Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Canon versus Nikon


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Trevor Rees

Trevor Rees

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Worcester, England, UK
  • Interests:UK underwater photography

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:26 PM

Ok, so I'm looking at SLR choices for a cropped sensor SLR. I own no SLR let alone any lenses.

I sense that a 180 degree fisheye lens is a very desirable lens to have. Clearly a lot of other photographers do too.

This may be obvious, but does this rule out Canon as a brand as they do not have such a lens and there is no hint of them launching such a lens?

If a lens such as the 10.5 Nikkor or the 8mm Olympus is a must have item should I not bother to look at Canon cameras unless I like the look of the 5D?

#2 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:36 PM

This may be obvious, but does this rule out Canon as a brand as they do not have such a lens and there is no hint of them launching such a lens?

If a lens such as the 10.5 Nikkor or the 8mm Olympus is a must have item should I not bother to look at Canon cameras unless I like the look of the 5D?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's the biggest reason I'll probably upgrade to the 5D. I agree that Canon is unlikely to come out with an EF-S 180 degree fisheye. I suspect Sigma will come out with one soon. They have execellent 15mm and 8mm FE lenses.
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#3 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:46 PM

Interesting question. A 180 degree fisheye is a specialist lens - not one that you use every-day. It's not something that I'd base my camera choice on, but that's just me.

If it's important to you, then the 5D is a good choice - for the same reason's it's a great underwater camera - wide lenses are really wide, and the viewfinder is big and bright.

I agree with Herb - I see Sigma making a "DX" type fisheye lens soon. I use their 15mm fisheye and it's a great lens.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#4 Arnon_Ayal

Arnon_Ayal

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1826 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:12 PM

No doubt that Nikon have a big advance in the super WA area, you can do 180 degrees shots with a relative not so expensive camera like the D70.
If this type of photography is what interest you and you don't want or can't buy the much more expensive FF option then Nikon is the way for you.
Arnon Ayal www.arnonayal.com
Nikon D200, Ikelite housing, Dual SB105.

#5 Trevor Rees

Trevor Rees

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Worcester, England, UK
  • Interests:UK underwater photography

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:26 PM

James,

I've been using the Inon AD 165 lens on my Canon A95 compact and finding it very useful indeed, especially in murky UK waters. Admittedly its not 180 degrees but I suppose at around 165 degrees it's getting there.

It's this experience that makes me lust after a similar angle of coverage on an SLR. I think I'd find only a 15mm on a Canon 20D or a 350D a bit dissapointing. A full frame Canon 5D seems a real comitment if I'm still paralyzed by indecision on camera/housing choices.

Trevor

#6 Tom_Kline

Tom_Kline

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:fishes and invertebrates

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:19 PM

A 180 degree fisheye (FE) is my most-used lens for murky water wide angle. Conditions in Alaska are no better than UK waters. A FE is a must have if you are going to 'upgrade' to a dSLR. FE's are quite useful in clearish waters too! :)
Tom

Thomas C. Kline, Jr., Ph. D.
Oceanography & Limnology
Canon EOS-1Ds MkII and MkIII and Nikon D1X, D2X, D2H cameras. Lens focal lengths ranging from 8 to 180mm for UW use. Seacam housings and remote control gear. Seacam 150D and 250D, Sea&Sea YS250, and Inon Z220 strobes.

http://www.salmonography.com/

 


#7 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:27 PM

Tom, I was a little surprised to read James' statement on that as well. I love that lens and the close focus W/A shots alone are worth the investment.

Rand
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#8 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:36 PM

Oh I totally agree with you guys - once you've been diving for a while, a FF Fisheye is a must. I loved using mine in Bali when viz was low.

But it's definitely a "specialty" lens, and not as versatile as a wideangle zoom like a Sigma 10-20. I have a 1.25 crop camera, and when I bought it I wasn't particularly worried about whether or not I'd be able to shoot 180 degree fisheye. I still like the fisheye on the 1.3x crop camera, it's very wide, and probably easier to shoot for a beginner like me since I don't photograph my fins as much. :-)

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#9 Cerianthus

Cerianthus

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hasselt, Overijssel, Netherlands

Posted 25 October 2005 - 02:05 AM

excuse me if i ask a stupid question, but Canon offers a 10-22mm zoom. Doesnt the 10mm setting offer the desired fish eye coverage?

Gerard
Gerard

My photo's on flickr
Crop the world ! (Using Canon 20D, 60mm, 100mm, 10-17mm FE, Ikelite)

#10 Arnon_Ayal

Arnon_Ayal

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1826 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2005 - 03:14 AM

excuse me if i ask a stupid question, but Canon offers a 10-22mm zoom. Doesnt the 10mm setting offer the desired fish eye coverage?

Gerard

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the EF-S 10-22mm have in maximum 107.5 degrees Vs the 180 degrees of the 10.5.
Arnon Ayal www.arnonayal.com
Nikon D200, Ikelite housing, Dual SB105.

#11 Cerianthus

Cerianthus

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hasselt, Overijssel, Netherlands

Posted 25 October 2005 - 03:30 AM

building on the stupid question, but why is this?

I always thought that (given a same-sized sensor) the focal lenght was directly related to coverage.

