Canon vs. Nikon - Intro DSLR

[CJones]

I currently have a Canon EOS Rebel film camera. I used to really burn through film with it, but after using point-and-shoot digitals, I really like the idea of being able to experiment and keep the winners afterwards rather than paying for film developing and forgetting what I was trying on certain pictures.

I work with a guy that is starting a professional photography business and he sings the praises of Nikon, but he admits that Canon is a good camera and agrees that Canon users probably sing their praises as much as he does for Nikon.

Looking online, the 10MP range of digital SLRs are starting to come within budget reach. Are there any big pros/cons for each of these lines? I *think* I can use my lenses with the digital EOS Rebel, but I'm not sure. I only have two and neither are anything special, so they aren't strong enough to lean more towards Canon.

Anyone have any info worth swaying my vote?

 

[wabower]

My EE patent-lawyer friend who knows everything electronic and is an avid photographer said to get the Canon D series (up to 40 now I think)

We did and it's great. When you push the button it takes the picture, no waiting around for the camera to think about it. I really like the solid bank-vault sound the shutter makes, just like the old days. The big SLR's are a bit bulky, so a small point-and-shoot is handy for the times that lugging is too much work. I still have a closet full of old Nikon stuff, but none of it works with the new a/f cameras, and now all the lenses are stabilized.

I currently have a Canon EOS Rebel film camera. I used to really burn through film with it, but after using point-and-shoot digitals, I really like the idea of being able to experiment and keep the winners afterwards rather than paying for film developing and forgetting what I was trying on certain pictures.

I work with a guy that is starting a professional photography business and he sings the praises of Nikon, but he admits that Canon is a good camera and agrees that Canon users probably sing their praises as much as he does for Nikon.

Looking online, the 10MP range of digital SLRs are starting to come within budget reach. Are there any big pros/cons for each of these lines? I *think* I can use my lenses with the digital EOS Rebel, but I'm not sure. I only have two and neither are anything special, so they aren't strong enough to lean more towards Canon.

Anyone have any info worth swaying my vote?

 

[TMetzinger]

I've used both Canon (EOS30D) and Nikon (D60). They're both great, and so much better than point/shoot digitals that there's just no comparison - it really is a whole different class of camera.

I don't know about lenses from your film SLR, but unless they're a large investment I wouldn't let them sway your decision. I would just rent/borrow one of each and see which you like better.

 

[Henning]

I currently have a Canon EOS Rebel film camera. I used to really burn through film with it, but after using point-and-shoot digitals, I really like the idea of being able to experiment and keep the winners afterwards rather than paying for film developing and forgetting what I was trying on certain pictures.

I work with a guy that is starting a professional photography business and he sings the praises of Nikon, but he admits that Canon is a good camera and agrees that Canon users probably sing their praises as much as he does for Nikon.

Looking online, the 10MP range of digital SLRs are starting to come within budget reach. Are there any big pros/cons for each of these lines? I *think* I can use my lenses with the digital EOS Rebel, but I'm not sure. I only have two and neither are anything special, so they aren't strong enough to lean more towards Canon.

Anyone have any info worth swaying my vote?

Well, just as with film cameras, digitals as well are all about the lens.

Both Nikon and Canon make excellent lenses at about the same price point, and there are some high quality aftermarket manufacturers like Sigma who also make very excellent lenses in both mounts. Back in the days of manual focus, there was a great difference between the two, that was they spun opposite directions to near & infinity. Since most everything is AF no, not so big of a deal.

One other thing to consider is options. Good camera bodies are not nearly as expensive as the lens sets that go with them. With the Canon, you will always be limited to Canons bodies and firmware. With Nikon lenses, you have Nikon, Fuji and Kodak bodies available as they all use the Nikon F mount. These are the top 3. I currently use a Fuji S2Pro body which is 12.2mp, though I'm considering getting one of the later Kodak bodies with 16.7mp. I can mix and match any of the bodies with my F mount lenses.

If you are happy with the Canon line of products, and really, there's nothing to be particularly unhappy with them about, you would not be going wrong to go with them. I would go more than 10mp. Thing is, you can always turn the resolution down to save space, but when those really good shots come up, it's nice to be able to hit them hard and tight. My S2Pro allows me to print a 24x30 which holds together rivaling if not exceeding a print shot on a Hasselblad. With the 16.7mp body, I'm hoping to be able to print 30x40 at 4x5 quality.

