Camera Upgrade

P

PolygonGTC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
1,791
I currently have a Nikon D3000. I've been pretty happy with it, but one thing that has always bugged me is the fact that I can see grain. Even in well lit outdoor shoots you can see it in the blues of the sky and I assume it's a deficiency with the image sensor. I've got the upgrade bug and I was looking at the Canon T3i. I don't know if it's a big enough upgrade or if I will still be seeing grain in the sky in well lit shots. I was also looking at the T4i and I'm not sure which to get.

Is the digic 5 sensor and better than the 4? I'm not very concerned with video. My priority is taking stills. I like that the T4i can take 5 shots per second over 3.7. The built in HDR is nice as well. Also, will the higher ISO make enough of a difference. With being able to get the T3i for $500 right now, would the T4i be worth the extra money?
 
Can you upload a few photos of the grain? The D3x00 cameras are fantastic cameras, in fact, i've seen some photos with those cameras that rival top tier cameras. I'm not sure getting a T4i or similar would be an "upgrade", as it's more of a lateral shift IMO. I'd consider moving up to a D90 and use the same lenses you have now, that would be a substantial upgrade for you. You can get a D90 body nowadays no problem for $500. It's only downfall is video cant be compared with that of canon's newer cameras, but still are your priority.
 
If you've got a Nikon D3000, why would you switch to Canon? Do you not have Nikon lenses, or are you one of those guys that just uses the kit lens and that's it? If you're that kind of shooter and you absolutely must switch systems, I would say you should look into the various mirrorless cameras. The Panasonic and Olympus m4/3 systems are fantastic...I find myself continually lusting after either an Olympus OM-D or Panny GH3.

Canon and Nikon are pretty much equivalent in terms of quality, all of the DSLR companies are basically using the same Sony sensors these days anyway. If you're used to the way Nikon handles, I don't see a reason to switch to another system.
 
Another question is.. are you shooting in jpeg mode or RAW mode?

RAW mode will get you better image quality. You will still have better image quality if you take RAW and then convert to jpeg with a computer.

What lens(es) are you using? Are you using a lens hood?

Are you using a filter or a teleconvertor? Either one will tend to degrade image quality.

What ISO are you using and seeing grain in sky pictures? How far are you zooming in in order to see the grain? Pexel peeping in jpeg pictures is pointless as it is a lossy compression.

If you are bent on switching systems, have you thought about Pentax? In-body image stabilization and high-iso capability are pretty sweet.
 
PolygonGTC said:
I currently have a Nikon D3000. I've been pretty happy with it, but one thing that has always bugged me is the fact that I can see grain. Even in well lit outdoor shoots you can see it in the blues of the sky and I assume it's a deficiency with the image sensor. I've got the upgrade bug and I was looking at the Canon T3i. I don't know if it's a big enough upgrade or if I will still be seeing grain in the sky in well lit shots. I was also looking at the T4i and I'm not sure which to get.

Is the digic 5 sensor and better than the 4? I'm not very concerned with video. My priority is taking stills. I like that the T4i can take 5 shots per second over 3.7. The built in HDR is nice as well. Also, will the higher ISO make enough of a difference. With being able to get the T3i for $500 right now, would the T4i be worth the extra money?
Click to expand...

The blue channel on all cameras is the tricky one. It has to do with the frequency of light (if you look at a light spectrum). However, I have to ask about what you consider to be a problem. If you can only notice it at 100+% and you're just diving in and pixel peeping, I wouldn't worry about it. At web size it won't matter, after it's been resized it probably won't matter, and if you use any decent denoise plugin/program it will more than likely disappear.

Noise as it were is always going to be present to some degree, and I'm only bringing this up to ensure that you're not just throwing your money away on something that is normal or at least within standard deviation. (Manufacturers refer to the amount of noise that an image sensor produces as "signal to noise ratio" or SNR. Unfortunately looking up what it is for your camera probably won't matter, as the number is usually puffed up).

Moving to the T3i would be mostly a lateral move. The T4i would be a slight upgrade, but why move to Canon? Stick with Nikon unless there is some compelling reason why you want to move. It would make more sense to buy a D5100, D7000, or D600 than it would be to switch systems.


