Choosing a pro quality DSLR This is not a camera review – but the ramblings of a tormented soul struggling with the questions of commitment and direction. For every soul there comes a time when a

life changing decision has to be made. The moment has arrived where I must make this decision – the decision to buy a new DSLR.

Fig 01. Digital Dawn – affordable professional quality DSLRs come of age

I have an admission to make – when it comes to DSLR ownership I’ve been sitting on the fence for an awfully long time – well over a decade in fact. I first encountered a DSLR when I was working in London in 1993. It was the DCS100 – the first totally portable Digital Camera System (DCS) that had been released a couple of years earlier by Kodak in 1991. It had a 1.3-megapixel sensor mounted in a largely unmodified Nikon F3 SLR body that had a restricted viewfinder, no memory card (just a hard drive that used to get hot) and the image had to be downloaded via an umbilical cord to a separate digital storage unit (DSU) that had a 4 inch black and white monitor. The DSU was about the size and weight of a very large camera bag that could be mounted on your belt. Having said all that I was hooked on the very first image that I captured with this beast. I shot a press image with the camera and after glancing at the monitor I realized I had the image in the bag (so to speak) with the very first shot. It felt very, very strange walking away without shooting the other 35 frames and winding off the film. Although I had seen the future – it remained just that for many years. The camera was a bit of a Frakenstein’s monster (Kodak digital technology bolted into a Nikon film camera), cost the same as a new family saloon car (well over AUD $30,000) and the low pixel count made it easy not to invest any personal money into digital capture at that point in time.

Images courtesy of John Henshall - http://www.ChipShopOnline.com

Fig 02. A new breed for a new millennium

Independence day Six years later in 1999 Nikon announced its digital independence day (independence from Kodak’s branding) with the launch of its landmark camera the D1. Looking at the spec sheet of this camera in 2006 (with just 2.7-megapixels) it is hard to see what all the fuss was about. It was however the first digital camera that did not look or feel like a ‘bitsa’ (bits of this and bits of that) using an all-new camera design rather than the Nikon F4 or F5 film body. The price of the Kodak/Nikon hybrids had been enough to frighten many pro-photographers but the Nikon D1 came in at under 10,000 (US$5500) and most pro-photographers now started to take notice. The writing was most definitely on the wall (the end is nigh – the digital dawn is upon us). A few pro-photographers took the plunge but unless you were shooting for newspapers, catalogues or real estate magazines the pixel count was still a major issue. My personal wallet stayed firmly closed. The year 2000 (a new millennium) however saw the capabilities of the D1expanded just 8 months after its original release. The D1x now sported a sensor capable of recording nearly 6-megapixels and many photographers who could do their maths saw the significance of the D1x to their own workflow. Single page illustrations in magazines were now an affordable reality for the pro-photographer. The hardware was still significantly more expensive than the film equivalent but

when the savings on film was factored into the equation the DSLR made economic sense for many photographers. The year 2000 also saw Canon realize their independence from Kodak with the release of their built-from-the-ground-up 3-megapixel D30 using a CMOS sensor instead of the CCD technology favoured by Nikon. The most notable feature about this camera was not its megapixel count, or its quality (which was pretty impressive) but its comparatively low price (US$2800 – half that of the D1x) and its user-friendly interface – a sign of things to come. Nikon and Canon - the traditional suppliers of 35mm SLRs to pro-photographers, it seemed, were set to do battle in the digital arena, just as they had in the film arena that preceded it.

Fig 03. The awe-inspiring EOS D1 released in 2002 left Nikon’s DSLR line-up wanting. The late release of Nikon’s

D2x and D70 (four years after the D1x) allowed Canon to become the dominant name in the DSLR market.