 

[Henning]

I still have a closet full of old Nikon stuff, but none of it works with the new a/f cameras, and now all the lenses are stabilized.

Hmmm, what old Nikon stuff you have? You have a 300 or 400 2.8 EDIF back there perchance?

 

[Everskyward]

I went to the store intending to buy a Canon XTi and I ended up with an Olympus E-510. I have owned Olympus film cameras in the past and I liked the way it felt in my hands. The Canon seemed too bulky. I thought about the Nikon but my friend who went camera-shopping with me owns a Nikon and we couldn't have the same thing, could we?

 

[wanttaja]

I was in a simular situation a year or so ago, had a film Rebel with several Canon lenses and a desire to switch to a digital SLR.

Went with the Canon Rebel XTI. Lenses are fully compatible, however, their effective focal length increases by about 50% (e.g., a "55 mm" lens becomes the equivalent of a ~85 mm) since the CCD is smaller than the 35 mm film frame. Autofocus, etc. all work the same.

I'll echo what another poster said... the difference between a (nearly professional-grade DSLR and the common fixed-lens point-and-shoot models is amazing. You aim through the viewfinder, and WYSIWYG...instead of having to squint at a sun-drenched LCD or put up with a viewfinder that doesn't match what the camera actually takes. You can leave the camera turned on, and if something interesting arises, you can lift it up and just fire...no warm-up time from the power-saving mode. Battery life is great...I shot about 400 images at Oshkosh last year before having to switch the battery (all daylight, but still...).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[ScottM]

I was looking at this very same thing about a year ago. I am sure the thread is still around on it too.

I looked at the Cannon and Nikon. A very good friend who is a pro-photographer and has used Nikon his whole adult life stated that the Cannon and Nikon DSLRs are pretty close to the same thing with maybe Cannon having a few more features.

Then I know another photographer and he said the same thing. Yet I noticed that both of them were shooting Nikon and I asked them both why. They told me it was because of the lenses. They liked the Nikon optics just that much.

I ended up with a Nikon D-80 body and the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm AF Lens

 

[ScottM]

I was looking at this very same thing about a year ago. I am sure the thread is still around on it too.

Here it is http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16201

Another thread on lenses
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1243

 

[Henning]

I was looking at this very same thing about a year ago. I am sure the thread is still around on it too.

I looked at the Cannon and Nikon. A very good friend who is a pro-photographer and has used Nikon his whole adult life stated that the Cannon and Nikon DSLRs are pretty close to the same thing with maybe Cannon having a few more features.

Then I know another photographer and he said the same thing. Yet I noticed that both of them were shooting Nikon and I asked them both why. They told me it was because of the lenses. They liked the Nikon optics just that much.

I ended up with a Nikon D-80 body and the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm AF Lens

They also already owned the Nikkor lenses probably. There are a couple Nikkor/Nikon lenses that cant be beat for quality, and if you shoot any high level portrait or fashion work you have to have one or both, the 105/f2.5 and 300/f2.8 ED/IF lenses. Sports and nature you have the 400/f2.8 and 600/f4 that pretty much hold an edge up on Canon's comparable lenses. There is also the 50/f1.2 that is an incredibly bright lens.

Where Nikon has the main technical edge as I see it is in their lens coatings.

For aftermarket lenses, the higher end Sigmas have proven themselves to me.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, just as with film cameras, digitals as well are all about the lens.

<SNIP>


If you are happy with the Canon line of products, and really, there's nothing to be particularly unhappy with them about, you would not be going wrong to go with them. I would go more than 10mp. Thing is, you can always turn the resolution down to save space, but when those really good shots come up, it's nice to be able to hit them hard and tight. My S2Pro allows me to print a 24x30 which holds together rivaling if not exceeding a print shot on a Hasselblad. With the 16.7mp body, I'm hoping to be able to print 30x40 at 4x5 quality.

My knowledge of digital cameras is dated (5 or 6 years old now) and somewhat "specialized" since we used cooled back-illuminated* CCDs on microscopes. We used a variety of chip sizes and pixel count- the ones with higher pixel count also needed more light (like a slower film).

