Canon Vs Nikon on a budget, in low light, with feelings of guilt.

I have to prepare an equipment portfolio that is capable of natural light photo-journalistic photos with minimum budget. Oh - and whilst I am a half Nikonian, I will attempt not to be biased.

The Canon lens portfolio is faster than Nikon's at the moment. Unless I blue-tack the Canon lenses to a D300 and hope for the best, It's looking like I may have to go with the inferior cameras but better lenses of Canon's arsenal. That is a major sacrifice - especially considering the shot to shot speed, higher ISO and deeper saturation of the D300.


Canon 24mm F1.4 £780, (£600 from the US) - major distortion (but it looks good - very arty farty)

Nikon 28mm F1.4 £1500 second hand - no longer made so it's insanely priced.

(closest match is the 30mm F1.4 Sigma :( ) (£250)

Canon wins.



Canon 85mm F1.2 £1000, (£900 from the US)

Nikon 85mm F1.4 £540 (£520 from the US) - slower lens than the Canon but usable.


About 1/3 of a stop against an extra £500. Nearly a draw. Considering the lens is a capital investment and 1/3 of stop could the difference between a blur and an perfect moment, Canon wins.



Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS £950 (£850 from the US)

Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR £970 (£850 from the US) - clearer sharper than Canon. Also the VR II is more stable than VR and IS

(Nikon lens is black, looks more professional and attracts less attention).

Nikon has the edge (only just). Distortion is about the same on both. Draw


Alternatives:

Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 sub - £300 from the US - works better with DX (cropped) cameras. FX (full frame, only works at 15mm unless you crop the image)

BARGAIN! Compared to the 14-25mm Nikon (which is near perfect in terms of distortion and image quality) this is a no-brainer. It's designed for cropped camera and low budgets. The 14-24 is about a grand!!


I am considering that for photo-journalistic photos with no flash, EVERY extra photon of light makes a difference. This leads to the unfortunate logical conclusion that I may need to buy a Canon. Why? For maximum natural light I need that 85mm F1.2 and the 24mm F1.4. The Nikon 85mm F1.4 may be too slow at a critical moment and the 30mm Sigma replacement is a poor man's fast lens that won't produce the fantastic shots I've seen with the wide Canon 24mm F1.4.

There's more:

Should I buy a cropped camera (DX or 1.6x) or a full frame. I guess the pro response would be to buy a full-frame. They are better built more fully featured and have better image rendition (both saturation and ISO noise). Also, they are the obvious choice to use the maximum capability of the lenses.

The thing is... They are flipping huge. I've been working out my neck and upper back just in-case I have to by an FX (full frame) camera. I need to work fast and quiet and I need to travel light. Whether it's a wedding, a production shoot, a media report or a just a holiday, carrying beasts the size of the 1D and D3 is a mission. And then there's the expense. I mean really, I am on the same budget with my wife as I'm sure many other photographers were, initially. It's the budget of "Tell me how much it is and we see." Which means "If it's more than 1 months salary then you will need to do time in the dog house - 1 month for every extra £500". Insurance and loss is also an issue. If the camera is out and about, light fingers will no doubt see a possible quick £500 from any camera nicked from any photographer. I'm sure many people would turn a blind eye to the source of a £500 1D from the bloke down the pub. I don't want to be a target wherever I go either - not until I can afford to say "here, take it." and go and buy another one the next day while I process the insurance claim. There also another big reason to buy a cropped camera: The matching lenses are cheaper. The Sigma and Tokina examples about are specifically created for cropped camera and the price reflects the budgetary expectations the manufacturers must have of the owners of these cameras.

Full frame therefore may be a no-no as far as I can see. It may be practically or financially feasible in the future. While there are fantastic options like the D300 around, I see no reason to bulk up like a photo-studio on legs. Yes the 5D is full frame but the 40D is just better built with updated features, sensor cleaner and faster fps.