The waiting game With regular access to a D1x at RMIT University (the University where I teach) my Nikon F90 film camera started to gather dust but I decided to wait before investing in my own Nikon DSLR. I was starting to get fussy. I wanted a little bit more than the Nikon D1x was offering (user-friendly interface and pixels) for a little bit less (personal cash). Little did I realize that the D2x would be four years in the making. Whilst patiently waiting for the right Nikon DSLR (Nikon ownership being dictated by the fact that I owned four Nikon lenses and a Nikon speedlight) Canon were making some significant advances in DSLR technology that started their rise to market supremacy. In 2001 the incredibly fast EOS 1D outgunned Nikon’s D1H (more pixels and faster). In 2002 they released the all-conquering EOS 1Ds that set the quality benchmark that all other DSLR manufacturers could only aspire to. Professional Nikon owners started to get agitated. In 2002 Nikon released its 6-megapixel D100 to compete with Canon’s D60 (an upgraded D30). For many pros the D100 was just less quality for less money and the Nikon pro wallets remained closed. Canon rubbed salt into Nikon owners’ wounds when they whole-heartedly embraced the ‘more for less’ concept with the release of its landmark camera the EOS 10D in 2003 (twice the quality for half the money). Canon was now selling a semi-pro camera for a quarter of the price of the D1x. Where was the D2x? The hopes of many Nikon owners were momentarily lifted with the release of Kodak’s ill-fated 14n (a full-frame CMOS sensor with more pixels than a 1Ds and a lower price tag). Although stealing a little of the limelight from the Canon 1Ds in 2002, professionals soon realized that the Kodak full-frame CMOS sensor was no match for Canon’s CMOS technology. Nikon pro’s would have to jump ship* or wait for Nikon’s own successor to the D1x. * The decision for a professional to jump ship is usually complicated by their considerable

investment in pro-quality lenses. The price of the body is often the smallest factor in the total

investment.

Nikon revises it aging line-up After the 14n a lot of Nikon owning professionals now anticipated a full-frame sensor as the only logical step forward from the reduced frame sensor found in the D1x. For Nikon owners the waiting game continued - for longer than any anticipated. 2004 saw Nikon belatedly release the DSLR cameras in both the amateur and professional range to match those found in the Canon line-up (after much gnashing of teeth). Although the Nikon D2x is now one of the most impressive DSLRs currently available, for many Nikon owning professionals it was not the camera they had been waiting for (CMOS sensor but not full frame). For many pro-photographers the release of the D2s signalled that Nikon had turned its back on the concept and development of a full-frame sensor. The message was clear – reinvest in Nikon lenses designed for the reduced frame sensor or desert Nikon for Canon. For disgruntled Nikon owners Canon made the concept of full-frame even more attractive in 2005 with the release of the EOS 5D. Some Nikon owners (namely me) were starting to hurt.

Canon - Flying the flag for the full-frame sensor The only problem about aspiring to a Canon EOS1Ds Mark 11 (upgraded from 11-megapixels to 16.6-megapixels in 2004) is its price (AUD$13,999). The camera is in a league of its own – comparable to no other DSLR after the demise of the Kodak 14n, and so is priced accordingly. The only cameras that a pro-photographer could remotely compare this technological masterpiece to, in terms of quality of image, are medium format cameras (if compared to a digital medium format camera the EOS 1Ds looks decidedly like a bargain). So why release the 5D when Nikon was showing no interest in this format of sensor and Canon’s own consumer DSLRs such as the EOS 20D and 350D were selling like hotcakes? The only problem with being in a league of one is how do you breed brand loyalty and satisfaction if the lenses the customer has purchased for their first Canon DSLR will travel to the EOS ID but not the EOS 1Ds – the studio photographer’s choice? Changing all of your lenses would have to hurt as much as it does for a Nikon owner who has to jump ship to Canon, except the anger that Canon owners would feel would be directed at Canon instead of Nikon. It is also worth bearing in mind that the impressive Nikon D2x is significantly cheaper than the EOS 1Ds, and a Canon 20D owner would have nothing to lose by jumping ship to Nikon, given that they wouldn’t be able to take their existing lenses to the Canon EOS 1Ds or the Nikon D2x.

Fig 04. The 15 year waiting game is over - affordable pro DSLRs from Canon and Nikon

Enter the 5D, a lightweight low-cost DSLR alternative for those who aspire to the EOS 1Ds rather than the EOS 1D, but can’t yet justify the capital investment. The 5D signifies Canon’s