What ASA or ISO speed equivelant is 10 mP? 16.7 mp?
Can you bin them (add the signal from adjacent pixels together) to get a brighter image (at a lower resolution) to improve low light capability? Are these pixel counts CMOS detectors or CCDs? Are the pixel counts RGB (ie for a 10 mp cameras actually 30 mp or whatever the ratio is for the different colors) or counted as if the camera were just monochrome?

CMOS detectors were just coming out when I got away from this field- supposedly they could have individual exposures for each pixel so bright areas don't saturate and darker areas are exposed properly- do expensive cameras do this now?


*Back-illuminated means the CCD chip was mounted "backwards" to increase the chance of a photon hitting a pixel well instead of the CCD gate structure. In order for this to work, the silicon substrate is etched with acid- done incorrectly, you have a ruined CCD chip. By doing this, 85-90% of the photons were detected at peak wavelength compared to 50-65% front-illuminated

 

[Henning]

My knowledge of digital cameras is dated (5 or 6 years old now) and somewhat "specialized" since we used cooled back-illuminated* CCDs on microscopes. We used a variety of chip sizes and pixel count- the ones with higher pixel count also needed more light (like a slower film).

What ASA or ISO speed equivelant is 10 mP? 16.7 mp?
Can you bin them (add the signal from adjacent pixels together) to get a brighter image (at a lower resolution) to improve low light capability? Are these pixel counts CMOS detectors or CCDs? Are the pixel counts RGB (ie for a 10 mp cameras actually 30 mp or whatever the ratio is for the different colors) or counted as if the camera were just monochrome?

CMOS detectors were just coming out when I got away from this field- supposedly they could have individual exposures for each pixel so bright areas don't saturate and darker areas are exposed properly- do expensive cameras do this now?


*Back-illuminated means the CCD chip was mounted "backwards" to increase the chance of a photon hitting a pixel well instead of the CCD gate structure. In order for this to work, the silicon substrate is etched with acid- done incorrectly, you have a ruined CCD chip. by doing this, 85-90% of the photons were detected at peak wavelength compared to 50-65% front-illuminated

All very good questions which I can't really answer. I have variable ISO, I have always wondered how it works. I know what it means, and I know how you vary it in film emulsion, but electronically, I'm ignorant. What appears with a higher ISO/ASA is I get more noise very similar to getting more grain in films of higher ratings. I do believe they are CCD units.

As for adjusted exposures per pixel, I don't think we're quite there yet. There are exposure averaging modes, but I haven't seen anything resembling 7 zone or 2.5 stop compression leveling. Not to say it doesn't exist, I'm not in the photo industry anymore so I don't follow this stuff. If you are looking for answers as to the cutting edge of the technology in the commercial photo industry, I suggest you look at what Sinar has available and research that.

 

[jmaynard]

I went to the store intending to buy a Canon XTi and I ended up with an Olympus E-510. I have owned Olympus film cameras in the past and I liked the way it felt in my hands.

I'm a long-term Olympus OM-series owner. Those cameras were masterpieces of ergonomic design, and proved that you don't have to carry around a brick to get a full system camera with magnificent optics.

The E-410/510 are to the DSLR world what the OM-1 was to the film SLR world. I didn't like any of the DSLRs until I saw the E-410, because they all seem to have forgotten the lesson of the OM-1. (Yes, this includes the earlier Olympus E-series.)

Do not buy a camera until you've gone to the store and held it in your hands. A camera that's uncomfortable to hold and operate will not make good pictures for you.

 

[silver-eagle]

I'm probably not the right person to be asking about NIKON cameras. I started with a COOLPIX 950 a few years ago. I found it to be as easy to use or as hard to use as you wanted. Run it in full auto or set any setting you wanted (or combination of settings).
The next was a COOLPIX 5700. A bit faster camera but still not an SLR. Better zoom than the 950 and a bunch more options.
The latest is a D300 and 4 separate lenses. Now this is a true SLR. It takes great pictures despite the person on the shutterbutton. All of my lenses are autofocus and stabilized. A couple of switches and you're all manual (or any combination you want). The pix are 12M and can blow up to about 48" by 40" with little resolution loss. As with the COOLPIX, it is as auto point and shoot or as manual as you'd like.
Diehard NIKON owner.

