In the world before cheap SLR cameras primal chaos reigned, Canon sought order but the Nikon can fly only when its feathers are grown. The two worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed. The moistures of the Earth, all the powers of the Sun and Moon, all worked upon a certain sensor - old as creation, and it became magically sensitive to light. That first sensor was named Thought, Ansel Adams, the Master Photographer, Said 'With our images we make the world'. Elemental forces caused the sensor to record light, from it then came an affordable SLR. The nature of photography was irrepressible!
Okay, if you're still with me after than vague Monkey Magic inspired introduction then more power to you, you're probably interested to know what this latest instalment is all about. This weekend I managed to get my hands on a Nikon D90, an enthusiast level SLR that retails for around £700. This is roughly a Nikon equivalent to my Canon 40D, although being 12 month newer it's not quite the same, however for the sake of this review it might as well be.
Canon and Nikon. Nikon and Canon. Without doubt the 2 big boys in the world of photography. I would say 95% of pros would have one of these cameras in their kit bag, historically Canon has been the market leader due to better image stabilisation in their lenses (back in the film days which allowed them to corner the pro sport shooting market) and better high ISO performance in their digital cameras (allowing for better low light photography, ideal for weddings and all sorts of other things). However any advantage than Canon once held in these areas has since been neutralised by improved Nikon technology, and many consider Nikon to have now usurped Canon as the leader of the pack. Having never spent much time with a Nikon in my hands I was eager to see what all the fuss was about, and what better camera to use than their current best seller, a camera which has received rave reviews and was the first SLR to feature HD video recording.
I'll start by saying I'm not a pixel peeper. I've never taken identical photos of the same scene with difference lenses and cameras to compare the subtle differences in the image quality. It's important that some people are doing these tests, but I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than spend my life doing this. What's important to me is how easy it is to make the camera do what I want it to do, and whether is produces a punchy image that looks good.
 |
| From Nikon Day |
I found the D90 very nice to use. It felt comfortable in the hand, was intuitive to adjust and made a sexy sound when you released the shutter. There are a few more controls on the outside of the camera compared to the Canon (for instance to access the bracketing options on the Canon you need to find it in the menu, there is a button on the Nikon to fast track it), however adjusting things like ISO require 2 hands on the Nikon but can be done with just the right hand index finger on the Canon which I find preferable.
It wasn't an entirely fair comparison due to the lenses being used. My Canon lenses are lovely, they are expensive but they produce stunning images and allow me shoot at wide apertures (my 24-70 and 70-200 are both constant f/2.8) while I had just the 18-105 mid level Nikon which is a nice lens but not in the same league as I'm used to. It was great taking photos without 10kg of backpack on though.
The screen on the Nikon is breathtaking. It's the same 3 inch size as the Canon but is has over 3 times the resolution (900k pixels vs circa 300k) and it makes a world of difference. The ability to check focus accurately on camera is extremely useful and showing your pics off to mates is all the more impressive. The Nikon also has some funky slideshow features (complete with music and whatnot) which are a nice gimmick but not a real benefit for the serious photographer.
My biggest disappointment with the day was when I plugged the memory card into the comptuer. I shot in RAW to see what this puppy was capable of and was devistated to discover that my version of Lightroom (1.4) does not read RAW files from the D90 (you need to spring for Lightroom 2.0 for this). Extremely frustrating, I assume the blame lies with Adobe rather than with Nikon, but that didn't change the fact I couldn't do what I wanted to with teh images. Ironically I was forced to use the free (and excellent) Picasa software as a RAW convertor, it's preposterous that a free bit of kit provides support for something £140 worth of software doesn't. It was fun to go back to editing the images with Picasa, but ultimately it was a bit simple and I couldn't get quite the effects I was hoping for.
In conclusion my weekend proved precisely what I thought it would, that it's all much of a muchness. People used to Canon prefer the Canon system, people used to the Nikon system prefer the Nikon system. Images are pretty comparable as far as I can tell, any differences between the 2 are far less important than issues of framing and understanding of light, so my terribly vague conclusion of this hopelessly haphazard "review" is that Canon and Nikon are pretty much the same.
Tip of the week
In anew addition to the blog I've decided to have a tip of the week. This could well only last 1 week, but I've got a nice example from a shoot the other night to make my point. Here's the tip: When shooting a scene with bright lights (streelights for instance, or even shooting into the sun) use a very narrow aperture to make them appear like stars.
This shot was at f/22
 |
| From Monday night shoot with work crew |
while this was shot at f/4.0 (note the street light difference)
(in case you're wondering my I didn't shoot the 2nd shot at f/22 it's because there was some rain on my lens and the narrow aperture caused it to be noticeable while f/4.0 hid it nicely)