Daggah said:
If you've got a Nikon D3000, why would you switch to Canon? Do you not have Nikon lenses, or are you one of those guys that just uses the kit lens and that's it? If you're that kind of shooter and you absolutely must switch systems, I would say you should look into the various mirrorless cameras. The Panasonic and Olympus m4/3 systems are fantastic...I find myself continually lusting after either an Olympus OM-D or Panny GH3.
Click to expand...

To reiterate: I have to agree about switching systems. I am a Canon guy, but on balance, really it's preference. Unless there is something compelling you that you 'must' have by moving to Canon, it's probably a better idea just to stick to Nikon.

Whether you take Daggah's suggestion about moving to mirrorless is up to you and what you want your camera to do, and of course cost. Personally, if I was going to go that route, I would go for the Fuji X-Pro-1, as I think it's by far the best outside of course the legendary Leica M. But so long as there is a difference in sensor size, speed, and auto-focus, I personally am going to stick to dSLRs.


Daggah said:
Canon and Nikon are pretty much equivalent in terms of quality, all of the DSLR companies are basically using the same Sony sensors these days anyway. If you're used to the way Nikon handles, I don't see a reason to switch to another system.
Click to expand...

Not quite accurate, Canon develops all of their sensor technology in house. They are the largest manufacturer of image sensors in general... literally and figuratively (they are responsible for image sensors placed into many telescope installations).
 
Last edited:
I didn't know that about Canon, but for the most part it doesn't really change my overall point. I think a lot of us (especially those of us who are technically minded here) probably get hung up on the finer points between different cameras, but for the most part, a crop sensor 2012 model DSLR is going to take the same quality picture no matter who the manufacturer is. Lenses are another story though, heh.

Not trying to argue with you btw, I just feel like these days everyone obsesses so much over camera reviews and various specs. IMHO, the differences these days are more in the way the cameras handle and the feature sets they provide. And the lens systems they access.
 
Daggah said:
I didn't know that about Canon, but for the most part it doesn't really change my overall point. I think a lot of us (especially those of us who are technically minded here) probably get hung up on the finer points between different cameras, but for the most part, a crop sensor 2012 model DSLR is going to take the same quality picture no matter who the manufacturer is. Lenses are another story though, heh.

Not trying to argue with you btw, I just feel like these days everyone obsesses so much over camera reviews and various specs. IMHO, the differences these days are more in the way the cameras handle and the feature sets they provide. And the lens systems they access.
Click to expand...

The Pentax K-01, K-30, K5-II, and K5-IIs are pretty much going to grab more detail than any other 16MP APS-C sensor camera by other brands.

The K-01 and K-30 have less AA filteration than the K-5, which makes for more detail showing up. The K5-IIs doesn't even have an AA filter, which makes it able to grab even more detail.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Pentax-K5-II-Showing-the-competition-how-it-s-done

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-k-5-ii-1-says-dxomark.html
 
Daggah said:
I didn't know that about Canon, but for the most part it doesn't really change my overall point. I think a lot of us (especially those of us who are technically minded here) probably get hung up on the finer points between different cameras, but for the most part, a crop sensor 2012 model DSLR is going to take the same quality picture no matter who the manufacturer is. Lenses are another story though, heh.

Not trying to argue with you btw, I just feel like these days everyone obsesses so much over camera reviews and various specs. IMHO, the differences these days are more in the way the cameras handle and the feature sets they provide. And the lens systems they access.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however, to say that canon and nikon produces the same quality picture is inaccurate. The definitely both produce very high quality pictures, but its not the "same" per se. Nikon's pictures tend to be more contrasty with better and darker blacks, while canon tends to me more flat (which by no mean is a bad thing, in fact, I'm envious at times). I'm fortunate enough that I love contrast, so Nikon works well for me.

But you are correct, unless you REALLY want that 1% difference in photo "style" to matter, the brands don't matter much - I will say this though, canon is definitely better "value", or rather, they do have better value solutions as opposed to nikon. Nikon has quite a substantial gap between semi-pro and pro.
 