 

[wsuffa]

I like my Canon digital Rebel (one of the earlier ones). The "standard" Canon film lenses work just fine on it... I have several Canon brand lenses, and a couple of "non-Canon-brand" lenses that work fine, too. I use them interchangebly between the Digital Rebel and my EOS-3 flim camera. The EOS usually has B&W film in it - I still love film for B&W work.

NOTE, however, that the Canon Digital Rebel lenses will NOT work on the flim cameras. The digital-only lenses stick further back into the body and interfere with the mirror on the film cameras. So the lens interchangability is one-way (I bought body-only on the Digital Rebel, so it's a non-issue for me).

FWIW, when I got my digital, there were only a couple of features that differed between the digital rebel and the full-bore digital camera. I chose the cost savings figuring that the digital units would add resolution and features with time. I was right....

 

[Rob Schaffer]

I have had the Canon XT digital (6mp) and I now have the XTi, and I really love the XTi in comparison. The speed is great, and the optics are very nice. File size remains managable even when shooting on Superfine JPEG, and RAW format is also available if you are into post-processing.

Lenses you have will mount to the Canon Digital series bodies as well, but you will have a conversion of the focal length due to the sensor. I think the factor is 1.4 or 1.6, can't recall at the moment. So your 100mm focal length on the 35mm is now 140 or 160mm. (Nikon and Canon have different values too I think)

The EF-S lenses you cannot use on a 35MM body or even some of the other Canon Bodies, like the 20D for example. I have the battery grip as well, so I can have 2x batteries, and have another shutter button on the grip. a 25-135mm, 70-300mm, and my favorite 10-22mm Superwide complete my lens set.

Check out BH Photo in New York for great prices and instock items. Best place to shop in my opinion. For a little more, the 30D's are nice, and now the 40D just came out. Lots of MP available there, but also a heavier body.

 

[kevin47881]

Debbie went through this process earlier this year. She spoke with droves of folks and looked at both brands. At the end of the day quality of each was a draw. She ended up buying a Nikon D40 primarily due to the larger LCD size.

I have zero opinion as I'm a PHD camera kind of guy (push here dummy )

 

[mantakos]

What ASA or ISO speed equivelant is 10 mP? 16.7 mp?

These are "orthogonal", they have nothing to do with each other. Digital sensors have variable ASA, you dial one in. As you go to faster "speeds" the signal is amplified, making the sensor more sensitive to light, much like faster film is more sensitive to light. With film, the downside to higher speeds is grain. With digital, the side effect of amplification is increased digital "noise" (a colored "speckle" pattern imposed on the image). So you have a similar trade-off between speed and image quality as you had for film.

Most DSLRs run from 100-1600, some offer 50 and 3200 as well. Note that as a sensor gets smaller, and higher resolution, the pixels get "denser", the photo-sites get smaller, and they become more susceptible to noise. One of the distinguishing characteristics between DSLRs and "point 'n' shoots" is larger sensors, which typically means lower noise, and thus access to higher ISO.

Can you bin them (add the signal from adjacent pixels together) to get a brighter image (at a lower resolution) to improve low light capability?

No. But if crank up the ISO, that increases the noise, and if you then down-sample the image in post-processing (either in-camera or out), that does tend to reduce noise.

Are these pixel counts CMOS detectors or CCDs?

Almost all DSLRs are CMOS, these days.

Are the pixel counts RGB...

Almost all DSLRs have "Bayer" pattern sensors, so a 10MP sensor has 3.3 million red pixels, 3.3 million green, and 3.3 million blue. The camera does Bayer interpolation on this, filling in the "other two" colors for each pixel, producing a 10MP image. So it's not _really_ a 10MP sensor, but this cheat is universally applied.

About the only exception is the Foveon sensor, which has collocated pixel sites, i.e. each pixel measures red, green, and blue in the same place. Note that they perform the same cheat that everybody else does any way, counting each color separately.

supposedly they could have individual exposures for each pixel so bright areas don't saturate and darker areas are exposed properly- do expensive cameras do this now?

With a few exceptions, DSLRs expose the sensor in a manner identical to film, they have a real mechanical shutter.

The Canon DSLRs have a lens mount that's fully compatible with all EF lenses, dating back to the original EOS cameras from the early 80s. But the earlier FD lenses are a no-go.

