Nikon D100 vs Canon EOS 10D

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by balrog, Oct 19, 2003.

  1. balrog

    balrog Guest

    Does anyone have experience with both the D100 and the 10D?
    If so, would you share your opinions of both? I'm having a terrible time
    choosing between them.

    TIA
     
    balrog, Oct 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. balrog

    Bernd Guest

    Bernd, Oct 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. balrog

    Rafe B. Guest


    I'm a long time Nikon shooter but ended up with a 10D.

    I'm not going to claim that the Nikon D100 is inferior,
    but there's something to be said for strength in numbers,
    and for the moment, Canon is clearly ahead in the dSLR
    game.

    I thought I had some pretty decent Nikon lenses in my
    kit, but the Canon L zoom that I bought for my 10D is
    clearly in a league of its own. Here's a shot from the
    10D taken yesterday afternoon:


    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/maine.jpg


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 19, 2003
    #3
  4. balrog

    Darth Guest

    Great photos can be taken with both. I bought a D100
    because of my commitment to Nikon glass. Great
    ergonomics, feel, battery life -- wonderful design.

    If I had it to do over, I'd buy a Canon. I've seen far
    superior images with the Canon setup. I'm just not
    as thrilled with the image quality out of the D100 as
    I have been with the Canon shots I've seen. IMHO,
    clarity and color rendition are better. Whether it's
    the lens or the electronics, I can't say, but I'm guessing
    it's both -- better lens clarity, better electronic handling
    of highly-saturated color gradients, like sky, lakes
    and meadows.

    I'm not kicking myself, and I'm not ditching the D100.
    It's a great camera. But there is a snap to the Canon
    pics you just don't see with the Nikon, at least on
    the images I've seen. Ninety percent of the time, it
    doesn't matter.
     
    Darth, Oct 19, 2003
    #4
  5. I have the 10D, but I think you wouldn't be too disappointed with either
    one.

    My experience with the Canon has tought me that the quality of lenses is
    probably more critical than Canon vs Nikon. I had a number of high quality
    Sigma lenses that I used with an EOS film body. After a few sessions using
    them with the 10D I was very unhappy with the quality of the images. These
    digital SLRs are very fussy about the quality of lens. They are such high
    resolution that lens imperfections are obvious. As a result I've got rid of
    all my old lenses and bought 3 'L' series lenses - 16-35. 24-70 & 100-400.
    I'm about to investing the 70-200 f2.8 as well.

    I appreciate this doesn't directly answer the comparitive question, but it
    hopefully gives you an idea about further investments in quality lenses to
    maximise the resulting image quality.

    I also appreciate each L lens mentioned costs £1200 (£1500 for the 70-200).

    I hope this helps.

    Cheers,

    Graham.
     
    Graham Russell, Oct 19, 2003
    #5
  6. balrog

    Rafe B. Guest


    The Canon 17-40L is $800 US at places like BH Photo.

    I have a hunch it was designed specifically for the 10D.
    At center frame, it's better than the larger and more expensive
    16-35 L zoom. But for full-frame use, the 16-35 L is better.

    This is from Michael Reichman's review on
    luminous-landscape.com


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 19, 2003
    #6
  7. balrog

    Alan F Cross Guest

    Is it possible that the other pictures you have seen from a 10D have
    been, dare I say, better post-processed than your own? You will see your
    own images straight out of the camera (RAW?), and they are usually
    disappointing. I was not thrilled with my RAW 10D images till I let
    Photoshop loose on them. I'm a 10D user as you will realise, but I can't
    imagine there is much of a gulf between it and the D100.
     
    Alan F Cross, Oct 19, 2003
    #7
  8. balrog

    Tore Lund Guest

    In your opinion, is this true of Canon vs. Nikon DSLRs in general, or
    only when comparing these models? Could it have something to do with
    the D100 being one year older?
     
    Tore Lund, Oct 19, 2003
    #8
  9. balrog

    Chris Brown Guest

    For me, the biggest drawback to the D100 was that I would have had to try
    quite hard to make my EF lenses fit.

