Take the Nikon - Canon Challenge,,,(if you dare)

Discussion in 'Photography Forum' started by Dizzy Duck, Mar 7, 2011.

  1. odie-wan

    odie-wan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    319
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Location:
    Cleveland, Oh
    Hi guys. I am certainly not a pro but do enjoy shooting my son's football games and outdoor sports. I shoot a Sony A57 with Minolta AF lenses. In order, these are a 50mm, 35-105mm in the 2nd pic, and 75-300mm for all of the football pics. (I shoot from the stands.) Not high dollar stuff but it seems ok, not great. I have noticed that I never really get a super sharp picture and I don't know if this is due to the lenses, the SLT of the Sony, how it processes jpeg's or my setup. The prime is the only "fast" lens and unless its bright out, the Sony doesn't do very well. I usually shoot shutter priority because of the action or because of 3 other guys rocking the boat while I shoot.

    I've thought about saving up and switching to a D7000 or D7100 for the weather protection since the Sony is not weather sealed. Also because all I've read says that the Nikons have lower noise at high ISO. I have trouble getting in-door sports or long-range wildlife near dusk or dawn. The Sony has trouble focusing near dark areas and has a lot of noise when cropped.

    Anyway, take a look at what I think are some of my best. I invite your considered opinions on improvement or equipment.

    Thanks,
    Sean

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. HNTFSH

    HNTFSH Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    794
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Ohio
    odie-wan - nice pictures. You can't buy an 'eye'. :tu

    My limited experience buying equipment for the photog wife and supporting action shots - you'll need to upgrade to get speed and quality, especially in lower light shooting. Football fields are brightly lit but not from the stands.

    That speed and quality in your lens however allows your edits to 'pull in' the content from the shot to a larger size for finals. At your rate you'll get bored quickly only framing or gifting 8x10's. :l

    Lotsa great photogs here - am sure they will chime in.
     
  3. odie-wan

    odie-wan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    319
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Location:
    Cleveland, Oh
    Thank you sir. What is your opinion on Sony vs Nikon from the aspect of noise at high ISO / low light. That was the first reason I started thinking about switching. I think it is due to the nature of an SLT that you have less light transmitted to the sensor. I have no direct basis for comparison though.
     
  4. HNTFSH

    HNTFSH Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    794
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Ohio
    Please know I don't speak from as deep experience as what many have here on hardware.

    I will tell you we went the Canon route primarily for the L glass and the versatility to put that glass on any Canon body. You can trade up on body's as technology advances but you'll never sell good Canon glass.

    Wife primarily uses the 70/200 2.8 for faster shooting. At 15ish hundred it's a very versatile lens. You can get the 100/400 for about the same but you'll lose a lot (IMO) at 4.5-5.6.

    put the above at 2.8 and you're talking 10K.

    What most people find is that 'kit lenses' work fine for a little while but once you start bumping into limitations you have to upgrade. There's little trade value in a kit lense cause there are so many who bought that way in the beginning.
     
  5. Airdale

    Airdale Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    I'll chime in here because it's been awhile. I have experience with both Canon and Nikon, and am currently shooting Nikon and will likely stay there. It's funny because 95% of the time, without even looking at exif data or reading someone's post, I can tell JUST by the picture whether it was a Canon or Nikon system. I don't think my eye is anything special, but to me, Nikon renders a better, more pleasing image. Please keep in mind an apples to apples comparison. Obviously a Canon PRO body with PRO glass will blow the doors off a prosumer Nikon setup. I'm saying, equivalent systems, I personally am more pleased by what Nikon produces. It's the whole reason I switched BACK to Nikon.

    I began with photography (as a hobby of course) shooting Nikon film. Moved to a Nikon DSLR when the DSLR's were all the craze. Couldn't afford the focal length I wanted with Nikon for doing wildlife and waterfowl/bird photography. Tried some lower end glass and it sucked. Sold all of my Nikon gear for a Canon setup with a 400/5.6L lens. Man, awesome shots of waterfowl. But for family photography, landscapes, portraits...I was sorely disappointed. I felt like every image from Canon I had to bump saturation, clarity, adjust tones and highlights to get the image I wanted. I never had to do that with Nikon. It was always right on the money damn near everytime. With Canon I found I also ALWAYS had to use exposure compensation in nearly every scenario, whereas with Nikon, I rarely had to compensate unless it was the standard compensation scenario (like snow on the ground). I spent a few hundred dollars on a Canon 35mm lens and I was amazed at how horrible it compared to a cheap $100 "kit" lens from Nikon. Eventually I decided that aside from great shots of ducks and geese, Canon didn't give the satisfaction I desired for my budget. So I went back to Nikon and I don't regret it a single day. Sure, I still don't have a long telephoto setup for wildlife because Nikon glass is much more pricier. But I LOVE the photography I do with Nikon.

    A few months ago I got hired by a local professional photographer to do back up work for him with portrait sessions, weddings events etc. He shoots top of the line Nikon and the images I've taken with his equipment just blew my socks away. And the best part was, that because I am so familiar and comfortable with Nikon, I could easily get what I wanted out of the shots without even thinking. I shoot strictly manual mode now and to be honest, I rarely worry about the exposure. I trust the reading from the camera and shoot. I focus on depth of field, manipulation of light and of course the biggest factor: composition. My keeper rate in portraits, landscape and general photography with Nikon is probably 90%. I was no where close with Canon. I'm not knocking Canon or saying they make a bad product. They are equally a competitor with Nikon. For me, personally, I am sticking with Nikon because the images I take make me smile and instead of worrying about metering, white balance issues, exposure compensation etc. I can focus on my subject and get what I'm looking for. It's all personal preference.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  6. HNTFSH

    HNTFSH Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    794
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Ohio
    Cute kid!

    It is all about budget. I scrimped and bought the wife the Canon 5D. She's darn happy. In that range the ratings were hands down Canon. Glass as you say, is very important and not to be cheaper if can be avoided, long term.
     
  7. tosha

    tosha New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Location:
    phoenix, AR
    Amazing pictures. Crisp and clear. Thanks for posting.
     
  8. Duckboy

    Duckboy Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,690
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2000
    Location:
    where I can shoot them quackers, UT
    D300 with 70-200 f2.8

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. odie-wan

    odie-wan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    319
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Location:
    Cleveland, Oh
    Well I've been practicing for duck season at football games and at the bird feeder. I just took these with my D7000 and 70-300mm/4.5-5.6G or 80-200mm/f2.8.

    Still emailing with Nikon on my 80-200 mm/f2.8 lens but maybe you know. VF focus is spotty. Keeper rate shooting football games this year was maybe 50% due to focus. With (-20) on the AF fine tune and stopped to at least 4, the focus can be good.

    I've discovered recently that if I shoot the 80-200 in LiveView it comes out in perfect focus. If I shoot through the VF, the pic is out of focus most times below f4. Same with a 50mm /1.8D but that one was correctable with fine tune. The LiveView thing throws me though. Why?

    Thanks,
    Sean
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014

Share This Page