The cropped camera shoot out would then be between the D300 and 40D, the corresponding manufacturers flagship "amateur-pro" cameras. Comparing shots and ISO detail on DPReview and various other sites, the D300 seems to have the edge. Colour saturation on the D300 leads the field and at ISO 1600, the D300 is crystal clear. Have a look: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page30.asp and here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/iso-1.htm

Fortunately, these difference can either be easily corrected/adjusted in Lightroom or similar package and would only be an issue are stupidly huge resolutions. For PC monitors at 72dpi and average 7x5 photos at around 300dpi, 10MB is overkill and hides most grain and noise. The only advantage is the ability to crop the photos. - Even then, Noise ninja and similar software saves the day. Both the 40D and D300 are viable options. Unfortunately, this then makes the choice depend on the lenses. There is only 1 critical advantages with the D300. Higher, cleaner ISO: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page22.asp

What does that mean for the lenses? I think the Nikon crop is 1.5 and the Canon's is 1.6. If we take the 1,6x for now, this means that the 24mm is around 38-40mm on a cropped camera - or practically, a half step back from the subject. The 85mm is effectively a 135mm. The loss is therefore only at the wide end of the range. At the other end, the increase in focal length is not really a "loss" at all. Sigma therefore make the 30mm mentioned above which crops to around 48-50. I say around as were taking picture here, not calculating orbits around planets. No one would notice a 2mm difference in focal length (as long as it's well framed, in focus and correctly exposed... duh). The Tokina (above) fills the gap with a very reasonably priced 11-16mm F2.8, which works as a (roughly) 18-25mm F2.8. That's wide enough for most applications and reasonably fast.

If the 24mm Canon F1.4 is put a crop then it becomes a 40mm lens. There is then no reason to pay the insane high price for the lens if the widest focal length is not going to be used. I'm not going to take into consideration getting a full-frame "later" as that would require a complete change in lens inventory (see below). If the Canon 24mm is not going to be used and the 85mm Nikon is only 1/3 stop slower, everything changes. The D300 give pretty clean ISO 3200 shots and very usable ISO 6400 shots - but that's a whole stop higher isn't it? That means it should possible to use the Tokina at 16mm F2.8 in natural light at ISO 6400 at the same shutter speed as the Canon 24mm 1.4 at ISO 1600. The Nikon 85mm F1.4 then becomes more usable because of the high ISO. I don't think F1.2 DOF is that different from F1.4 - not different enough to be necessary.

Explanation: 1600 is 2 stops lower than 6400 (6400 absorbs four times more light). F1.4 is 2 stops brighter than F2.8. Narrowing the F1.4 aperture to F2.8 reduce the light by four times. But if the ISO is changed to 6400 to increase the light by four times, you get the same exposure at the same shutter speed. The only difference would be that the DOF would not be as shallow (or arty farty) as the F1.4 lens. This, I guess, is the price of cropped, budget cameras. Go here (http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm) to bore yourself with fstop information.

A possible budget Nikon inventory could then be (using 1.5 crop):

Tokina 11-16mm (17-24mm) F2.8 £300

Sigma 30mm (45mm) F1.4 £250

Nikon 85mm (128mm) F1.4 £540

Camera: Nikon D300 £900

Total: £1960

(£2960 with the Nikon 70-200mm [100-300mm with the crop])


Alternatively, the ultimate natural light, low weight, low budget, practical, budgetary setup would be to utilise the full focal length of all the lenses by using a full frame camera - and possibly include a fast telephoto lens. The smallest cheapest and lightest is of course the 5D. It seems are shame to buy old technology as the cropped D300 obliterates the 5D at higher ISO's (see links above). However, full frame is full frame. The kit could then be:

Canon 24mm F1.4 £780

Canon 85mm F1.2 £1000

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS £950

Camera: Canon 5D £1100

Total: £3830

The thing is, without the 70-200, it comes to £2880!!! - That's only around £800 more than the budget option above. The other advantage is that the reason to by Canon and Nikon camera is so that Canon and Nikon lenses can be used. The mashup above made with Sigma and Tokina lenses defies this point. I'm sure the Sigma and Tokina lenses are fantastic but as far as I know, Canon and Nikon have not authorised anyone else to make lenses for them. I have an 18-200 Nikon VR and I've looked at other 18-200 lenses by other manufacturers for my Nikon. The difference in build quality, distortion, image clarity is not insignificant. Some would argue that the image is the image and technical differences don't matter as long as you get the shot. Fine, I agree. The technically superior D300 would be worth it anyway.