Most "affordable" DSLRs are either 1.6x (Canon) or 1.5x (Nikon). This "multiplier" indicates that the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame of film, and thus the field of view afforded by the lens varies by that factor as compared to a film camera. Some higher cost cameras have larger sensors, and thus smaller multipliers, up to "full frame" sensors which are the same size as 35mm film, and thus give identical field of view to a 35mm film camera.

Canon vs Nikon is like Cessna vs Piper. Personally, my religion set is Canon and Cessna, but I fully acknowledge the ability of Nikon and Piper to do the same job. In particular, at the "affordable" end, it's hard to go wrong with either, and the differences are less significant than at the high end.
-harry

 

[woodstock]

Both Canons and Nikons are fine cameras. If you haven't already invested in lenses you could go either way - but once you start down a path expect to stay on it unless you want to re-invest from scratch after a switch.

I'm partial to Canons but that's because with the exception of one Leica a few years back I've only ever had Canons. You get used to their features/camera setup.

Don't skimp on lenses...

 

[ScottM]

Check out BH Photo in New York for great prices and instock items. Best place to shop in my opinion. For a little more, the 30D's are nice, and now the 40D just came out. Lots of MP available there, but also a heavier body.

that is where I got my gear and agree they were top notch and priced well

 

[silver-eagle]

Oh... One thing about digital cameras that you have to think about is battery time. I get about 1,000 pix on my D300. On my 5700, the rechargeable batteries would go abot 40-60 pix. As a consequence, I had 5 plus a portable recharger. I made the mistake of overbuying with my D300.
Whatever you go for, check out the battery time (and TYPE). My 5700 can be bought in any store. The D300 are special purpose; to date only rechargeables.

 

[Ghery]

I've got a Sony Alpha 100. Sony bought Konica-Minolta a while back, so it's Minolta glass. Having shot more 35mm than I want to think of with an old Minolta SRT-102 I've been very happy with their lenses. We looked at Canon and Nikon in the store at the same time and I liked the user interface setup of the Sony better. Personal preference, that's all. And I've been very happy with the pictures it takes. 18-70 mm and 75-300 mm lenses. One advantage of the Sony over Canon and Nikon is that the anti-shake system is in the camera body, rather than in the lenses. Only pay for it once.

The Alpha 100 has been superceded by the Alpha 200, and there's also a 350 model with even more resolution (and bells and whistles, I'm sure).

 

[wsuffa]

that is where I got my gear and agree they were top notch and priced well

Agree. My experience with BH has been great.

 

[Henning]

now the 40D just came out. Lots of MP available there, but also a heavier body.

It might just be because I started out with old F and F2 Nikons with drives, and Hasselblads and other medium format cameras (had a Pentax 6x7, remember those? I took a picture of Andre the Giant holding it and it looked like me holding a Nikon B) ), I prefer a heavier frame, I can get more stable, and I have better balance with bigger lenses.

 

[Henning]

I've got a Sony Alpha 100. Sony bought Konica-Minolta a while back, so it's Minolta glass. Having shot more 35mm than I want to think of with an old Minolta SRT-102 I've been very happy with their lenses. We looked at Canon and Nikon in the store at the same time and I liked the user interface setup of the Sony better. Personal preference, that's all. And I've been very happy with the pictures it takes. 18-70 mm and 75-300 mm lenses. One advantage of the Sony over Canon and Nikon is that the anti-shake system is in the camera body, rather than in the lenses. Only pay for it once.

The Alpha 100 has been superceded by the Alpha 200, and there's also a 350 model with even more resolution (and bells and whistles, I'm sure).

Can someone explain how they electronically replaced a 12 lb $1500 gyro that I used to use?

 

[Ghery]

Can someone explain how they electronically replaced a 12 lb $1500 gyro that I used to use?

'Tis a puzzlement. But I've got some 1/2 second hand held shots that show it works, and works well. Take a look at the attached.

 

[Henning]

'Tis a puzzlement. But I've got some 1/2 second hand held shots that show it works, and works well. Take a look at the attached.

Not bad, did you dodge out the shadows in the second image or is that how it came out?

 

[woodstock]

That's great Ghery!