commitment to the full-frame sensor and allows the aspiring professional a body on which to build their lens collection. And just when you thought that Nikon’s days were numbered as a pro gear manufacturer – enter the Nikon D200 - the first ‘timely’ release of a Nikon DSLR since the D1 back in 1999. Why timely? Well the Nikon D200 makes the Nikon owner like myself, who has not yet jumped ship (but was seriously considering the move), think twice. You see the Nikon D200 is an extremely impressive camera – not just a semi-pro camera, or a tweaked D100 - but a lightweight pro version of the D2x. In fact it’s the camera I have been waiting for, for the last five years (twice the goodies of the D1x for a third of the price of a D2X and more significantly half the price of the Canon EOS 5D). As I have yet to invest in a pro-grade Nikon lens designed for the wide zoom range, i.e. the 12-24mm 1:4 G ED that costs nearly as much as the D200 body, this is the last opportunity I might get to consider whether my twilight years are spent holding Nikon or Canon cameras to my eye. I have therefore spent the last month testing the relative merits of 5D or D200 ownership. A decision has been made but it has to be said that the choice was far from easy. There is of course only one winner – the pro-photographer who decides to invest in either system. Both cameras exhibit a build quality and image quality that demonstrates how far the industry has pushed the boundaries over the last decade. Canon and Nikon have not matched the performance of their pro film cameras (handling and image quality) but surpassed it by miles. Digital cameras will undoubtedly continue to improve over the coming years but quality and value for money is here now, and I am convinced that anybody that has been waiting for the right moment to invest in DSLR technology will never regret getting on-board in 2006 if they purchase either of these pro cameras. I am now pleased, relieved is probably a better word, to be finally getting down off the fence. The 5D and D200 mark an important milestone in DSLR technology – the day Mark decided to open his wallet!

Fig 04b. Full frame vista – Canon 5D using an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM lens @ 16mm

The comparison test Seriously tempting SLRs – a battle for hearts and minds I don’t do reviews so the following comparison test is entirely influenced by my personal idiosyncrasies as a photographer. I would like to thank both Nikon (Maxwell) and Canon Australia for making these highly desirable cameras available for an extended period of time. Getting hold of a Nikon D200 is especially difficult at the moment, as it seems I am not the only photographer to recognize the significance, quality and value of the D200.

Fig 05. Both the Nikon D200 and Canon 5D utilize a 3:2 format sensor

Format I am not a big fan of the 4:3 format found in many DSLRs – it doesn’t match the shape of my computer screen, my TV or the sort of landscape images that I like to make which are usually more oblong than they are square. As a photographer growing up on a diet of 35mm film it also does not match my sense of what looks or feels right. Although the Canon uses a 3:2 full-frame CMOS sensor that is the same size as 35mm film it is important to note that Nikon DSLRs also use 3:2 format sensors, even though they are smaller than those fitted to the Canon 5D. The ‘shape’ of the images produced by both the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 therefore is the same. It is just the size of Canon’s sensor that marks the difference. Canon’s advertisement for the 5D uses the word ‘New’ printed over areas of the image that would not be covered if using a lens of the same focal length on a DSLR sporting a reduced frame sensor. This is indeed true – your 24mm lens is a 24mm lens whether it is attached to your 5D DSLR or your Canon 35mm film camera (this would become a not-very-wide 36mm on a DSLR using a reduced frame sensor such as the D200). This is a big selling point for wide-angle owning Canon photographers who have not yet made the jump from film. This is why the 5D is sold as ‘body’ only. Canon expects the prospective 5D owner either already owns a few Canon lenses or is not interested in the build and optical quality of a typical ‘kit’ lens. Buying a 5D or 1Ds is not the only way of achieving this extra or new information however. Purchasing an ultra wide zoom designed for reduced frame sensors will also give you back the angle of view that you may have lost if you decided to invest in a camera such as the D200. For instance Nikon owners could invest in the 12-24mm G ED or the cash-strapped could choose to invest in Tamron’s impressive SP AF 11-18mm as a cost-effective alternative.

Cost Lets get straight to the bottom line - the 5D is twice the price of the D200. If you are interested in speed (frames per second) rather than absolute image quality then the 5D probably does not have what you are looking for. Nikon’s D200 and Canon’s 20D and new 30D DSLRs are faster than the 5D. At 3 frames per second the 5D is no faster than the budget EOS 350D. But then speed is not what the 5D is about. The build quality of both the 5D and D200 is excellent. The Nikon if anything feels a little more solid (but not overweight) and has a few more bells and whistles than the Canon. For those who like a feature rich interface and a pop-up flash for fill and catch-lights the Nikon has the edge over the relatively clean lines of the Canon. For the Nikon owner who does not own a single Canon lens the price of the Canon may require some justification before the owner decides to switch camps. The Nikon owner could invest in the D200 together with a new digital ultra wide zoom and still have change when compared to the purchase of a 5D. For the Canon owner who already owns lenses designed for Canon’s reduced frame CMOS sensors the price of the 5D may also act as a deterrent. Just like its bigger brother, however, the 5D is in a league of one, if a camera with a full-frame sensor is something you aspire to. The big question for a pro-photographer, or an aspiring pro-photographer, is ‘how good is the full frame sensor of the 5D?’ Is the 5D full-frame sensor worth the price premium? This brings us to the crux of the comparison – image quality.

