| I've switched this and the next entry. I don't think anyone should mind. |
My search for a new digital camera has nearly reached it's fruition. Two almost identical cameras vie for my money, the Nikon D100 and the Canon 10D. After reading hundreds of online and magazine reviews, I've distilled their specifications to the differences that are important to me:
 |
 |
Nikon D100
Instant on - wahoo!
Extra long battery life
ISO 6400
Spot meter and grid
Nikon Capture software
IR sensitive! |
Canon 10D
Fastest CF write
Adjustable white balance
ISO 3200
5ms flash sync
All metal body
Low long exposure noise! |
Interesting Nikkor lenses:
60mm micro (legendary)
105mm micro
14mm f/2.8
10.6mm full frame fisheye
12-24mm f/4 DX zoom |
Canon lenses of interest:
50mm & 100mm f/2.8 macro
50mm f/1.8 - eighty bucks
85mm f/1.2
7.5mm circular fisheye
17-40mm f/4 |
Low long exposure noise is exactly what's needed for astrophotgraphy and spectrophotography. This makes the Canon 10D essential, but I surely want the instant-on, unkillable batteries and infrared capabilities of the Nikon D100.
I'm not the only person confounded by the similarities between these two cameras, as comparisons abound on the web:
I have eliminated these cameras from consideration:
- Nikon Coolpix 5X00 - 5 megapixels, excellent lens, flipout LCD
- Nikon Coolpix 4500 - uses add-ons from my existing 950
- Nikon Coolpix 4300 - like te 4500, but non-split bodied
- Olympus E-20 - small and light 5 megapixel
- Sony DSC-F717 - unique IR possibilities with night mode
- Sigma D-9 - uses the Foveon light sensor for high resolution
These cameras are attractive despite being announced but not yet for sale:
- Canon EOS Digital Rebel - seems like a cheap plastic 10D
- Sony DSC-F828 - 8 freakin' megapixels
- Olympus E-1 - new slr system based on a Kodak specification.
And these are just too expensive:
- Hasselblad H-1 with Kodak digital back
- Canon 1Ds - eleven megapixel cmos the size of a 35mm exposure
- Kodak DCS 14n - 14 megapixels
- Sinarback 54H - 21 megapixels, fits 645 cameras.
I'll go to the camera store this week and buy the ...
Whoops.
I went to the camera store today and took some test pictures with both of the cameras I'm interested in. These dark photos are ten second exposures taken with the lens cap on, to simulate a vary dark subject:
 |  |
| Canon 10D @ ISO 400 | Nikon D100 @ ISO 400 |
|
 |  |
| noise enhanced Canon | noise enhanced Nikon |
|
| This pair of images was extremely surprising: |
 |  |
| Canon @ 1600 | Nikon @ 1600 |
|
 |  |
| Coolpix 950 @400 for comparison & noise enhanced |
I was especially careful not to mix up the exposures, but even so, upon seeing the results, I double checked. They are exactly opposite of my expectations. The dark noise of the Nikon camera is not worse than that from the Canon camera. The nature of the noise is different, as can be seen in the noise enhanced versions. (I enhanced the noise by increasing the contrast to +98.5 with Photoshop.)
The Canon's noise is trichromatic. There are red, green and blue blobs, which are larger than those from the Nikon. They overlap, yielding a buttery texture to the image. The Nikon's noise may be of a greater magnitude, yet it is also at a higher frequency - the dots are sharper and closer together. All of noise from the Nikon is monochromatic as well.
Here are some real world examples from the camera store, shot at ISO 1600, in fully program mode. First a macro picture of a stapler:
Canon 10D 50mm f/2.5 macro
Nikon D100 60mm f/2.8 micro
The Canon colors look smooth and well blended. The blue and beige are very saturated. Nikon's color, by comparison, look more contrasty, and not quite as saturated. No noise can be seen at all in the Canon, but the Nikon shows a tiny bit of grain.
The shots below are full resolution crops of the original images:
Canon 10D 50mm f/2.5 macro
Nikon D100 60mm f/2.8 micro
The comparison of the Nikon's image to film grain is strong. Notice how the larger overlaping pattern of the Canon's noise blends to yeild a pleasant gradation. The look of the Nikon's image is somewhat sharper, more realistic looking.
The pictures below were shot looking out the door of the store. Again, the Nikon looks a bit harsh, while the Canon's image is smooth, possibly even dull:
Canon 10D 50mm f/2.5 macro
Nikon D100 60mm f/2.8 micro
My take on all this is that Nikon's noise is not far greater than Canon's. The type of noise exhibited by Nikon makes photographs look harsher, while the Canon's noise seems to average to a smooth verneer. When not superimposed on an image, for example, in the dark between stars, the Canon's trichromatic noise would be evey bit as noticable as the Nikon's.