    Seriously, they're both capable cameras. If I were starting fresh today, I
    think I'd be more interested in chosing a lens system first, then deciding
    which body to use. After all, the body is probably going to be replaced by a
    much more capable one than either itself or its contemporaries from other
    manufacturers in a few years time. Lenses are a much longer-term investment.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 19, 2003
    #9
  10. balrog

    Chris Brown Guest

    Doubt it - there's not much to choose, image-quality wise, between the 10D
    and its predecessor, the D60. Whilst some of the advantage described above
    may be attributable to Canon's fairly aggressive sensor technology (their
    CMOS sensors have constantly impressed since their debut in the D30), I
    suspect much of the effect is down to Photoshop, as another poster
    suggested. Both cameras produce images which require some work in the
    "digital darkroom" to get the best out of them. This is actually an
    advantage, if you have the inclination, because the results are very
    impressive from the combination of these cameras and some processing skill.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 19, 2003
    #10
  11. balrog

    balrog Guest

    I really appreciate all the answers I recdeived, more than you know.
    I have read review after review after review, have held both cams in my hand
    (although I have not shot with either), and still have not been able to make
    up my mind. Quite frankly, I think it's more due to a prejudice towards
    Nikon than anything.

    In the resolution shots I have seen from both cams, the Canon seems to have
    less background noise, but the Nikon seems to be just a bit sharper
    (although I have rwad in countless reviews one of the negatives against the
    Nikon is a 'soft focus').

    I am familiar with Nikon, although I do not own any lenses from either Nikon
    or Canon, so I would be starting 'fresh'.

    All of your comments and suggestions have been good...although I'm not sure
    they've helped me make up my mind. :eek:)

    Price-fishing today, the bodies of both (from shops I trust) are the same
    cost, although it seems the accessories (battery pack, batteries and certain
    lens') are less expensive in the canon camp...this may just swing my vote.
    The problem being, none of the shops I checked have the Canon in stock,
    while all of them have the Nikon on hand (that may tell me something in
    itself....)

    Thanks so much to all again.
     
    balrog, Oct 20, 2003
    #11
  12. balrog

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Hi Rafe,

    I think saying that the L lens you bought in a league of it's own is a bit
    of a stretch. I'm assuming it's the Canon 16-35 or 17-40, and in both cases
    the Nikon 17-35/2.8 is better by quite a significant margin.

    The Nikon 17-35/2.8, 60/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are the main reasons why I
    haven't gone to Canon myself. The 17-35 is the absolute king of wide angle
    zooms, the Canon equivalent of the 60mm is 10mm less and doesn't exhibit the
    same quality, and the Nikon 70-200/2.8, whilst taking a long time to
    eventuate is better than the Canon 70-200 IS in noticeably better with
    bokeh, sharpness at wider than f/5.6 and it handles better.

    Regards

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 20, 2003
    #12
  13. balrog

    Gavin Cato Guest

    You can beat the L glass, with decent Nikon glass :)
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 20, 2003
    #13
  14. balrog

    Gavin Cato Guest

    This just isn't true. The key to both cameras is post processing.

    Have a look at these, with a D100 and sigma lenses at that ;

    http://www.pbase.com/yp8/my_favorite_shots&page=all

    Both are excellent cameras. If you are not getting the results from your
    D100, I'd suspect you either are using fairly cheap glass, or you haven't
    yet become accustomed to post processing your images for the best results.

    Regards

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Cato, Oct 20, 2003
    #14
  15. balrog

    Hans Kruse Guest

    Is it possible that the other pictures you have seen from a 10D have
    I would recommend you to look at the Phase One DSLR LE. You can download a
    trial version from http://www.phaseone.com/. I recently purchased a Canon
    10D and tried out this RAW converter and I have not used PhotoShop since! I
    does all the basic image corrections that I used to do in PS including final
    USM filter. The supplied File Viewer Utility that comes with the 10D is so
    slow that it is virtually useless.
    --Hans
     
    Hans Kruse, Oct 20, 2003
    #15
  16. If you're shopping the D100, also look at the Fuji S2 Pro. It uses Nikon
    lenses and has resolution, sharpness and noise performance that is superior
    to either the D100 or the 10D.