My D300S has some grain in the sky also. When I bought it I was aware of that, but felt it was better than the Canon alternative of having the details smoothed out across the scene (atleast in 2009, I'm not sure what Canon is doing now).

If needed, I can go in and selectively denoise the sky, and retain sharpness everywhere else.
 
Daggah said:
I didn't know that about Canon, but for the most part it doesn't really change my overall point. I think a lot of us (especially those of us who are technically minded here) probably get hung up on the finer points between different cameras, but for the most part, a crop sensor 2012 model DSLR is going to take the same quality picture no matter who the manufacturer is. Lenses are another story though, heh.

Not trying to argue with you btw, I just feel like these days everyone obsesses so much over camera reviews and various specs. IMHO, the differences these days are more in the way the cameras handle and the feature sets they provide. And the lens systems they access.
Click to expand...

Well, read the rest of my post. I don't feel there is much of a point in switching systems if you're already invested in one. Competition is fierce between Nikon & Canon, which more or less means that the consumer wins. I still feel however that buying a Nikon or a Canon makes the most amount of sense however versus some other brand, mostly because of wider distribution, overall cheaper cost due to much larger used markets, and especially with Canon: great customer service/repairs (I'm not sure what dealing with Nikon is like, as I haven't owned a Nikon product).

This will hopefully change, as more competition is always a good thing. The Sony Alpha series in general shows promise and the idea of having auto-focusing Zeiss lenses is an intriguing concept, but I don't think they're quite there yet. It's also hard to get Sony stuff used, so expect to pay full price on everything, and finally, if you do want to sell something, it's harder as there isn't as large of a market for it. Still, I give them credit for being very aggressive with their features list and pushing the prices on their products lower. Maybe in another 1-2 generations they will be worth more consideration.

Anyway, there is no "best solution for everyone." This is another case of buy what you prefer.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
....
and especially with Canon: great customer service/repairs (I'm not sure what dealing with Nikon is like, as I haven't owned a Nikon product).

....
Click to expand...

Nikon USA's service is pretty poor right now. Their turn around time is in the multiple weeks, and repair prices have gone up.

See this article from Roger over at Lensrentals. His comments under "Factory Service, Uhm, Service" mirror what I've been reading from people over at the Fredmiranda forums who have recently gotten work done at the service centers.

If I was just buying a camera and was considering Nikon over Canon, it would be a very difficult choice. Nikon has amazing senors right now, and Canon has great service and a higher supply in the used market.
 
Last edited:
MN Scout said:
Nikon's service is pretty poor right now. Their turn around time is in the multiple weeks, and repair prices have gone up.

See this article from Roger over at Lensrentals. His comments under "Factory Service, Uhm, Service" mirror what I've been reading from people over at the Fredmiranda forums who have recently gotten work done at the service centers.

If I was just buying a camera and was considering Nikon over Canon, it would be a very difficult choice. Nikon has amazing senors right now, and Canon has great service and a higher supply in the used market.
Click to expand...
Nikon's service is indeed a little bit sketchy as of late. Some of their practices are simply laughable, but it's not really Nikon per se, it's Nikon USA that's to blame here. I've only had to deal with them once a few years ago when I dropped my 14-24 lens, and at that point I didn't have any problems with Nikon's service. They did a fantastic job that time.

However, should anything happen to any my gear now, I would hand it over to http://nikoncamerarepair.com/ instead. Those guys are being praised left and right on every Nikon forum i frequent, so they must be doing something right.
 
Yep northrop you are most certainly right, it is mostly Nikon USA. Though Nikon should be slapping silly Nikon USA for poor service and the decision to stop selling parts.

Right now I've been considering Sony's RX100 or the D5200 (whenever it comes to the USA) for a hiking camera. So Nikon is still on my list, just second at the moment.
 