The extra £800 cost then is for shallower depth of focus and the ability to use lower ISO (because the wider 24mm lens is faster). This is extremely significant. Noise, sharpness and detail all deteriorate as ISO increases and that extra DOF can often be the make or break difference between what is perceived as a romantic portrait or a holiday snap. I think my thought on this is that if DOF, image control and faster shutter speed are not a priority then why go SLR in the first place? A state of the art compact can do ISO 1600 these days. So generally, shallow DOF is king for that artistic flair. Or at least the option of shallow DOF.

Practically, on the D300, the Sigma 30mm still gives good F1.4 DOF at a very reasonable cost, albeit at an effective 45 to 50mm (depending on crop). That means a step or two back to get the same picture with the same DOF (and then maybe crop in post). The D300 give the other advantages of AutoISO (don't knock it till you've tried it), better saturation and virtually the same sharpness and image quality as the D3!! That's quite a sacrifice. Even the D200 was a generation beyond the 5D and the D300 blows the D200 back to the camera stone age. Even the famous (or infamous to some) Ken Rockwell calls the D300 the "world's best amateur camera". http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm.

Oh man. This is like a love triangle in an indian film. My brain wants the Canon lenses but my heart is posing for the D300. I guess the overriding logic is that it makes no sense to buy older technology. Apart from that DX (and other cropped digital formats) are the formats of the future. The full-frame (FX) format is a hang-over from 35mm that allows the full use of FX format lenses. There are then 2 more avenues to explore. The first is the price for an alternative D300 kit with minimum wide, fast lenses and the other is a 40D kit with the Canon 24mm and 85mm lenses. The 40D is the best cropped sensor option that will use the canon lenses.

First the maximum lens possibility (with a reasonable budget) for the D300. An alternative wide angle is the

Sigma 20mm (30mm) F1.8 £350

- It's not as fast but the D300 makes up for it. There is a slight DOF loss over the 30mm F1.4

Nikon 85mm (128mm) F1.4 £540

Camera: Nikon D300 £900

Total: £1790

(or £1690 with the Sigma 30mm (45mm))

This kit sacrifices DOF for width (30mm over 39mm below). It gains, Adaptive Dynamic Range, Saturation, ISO speed, Auto ISO and lots more.


Next the same for the 40D (1.6x crop):

Canon 24mm (39mm) F1.4 £780

Canon 85mm (136mm) F1.2 £1000

Camera: Canon 40D £550

Total: £2330

The loss here is the full frame feature of the 5D which would increase the lenses back to a wide-angle 24mm and a 85mm portrait.

Going back to where I started, the main objective is to be able to use the kit at reasonably high shutter speed in natural, or low light environments, and to do that on a pretty tight budget. The cheapest option so far, then is the £1800 D300 kit with the Sigma 20mm and Nikon 85mm lenses. These are, however, a little slower than the Canon lenses but come with a superior Camera.

It is also good photography to buy lenses and use a camera to record the image from the lens. It is the lens after all that creates the photo and the camera just records it. With that in mind, the Canon 24mm and 85mm lenses are the best option. To explain this, it's easier to actually look at the DOF in the images.

Compare the 85mm F1.2 here with the Nikon 85mm F1.4 here.

Not much in it. I guess it's personal preference but to me, the Canon result just seems to have that extra bit of depth and character.

Now look at the Sigma 20mm F1.8 here. And the Canon 24mm F1.4 here.

This time, to me at least, there is a significant difference. Somehow the extra DOF or vignetting or difference in distortion create a certain atmosphere that the Sigma seems to lack. This is where the real decision making comes in.

My first choice, based on the lenses would then be to get the Canon lenses and I would have to choose a 40D or 5D depending on budget £2330 or £2880.

Personally I feel the full frame is worth the extra £500 odd pounds. It seems as if the final decision is comes down to the "atmosphere" created in the images by the lense. Yet this sounds so wishy washy. I just can't get the niggling feeling out of my system that I'm betraying the Nikonians if I do that... I may still buy the D300 out of loyalty and stubbornness. Nikon cameras rule! There, I've said it...

I guess I will probably have to buy the 5D for the low-light applications I am about to attempt but I think I will end up selling the whole lot as soon as Nikon get they're act together with lenses.
___________________________________________

Notes:

I am aware that the ultimate solution here is the Leica M8 and M series lenses but I feel the Leica goes beyond budgetary restrictions for camera cost (discussed above).


If you feel any of the above technical information is wrong, please let me know.