I can't handhold for more than 1/10 of a second even with IS with my P&S and roughly 1/30 with my SLR with IS lens.

These were taken with my little P&S but on a tiny tripod for one second:

You can take decent pictures with a P&S, you just have to take it off of automatic settings.

 

[Anthony]

Nice pics Elizabeth. I'm a Nikon guy and I agree with what Henning said. I need to get a digi Nikon.

 

[pgengler]

Since you've already got an EOS camera, any lenses that work with that will work with a Canon digital. (The older manual-focus FD lenses won't; this is something that Nikon got right, IMO.) So depending on how many lenses you have (taking into account their cost and your intentions for future use of them), it's probably easier to stick with Canon.

Both Canon and Nikon are pretty close in quality/features and I don't think you could go wrong with either, especially at a more basic level. (When you get into the pro equipment, with its sky-high prices, there's more to consider.) I had (still have, actually) an old Canon AE-1 film camera which was the first SLR I used; my first digital P&S was also a Canon so when it came time to pick a DSLR, Canon seemed a natural choice. I started with a used Digital Rebel and a couple of cheap used lenses. Eventually, I got a taste of better lenses and I was hooked on the expensive stuff.

If all you have is the kit lens that came with the film camera, I'd say go to a camera shop and try holding a couple of different bodies to see what's more comfortable. Some people find the grip and control layout of one to be better than another, but it's something you'd have to see for yourself.

 

[woodstock]

Thanks Anthony!

 

[ScottM]

That's great Ghery!

I can't handhold for more than 1/10 of a second even with IS with my P&S and roughly 1/30 with my SLR with IS lens.

These were taken with my little P&S but on a tiny tripod for one second:

You can take decent pictures with a P&S, you just have to take it off of automatic settings.

Nice pics. Is that the Venetian in Las Vegas??

 

[Unbeliever]

Almost all DSLRs have "Bayer" pattern sensors, so a 10MP sensor has 3.3 million red pixels, 3.3 million green, and 3.3 million blue. The camera does Bayer interpolation on this, filling in the "other two" colors for each pixel, producing a 10MP image. So it's not _really_ a 10MP sensor, but this cheat is universally applied.

For Bayer, more like 2.5 million Red, 5 million green, 2.5 million blue

It's laid out:

B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G
G R G R G R G R G R G R G R G R G R
B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G
G R G R G R G R G R G R G R G R G R

There's not enough room in a camera body between the shutter and the sensor to do a proper prism setup for a 3CCD rig.

--Carlos V.

 

[Unbeliever]

All very good questions which I can't really answer. I have variable ISO, I have always wondered how it works. I know what it means, and I know how you vary it in film emulsion, but electronically, I'm ignorant. What appears with a higher ISO/ASA is I get more noise very similar to getting more grain in films of higher ratings. I do believe they are CCD units.

Electronically, it basically ups the pixel pre-amp gain before the A/D section.

In an electronic sensor, the light sensing device is essentially a capacitor. A photon comes in, hits an atom in the capacitor and knocks off an electron. That electron goes off somewhere, and the result is a net charge that is stored in the capacitor. The more charge a capacitor stores, the higher its voltage. V = charge / capacitance. So the final voltage on the capacitor is solely a function of amount light and time, as they are simple coulomb counters.

How do variable ISO sensors mimic different ISO values? By changing the sense pre-amp gain. Why do you get noise at higher ISO values? Well, these devices aren't perfect. One of the effects is something called "dark current", and that adds noise. Due to reversed biased diode leakage, thermal shot noise, and other random processes that occur even if no light is hitting the sensor at all. That adds to the "noise floor" of the pixel. Fortunately, barring changes in temperature, that noise is relatively constant. There's also an increase in noise that occurs in any amp when you up the gain.

Since the noise is always there, and constant, why do you notice the noise at higher ISO settings. Well, it's a matter of signal-to-noise ratios. If the noise is a constant 0.1 units, and at long exposure times, you're counting 10 units of light, the SNR is a healty 100 to 1. [1] But if you're trying to get a short exposure, only long enough to catch 1 unit of light, then your ratio is only 10 to 1, because noise is still 0.1, and that noise has to be gained up along with your signal. That's why you notice it.

--Carlos V.

