat shot with on-camera flash? Not important.

Aren't your cat pictures relevant? If not, why do you have it? Last time I checked people love cat photos.
If you test out a new camera sensor with on-camera flash of the cat that's your business but you can still look at how the detail, DR, and noise came out.

Just know that the main scores are skewed & people should look at the results from the screen testing if dealing with RAW.

Wesley

There's a thread somewhere here where Dx0 mark scores are discussed ad nauseam. If you don't feel that they are in any way useful, that's cool. You're free to think whatever you want.

I never said the scores weren't in anyway useful, just skewed. So I've given the directions to the true scores for RAW shooters which should be the majority on rumor forums & DxO users.

kanuck

I know there are a lot of haters out there regarding DxO ratings, but I have really found that their findings regarding lenses on the D810 are just so damn accurate. Their best primes list and zooms lists really are bang on in terms of rendering and sharpness. However, not a lot of surprises either with Zeiss primes dominating scores. I would not buy a lens if it scores low on DxO for my Nikon D810. For example, the 70-300mm VR or 17-35mm 2.8. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I trust their reviews. For example, the 70-200mm F4 is shockingly on the D810.

Primes:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D810-Exceptionally-high-sharpness-and-detail-but-no-advance-over-D800E/Best-Primes-on-the-D810

Zooms:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D810-Exceptionally-high-sharpness-and-detail-but-no-advance-over-D800E/Best-Zooms-on-the-Nikon-D810

kyoshinikon

People who pity Canon now may forget the days of the CCD. Canon smoked Nikon in that department for years because of their fullframes. It was the D3 that changed the game for Nikon permanently. The D200 was better than the 40D but the difference wasnt like what the D3 Offered and the D100 was much worse than the (Canon)D60 or 20D. Surprisingly DXO mark is pretty accurate. Try overexposing on a 5Dmk3