Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@Theimbellis: Probably because a good part of what this site is, is design concepts and rumors. Maybe you should seek out another site if it bugs you so much.
@Theimbellis: It's not that we chase after the rumors, Theimbellis, it's just that they plop themselves down in front of us so conveniently.
Take, for instance, that rumor currently circulating involving you, the plumber and the donkey. Now, I didn't go looking for it, didn't really even want to know about it--I mean, fergawdzsake, with the pipe wrench?--but there it is, not to be ignored.
I think that the higher ISO on the Nikon looks better and will be more manageable in PP. Lack of noise means nothing if you lose all your detail with it.
Also you will see loss of detail on the Canon on those shots of the cats. Look in the lower left hand corner.
In the end I agree with you overall assessment, although for photos I would prefer the Nikon and the Canon for video.
...and at 3200 they are both noisier still. But the Canon is less noisy in this case.
The Canon is less noisy because of the MASSIVE amount of detail-obliterating noise reduction it has applied. Just look at how soft and seemingly out-of-focus the door edges are in the Canon shot compared to the Nikon shot. I strongly disagree with your call on this one factor, Wilson.
@bosskev: With the slightly higher resolution, it can afford it. If you look at the image itself, it looks more "zoomed in". Scale them together, and you'll get the same detail but the noise will be reduced on the Canon.
@ripfire: I know what you are talking about and respect your thoughts, but I am FAR from convinced that the small difference in apparent scale accounts for this HUGE difference in contrast and sharpness.
I feel like there's a problem with your ISO comparison. Shouldn't the two images be scaled the same? I mean, if you're looking at the Canon image it's like zooming into the image and saying "Oh there, I see the noise". I say this because when it comes to crop/resize/print, those tiny dots will be reduced more so than the other.
Is it me or does the Nikon images seem to have less noise at 3200? Im not hugely knowledgeable in photography but from what I'm seeing the Nikon is a ton sharper than the Canon...
@soopafly: Both were 1/8 at 800, 1/20 at 1600 and 1/40 at 3200, with f3.2 and white balance set at "incandescent". Not works of art, these test shots, but they were consistent across the two cameras.
05/03/09
05/03/09
05/03/09
Take, for instance, that rumor currently circulating involving you, the plumber and the donkey. Now, I didn't go looking for it, didn't really even want to know about it--I mean, fergawdzsake, with the pipe wrench?--but there it is, not to be ignored.
04/30/09
Kidding aside,
I think that the higher ISO on the Nikon looks better and will be more manageable in PP. Lack of noise means nothing if you lose all your detail with it.
Also you will see loss of detail on the Canon on those shots of the cats. Look in the lower left hand corner.
In the end I agree with you overall assessment, although for photos I would prefer the Nikon and the Canon for video.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
Mehbeh I'm wrong, please explain.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
Mind you, where I live, full frame rate is a leisurely 25 fps. Or 50 fields, if we're going to get picky about it.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
I guess the review is thorough, too. But back to the granite, what sealer do you use?
04/30/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
You may find that while the camera says ISO6400 its closer to ISO3200 instead. Not as drastic as that, but you get my point.
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
Before anyone tries to lecture me on being an idiot, I'm JOKING. I still think Canon is better.
04/29/09
04/29/09