[1] Yes, I know that is only 40dB, I'm just using it as an example. *grin*

 

[Ghery]

Not bad, did you dodge out the shadows in the second image or is that how it came out?

Both are unretouched. That's how they came out. Second one was in Milan.

 

[woodstock]

Both are unretouched. That's how they came out. Second one was in Milan.

I thought it looked familiar!

 

[Ghery]

That's great Ghery!

I can't handhold for more than 1/10 of a second even with IS with my P&S and roughly 1/30 with my SLR with IS lens.

These were taken with my little P&S but on a tiny tripod for one second:

You can take decent pictures with a P&S, you just have to take it off of automatic settings.

Those look great. We really enjoyed Venice (16 years ago).

 

[Henning]

Electronically, it basically ups the pixel pre-amp gain before the A/D section.

In an electronic sensor, the light sensing device is essentially a capacitor. A photon comes in, hits an atom in the capacitor and knocks off an electron. That electron goes off somewhere, and the result is a net charge that is stored in the capacitor. The more charge a capacitor stores, the higher its voltage. V = charge / capacitance. So the final voltage on the capacitor is solely a function of amount light and time, as they are simple coulomb counters.

How do variable ISO sensors mimic different ISO values? By changing the sense pre-amp gain. Why do you get noise at higher ISO values? Well, these devices aren't perfect. One of the effects is something called "dark current", and that adds noise. Due to reversed biased diode leakage, thermal shot noise, and other random processes that occur even if no light is hitting the sensor at all. That adds to the "noise floor" of the pixel. Fortunately, barring changes in temperature, that noise is relatively constant. There's also an increase in noise that occurs in any amp when you up the gain.

Since the noise is always there, and constant, why do you notice the noise at higher ISO settings. Well, it's a matter of signal-to-noise ratios. If the noise is a constant 0.1 units, and at long exposure times, you're counting 10 units of light, the SNR is a healty 100 to 1. [1] But if you're trying to get a short exposure, only long enough to catch 1 unit of light, then your ratio is only 10 to 1, because noise is still 0.1, and that noise has to be gained up along with your signal. That's why you notice it.

--Carlos V.

[1] Yes, I know that is only 40dB, I'm just using it as an example. *grin*

Thanks

 

[Unbeliever]

Can someone explain how they electronically replaced a 12 lb $1500 gyro that I used to use?

I missed this one. I'm not familiar with consumer level image stabilization, but for the machine vision work I do, it uses sensor sub-windowing.

Most all APS/CMOS sensors allow you to read out only the portion of the sensor you're interested in. Image stabilization systems use a larger sensor than you really need, and move the subwindow around to keep the final image centered within a narrow window. They do it by either target-tracking a feature in the image and figuring out where it went, or by simple accelerometers in the body.

Of course, that leads to other effects because unless you have a perfect pinhole model camera, the image in one part of the lens will distort differently than another part. But unless you have a really crappy lens, those effects should be minimal as hopefully the center of the lens will be pretty good. We generally turn that stuff off in our machine vision work because it screws up our image de-warping routines.

--Carlos V.

 

[Henning]

I missed this one. I'm not familiar with consumer level image stabilization, but for the machine vision work I do, it uses sensor sub-windowing.

Most all APS/CMOS sensors allow you to read out only the portion of the sensor you're interested in. Image stabilization systems use a larger sensor than you really need, and move the subwindow around to keep the final image centered within a narrow window. They do it by either target-tracking a feature in the image and figuring out where it went, or by simple accelerometers in the body.

Of course, that leads to other effects because unless you have a perfect pinhole model camera, the image in one part of the lens will distort differently than another part. But unless you have a really crappy lens, those effects should be minimal as hopefully the center of the lens will be pretty good. We generally turn that stuff off in our machine vision work because it screws up our image de-warping routines.

--Carlos V.

Thanks, that's always how I figured it had to work, nice to have a confirmation. I don't have any stabilized lenses or bodies, I get pretty much the results I want with a monopod. For critical stuff that IS wouldn't handle either, I'll have a tripod or studio stand (I loved my FOBA stand...). I'd like to have a stabilized 600/f4, but there's no way I can afford one. Maybe if I can find one to rent. I used to buy lenses for a job and then sell them after the shoot was done. It's hard for me to justify sitting on $18,000 lenses.