Gerard
Gerard

My photo's on flickr
Crop the world ! (Using Canon 20D, 60mm, 100mm, 10-17mm FE, Ikelite)

#12 anthp

anthp

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests:Photography in Le Grand Bleu.

Posted 25 October 2005 - 04:10 AM

I always thought that (given a same-sized sensor) the focal lenght was directly related to coverage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For rectilinear lenses - YES.

But, for fisheye lenses, the formula is slightly different.

See this explaination by Bob Atkins for a little more detail if you are interested.
Anthony Plummer
anthonyplummer.com
"It's much better down there... It's a better place..." Enzo, Le Grand Bleu.

#13 Rocha

Rocha

    Salty Dog

  • Senior Moderator
  • 3073 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA

Posted 25 October 2005 - 04:11 AM

Gerard, that's true for rectilinear wide angle lenses. The fisheyes (either Canon or Nikon) have a distorted angle of coverage of 180 degrees, regardless if they are 16, 15 or 10.5mm. The 10-22 is a rectilinear wide angle, with a coverage much smaller than the fisheyes. Different lens designs for different applications.

Luiz Rocha - www.luizrocha.com
Nikon D800, Aquatica AD800, Ikelite strobes.


#14 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:34 AM

I am a big fisheye user. And could not imagine UW shooting without it. I use it for about 90% of my wide angle photography and 100% of my (limited) photography in the UK.

I agree with James that fisheyes are not idea for beginners. But once you have learned to use them then nothing else will do! And certainly Trevor is not beginner at wide angle.

Now that the Canon 5D is available (although not yet housable) you don't really have to differentiate the brands on fisheyes (as previously the 1Ds, as a new camera, was out of nearly everyones price range). But the 5D is very expensive £2300 in the UK. So if you are looking in the sub £1000 range for a body then Nikon mount bodies do still offer an advantage.

I would also look towards what camera and housing brands your regular buddies have. Choosing the same as them is a good way to ensure backups and different lenses are available when you travel.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D4 (Subal housing). Nikon D7100 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#15 Ingvald Arne Meland

Ingvald Arne Meland

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bergen, Norway

Posted 25 October 2005 - 10:51 AM

This picture is taken with the nikon 10,5mm FE and a D2x
It focus so close that the it is almost inside the Plumose anemone. You can see the dome is pressed against it.

Posted Image

(I know it is a horrieble bad photo)
user posted image
Ingvald Arne Meland
iam@ingvald.com
www.ingvald.com

#16 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 25 October 2005 - 10:56 AM

See - there's a strobe arm in the photo...:-) And the upper right hand corner is blown out by the flash tube.

Sorry don't mean to pick on your Ingvald - but your shot really helps to drive home my point.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#17 Paul Kay

Paul Kay

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1732 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wales, UK

Posted 25 October 2005 - 11:09 AM

On the note of fisheyes being of limited use - I rarely ever use one although most of my underwater photography is in Britain and Ireland, although I do have a Canon 15mm fisheye lens. It depends on how and what you shoot and which lenses suit your style and subjects.

If you like the smaller (not full frame) format then Nikon are a logical choice, especially as the Canon FF cameras are more expensive. However things may change. FF cameras will probably get cheaper and, who knows, Canon may produce a fisheye for their smaller format cameras.

If you really want a fisheye lens now, then look closely at Nikon at the moment, if you are happy to key into their smaller format.
Paul Kay, Canon EOS5D/5DII, SEACAM/S45, 15, 24L, 60/2.8 (+Ext12II) & 100/2.8 Macros - UK/Ireland Seacam Sales underseacameras & marinewildlife & paulkayphotography & welshmarinefish

#18 Ingvald Arne Meland

Ingvald Arne Meland

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bergen, Norway

Posted 25 October 2005 - 12:12 PM

See - there's a strobe arm in the photo...:-)


No, it is the rope to the boat in the background.

And the upper right hand corner is blown out by the flash tube.


That is not the strobe light, it is the sun, but you are right about it is blown out.

Sorry don't mean to pick on your Ingvald - but your shot really helps to drive home my point.


Happy to be of service. As I wrote, it is a horrible bad picture, just to illustrate how close you could get with the 10,5mm
user posted image
Ingvald Arne Meland
iam@ingvald.com
www.ingvald.com

#19 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 25 October 2005 - 12:16 PM

I love it when I'm "Forced" to post a shot. :blink:

Actually, this is probably a good example for the 10.5's usefulness in low light.

My first dive on this plane, the water was much clearer and the vis was pretty good. Later in the week, on our second dive, vis has dropped substantially. Although the 10.5 really pushes the image away, I was quite near the wreck, perhaps just a few feet from the prop.

The ability to get closer kept the major part of the subject from being swallowed up by the fog that's beginning to envelope the tail. It would have been interesting to see how much further back the 15mm would have pushed me to get the same framing v.s. the 10.5. (Full frame btw)

Posted Image

And I'm very much looking forward to using this lens in La Paz where I hope to find a spot for Alex's magic filter as well. Perhaps with the Sealions.

Rand
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#20 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 25 October 2005 - 12:30 PM

That's a piece of history Rand - great shot.

When I think "wrecks" I usually want a rectilinear lens, IMO. But totally coral-encrusted wrecks (Liberty) or airplanes are probably different.

Have you tried NC Fisheye correction on this shot Rand?

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org