Ha, well... RX100 and D5200 are a bit two different animals, not sure if comparing the two is fair. Why not anything from what Fuji has to offer?
 
northrop said:
Ha, well... RX100 and D5200 are a bit two different animals, not sure if comparing the two is fair. Why not anything from what Fuji has to offer?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to decide on the pure image quality and the tolerance to focus / softness that I will accept and compromise on. These two are most interesting to me at the moment. The RX100 should be very good, as long as I get one that doesn't have a decentered lens. The D5200 I could use my current 16-85mm on, and that is all I'd take. My 16-85 should match up well to the 24mp. The RX100 has a bunch of unknowns and a bit of risk involved in buying it (my opinion), and the 5200 appears to be a very straightforward purchase. Need to decide by May.

I have had very good success with Fuji in the past, so I should look at their offerings closer. The XF1 is a very stylish P&S :D.

My D300S is just a bit to heavy.... maybe I need to just get stronger :eek:
 
^Maybe ;) I got my D800 armed to the teeth with brackets and some heavy /2.8 glass, and the weight doesn't really bother me one bit. And this is coming from a 150lbs guy, who can't bench press more than half his weight :eek:

XF1 stylish? Ugh.. no :D I was thinking more along the lines of X-pro1, X-e1 or X100, heck... maybe even X10, but I think you already knew that ;) In your situation, the X-pro and X-e are in a bit of a disadvantage due to additional need for glass. You and I both know, that once you pick up something with interchangeable glass... you got to buy more stuff for it, and that's just additional expense which you don't need ;) Leica M would be nice, or Sony rx1 for that matter, but that's way out of the price range.

Dunno, I don't really have any sound advice for you.
 
I dunno, I guess I've never let the weight of my camera bother me... especially after seeing what comes out the other end. But I know many people have complained about the weight.

I would go for the Fuji X-Pro 1. If I had the cash to invest in a second system, that would be the one. I'd buy it with the 23mm lens (the 35mm equivalent one, this supposedly isn't coming out until next year, but I think it's worth the wait), and probably just stick with that for a long time, until scrapping together enough cash to buy some other primes. There are zooms on the system as well, but I personally don't see the point. Pick a preferred prime and walk around.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I normally don't let the weight bother me either. I plan on hiking 20+ miles a day, so the weights starts to add up after a bit.

Back to the main subject of "noise in the sky". I pulled up 2 of my photos from August. At 100% viewing I don't see the noise. At 200% it starts to be noticeable. Playing around in Capture NX2 it is clear that the level of Sharpness you have set in your Picture Control settings is coming into play. The following pictures were at a setting of 6 (If I change it to the default Standard profile it is 3).

Full files: 5MB each. Picture 1, Picture 2
Note: File 1 has been processed and had the foreground boosted by 2 stops, so ignore the noise in the foreground. File 2 has only been warmed up.

I'd call this very good. Maybe FX can do slightly better? If I had a large print that was critical I might go and apply a selective noise reduction to the sky in Capture NX2 of 10,5.

Both pictures taken with the Rokinon 8mm fisheye.
 
MN Scout said:
Yeah I normally don't let the weight bother me either. I plan on hiking 20+ miles a day, so the weights starts to add up after a bit.

Back to the main subject of "noise in the sky". I pulled up 2 of my photos from August. At 100% viewing I don't see the noise. At 200% it starts to be noticeable. Playing around in Capture NX2 it is clear that the level of Sharpness you have set in your Picture Control settings is coming into play. The following pictures were at a setting of 6 (If I change it to the default Standard profile it is 3).

Full files: 5MB each. Picture 1, Picture 2
Note: File 1 has been processed and had the foreground boosted by 2 stops, so ignore the noise in the foreground. File 2 has only been warmed up.

I'd call this very good. Maybe FX can do slightly better? If I had a large print that was critical I might go and apply a selective noise reduction to the sky in Capture NX2 of 10,5.

Both pictures taken with the Rokinon 8mm fisheye.
Click to expand...

The OP hasn't replied once. Not sure if he/she is monitoring the thread or not, but considering a lot of relevant information has been going out, seems odd not to have by now.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The OP hasn't replied once. Not sure if he/she is monitoring the thread or not, but considering a lot of relevant information has been going out, seems odd not to have by now.
Click to expand...

It happens. Figured since I was looking at the pictures, I'd post up some samples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top