Image quality – pixel quantity

Both the 5D and D200 are well endowed in the pixel count. The 5D weighs in at 12.7 versus Nikon’s 10.2. On your average magazine full-bleed double-page spread this difference is hardly likely to be significant or noticeable (the difference would be somewhere in the region of 235ppi compared to 255ppi which would be almost impossible to detect). The question of quality would more than likely be decided by the quality of the lens used to capture the image and the post-production treatment of the image rather than the pixel count.

Fig 06a. Corner detail (see inset for full image) from an image captured with an EOS 5D.

Focal length 16mm, Aperture f/8 (Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM lens)

Note the red/green chromatic aberration visible at the edges of the ovals cut out of the yellow girder

Fig 06b. Chromatic aberration is also found in files captured by the D200. Focal length 18mm, Aperture f/7.1 Nikon

18-200mm ED VR

Image quality – red and green in the corner pockets

The type of sensor and its size does have a bearing on the final image quality however, which is not connected to the pixel count. It is a fact of life that the quality of an image created by any lens deteriorates at the edge. A lens that can hold its sharpness in the corners of the image requires great optical precision. Larger sensors require greater optical precision than smaller sensors if the edge detail is to remain as acceptably sharp, as the corners of the larger sensor are comparatively further away from the centre. It therefore follows that quality lenses designed for full-frame sensors are more expensive to make than lenses designed for reduced frame sensors. As both Canon and Nikon have a reputation for making quality lenses it makes sense for tests to spend some time examining the corners of the image to check for optical accuracy. It would make no sense to create a larger image sensor to obtain extra image area from the same focal length lens if the quality of the image deteriorates significantly in the corners. If this were the case it would make more sense just to use the ‘sweet spot’ of the lens and increase the megapixel count over a smaller surface area. I found the corner sharpness of the Canon to be perfectly OK. A small amount of vignetting was detected at very wide apertures but the only significant problem I had in the corners of the images captured using the wide-angle zoom was the significant red/green chromatic aberration visible. This was also to be found in images created by the Nikon using the wide-zoom supplied. This can be corrected in either camera RAW or by using the Lens Correction filter found in Photoshop CS2, but it does slow down the workflow for photographers who are meticulous about quality. Maybe firmware updates and future versions of Adobe’s camera RAW plug-ins will address this problem and achieve greater success with chromatic alignment.

Fig 07a. High ISO capture using the 5D – 800 and 1600 ISO – note clean and smooth shadow detail as well as

highlight tones

Fig 07b. Nikon D200 @ 800 ISO – note clean highlight tones but moderate luminance noise in the midtones and the

shadows (right-hand side of image)

Noise – high ISO The type of sensors used by Nikon and Canon also makes a difference to the quality of the image. Canon uses CMOS sensor technology whilst Nikon have invested in CCD technology. Although both sensors are excellent, each has its own characteristics that are evident when the ISO is adjusted. Typically noise levels recorded by image sensors increase as the ISO of the sensor is increased or during extended exposure times. The Canon CMOS sensors found in all of their digital SLRs have re-written the book in terms of acceptably high ISO speeds that can be used before the levels of noise becomes intrusive and the image loses its commercial viability. Similarly the ISO of the Nikon sensor can be raised significantly before excessive image noise rears its ugly head. When compared with each other however Nikon’s CCD sensor is no match for the performance of Canon’s CMOS sensor at higher ISO speeds. The CMOS sensor found in the 5D is no exception. Photographers can shoot at speeds of 800 or even 1600 ISO in low light before noise becomes a problem. At 400 ISO the Canon is already delivering visibly superior performance to the Nikon D200. The Nikon’s shadows are the first to suffer with luminance speckles quickly invading every dark tone. Highlight tones remain comparatively clear of noise until the ISO exceeds 800 ISO. With a little care in post-production (gentle amounts of sharpening and moderate levels of noise reduction) the files are still commercially viable when captured at 800 ISO even though they are not quite as clean as those captured by the 5D. This high ISO performance of pro quality DSLRs allows the photographer to shoot colour images hand-held in low light without resorting to flash (something that was only recommended with fast black and white film). This can be a liberating experience for professionals used to shooting on slow speed colour film with fast lenses (those with maximum apertures of f/2.8 or wider). The wide aperture pro lenses are considerably more expensive than the consumer zooms. The ability to now work in low light with an f/4 zoom lens instead of a wide aperture fixed focal length lens opens up all sorts of creative and financial possibilities in this new digital era.