    Look at http://tinyurl.com/ky0q for DP Review comparison of S2 Pro, D100,
    and 60D.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Oct 20, 2003
    #16
  17. balrog

    ThomasH Guest

    Being a user of the both systems (F90 and EOS-3) I tend
    to partly disagree. Canon's advantage is in their lens
    system, where Nikon's "march toward technology" was longer
    than expected, but there they are with their family of
    VR lenses!

    I still prefer clearly Nikon bodies in terms of ergonomics
    and intuitive usage. Comparative tests and other test
    reports does not confirm any problems of D100 as compared
    to Canon,. The 10D was Canons reply to the Nikon D100, which
    was sure ahead of the EOS-D60 (because later in the game...
    much faster AF and low light performance,) but now with the
    EOS-10D it is a difficult call. I used each of them for a
    weekend (I rented them for $20 a day) I prefer the D100
    due to ergonomics, but please do such rent-and-test-run by
    yourself.

    Speaking about the lenses: Consider the fact that Nikon
    covers nicely the wide angle area through their DX lenses!
    http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html contains a lovely
    test report and also tests and opinions about the recent
    VR lenses. Rorslett has a very good reputation as a serious
    top quality source of information about Nikon gear.

    Thus we have now (at last) a serious competitor to Canon's
    IS lenses, the former undisputed Photo-Diva Nikon fights
    back against the Canon's Techno Empire! We all are winning
    by this comepetition!

    Good luck with your choice!

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 20, 2003
    #17
  18. balrog

    balrog Guest

    "If you're shopping the D100, also look at the Fuji S2 Pro. It uses Nikon
    lenses and has resolution, sharpness and noise performance that is superior
    to either the D100 or the 10D."

    I have looked at the S2. In all the resolution tests I have seen, it has
    been superior to both the D100 & the D10...however, it is just a tad out of
    my present budgeted range...I kept hoping I would see a price drop, but it
    doesn't look like that is going to happen before my itchy trigger finger
    twitches one time too many. <G>

    Thanks for your response and recommendation, I appreciate it.

    B
     
    balrog, Oct 21, 2003
    #18
  19. balrog

    Marc Walch Guest

    I did my homework before buying a camera recently. My short list had the
    10D, the D100 and the E1 (Olympus). One major difference between the
    Canon and the Nikon is the type of sensor.

    The Canon uses a CMOS sensor while all others use CCD. One major
    advantage of the CMOS is its low power and its related lower noise
    figure. I would not be surprised if CMOS dethrones CCD in a few years.
    Further, CMOS detectors can pack more per pixels and there are already
    some CMOS applications using APS (Advance Pixel Sensor) where some
    functions are added to the pixel itself (A/D conversion, binning, etc..).

    My 2 cents

    Marc
     
    Marc Walch, Oct 22, 2003
    #19
  20. balrog

    ThomasH Guest

    I doubt that such speculations are more than rumors. The issue with
    lenses is here rather that (as stated previously) contrary to Nikon's
    tradition of stepwise evolution and backward compatibility, the D100
    does not meter with old MF Nikkors. D1 and the D2 does.

    Canon made a radical break with their previous FD lens family, and
    devaluated investment of many people in the process, but this is
    long forgotten. With the introduction of the EF mount they have
    upper hand in lens technology and they played their advantage well.
    Precisely the Canon lens system, and foremost the L lenses, caused
    a stampede of pros from Nikon to Canon.

    Canon L glass is hard to beat. Pro class Nikkors have been recently
    often evaluated a notch below Canon L glass, not to talk about Nikon's
    long march toward VR technology and popularization of the silent
    focussing. With the transition to the G series of lenses, Nikon
    has finally complied with Canon's idea of removing aperture rings
    from lenses. They have now less parts in the lenses and focus on
    making up the lost grounds in the image stabilization.

    One smart move on Nikons part was the release of the DX family of
    lenses. They cover nicely wide angle area for the digital cameras
    with small sensor, what includes both the D100 and the EOS-10D.
    Canon lacks such lenses currently. If you need wide angle, lenses
    like the Nikkor 12-24mm DX (35mm equiv. 18-36mm) might speak in
    favor of Nikon.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.