Fig 08a. Deep shadows are opened out (using a levels adjustment) to reveal... no noise. Nikon D200 @ 200 ISO

Fig 08b. Deep shadows are opened out to reveal... luminance noise. Canon 5D @ 200 ISO

Noise – low ISO I found the Nikon had the cleanest files at 100 and 200 ISO when compared to the 5D. Opening up deep shadow information using a Curves or levels adjustment revealed no luminance or chroma noise. When post-production editing requires the shadows to be opened to reveal detail the files created by the Nikon D200 at low ISO were able to deliver the goods every time. The exemplary performance at 100 and 200 ISO delivers the sort of performance one would expect to find with a Nikon D2x or Canon EOS 1Ds Mark 11. In comparison the deep shadows found in files captured

by the Canon 5D are best left as just that – deep shadows. With such great performance at high ISO it was somewhat disappointing to see noise still evident at just 100 ISO in the image files captured by the 5D (even though it would take large print sizes and lightened shadow detail to reveal these differences). Although very minor noise (luminance and chroma) is evident at 100 ISO it would be fair to say that the performance is no match for the noise levels one would expect to find in an image file from the cameras bigger brother, the EOS 1Ds. The noise levels present in images captured by the 5D are more comparable to those found in a Canon 20D rather than the EOS 1Ds. Think of the 5D sensor as an enlarged 20D sensor rather than a lower resolution EOS 1Ds sensor. Note > When deep shadows are lightened excessively in digital files the photographer may notice ‘tonal posterization’ (a visible banding of tones) is often evident – even when the files are clear of luminance noise. This weakness in shadow detail is due to the linear nature of the sensor and is a result of the decreased number of levels dedicated to the shadow tones. The only solution to this problem is to increase the exposure so that more levels are dedicated to these darker tones.

Conclusion Most camera tests look at features that I have not had time or headspace to cover here in this article. None of the features I encountered however would stop me from buying into either camera. For instance, I prefer Canon’s thumbwheel to Nikon’s multi-selector but this would not sway my decision. I like the fact that on the Canon you can access your custom settings via a knob rather than from a menu, as is the case with the D200, but this is a 2 second time-saving issue. I found the bright optical viewfinder on the 5D magnificent and superior (the Nikon’s is also pretty fabulous) but felt the Nikon put more useful information in its viewfinder. I found the fixed 6-second illuminated display and meter reading annoying on the 5D (it takes me at least a couple of minutes to set up the exposure when working in twilight conditions, but then I have been known to carry a pocket torch). To be honest though, all of these issues dance around the main point of buying a good DSLR – to make fabulous quality images. The main decision I have had to make is to balance image quality with price. If you are shooting hand-held in low light and already own a Canon wide angle and aspire to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark 11 then your 5D awaits. There is no other choice if you plan to build your lens collection around the full-frame sensor. If on the other hand you already own some Nikon equipment and the thought of carrying a tripod around for low light photography does not fill you with fear and loathing then the Nikon D200 offers probably the best value pro DSLR currently available. Both the Nikon and the Canon DSLRs discussed here have their strengths. Once you have recognized your primary uses for a DSLR and factored in any existing equipment either of these two excellent camera’s represent value for money. If the factor of lenses were removed from the equation then I have to admit that the Nikon D200 seems to be incredibly competitively priced when compared to the Canon 5D. If the prices had been the same then the 5D, I feel, would have made many Nikon owners jump ship. As the price stands however the 5D is pitched for existing Canon owners. Whether the extra cost above and beyond the price of a 20 or 30D is warranted is a question only Canon owners can answer with their cheque books. Unless I saw evidence that the 5D was a runaway success I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the price of the 5D dropped significantly over the coming years. This factor of course would see many current Canon owners sitting on the proverbial fence for yet another year. For this Nikon owner however the fence sitting is over, I’ve put my name down for a Nikon D200. Now I have just got to wait for the next shipment to arrive. It seems all of the other fence sitters got to the first shipment before me!