There's been a saying that Canon users are usually auto suckers and Nikons are manual...

I find that Nikon DSLR's don't make as good of point and shoot's as Canons... However most Canons seem to make pretty subpar manual shooters in comparison to nikon's.

Hey guys, was in a rush.

Yes didn't post meta data, both canon and Nikon shot default (haven't done any W/B) at ISO canon 400, nikon 640, shutter 1/2000 sec. Aperture 10 , canon 11. Look in no way was I trying to make this thread scientific. There was no weights placed ontop of either camera, I was merely working by eye. Only a tripod used. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on first impressions of the shoot and see if there was any obvious reasons for the differences!!!. Cheers adamz and mike and bjrichus.

and casperwb, I'm new to these forum, obviously I am not to post without studio quality setup and charts, thanks for informing me.

adamz

point taken, will do

thanks

guys I've cleaned up this thread a little bit, as it went off topic and nasty.

tim - if You share test images than please make them consistent - follow what bjrichus and mike wrote.

casperwb - please don't over-judge from just one shot, sure it looks very amateurish but we don't know too much about setup.

Hi Tim,

Welcome to the forum!

I think that you find this a very good place to get great information on all things Nikon.

As others said, your tests might need a little tweaking to ensure accurate results.

You might want to do a manual WB on both camera, first, then ensure that both use the same ISO, and use the same lens focal length.

You might also use a sturdy support and have a target that can reset the scene into the frame for each shot.

Finally, be sure that you use manual settings to accurately put the same f-stop on the lenses, and put that f-stop at the 'sweet' stop somewhere around f5.6/f8. Use manual flash as well, or outdoor lighting.

I like the 18-105mm lens. In the POD you'll see a few of the shoots that I've made with the lens. I use it along with the 17-55, or 35 1.8, or 55 1.8, or any of the 13 other lenses I have. I've been at this so long, it doesn't take too much to collect that many lenses.

I think the lens is sharp as Einstein. Cost doesn't make a lens good. What makes a lens expensive is build quality for ruggedness and weather proofing, and larger reticules necessary for the faster lens. That's not to say that the _faster_ lens is a _sharper_ lens.

Getting caught in the rain or snow or in a dust storm with the 18-105 would be more taxing than say the 17-55 if you were going to continue to work that day. Much, much less so if you were going to be able to go to the store that afternoon - then I might _want_ the 18-105. ;-)

The debate on what value the lens has to a given photographer goes to his market, what he/she can do with his photos and portfolio and market position. It's a different thing than 'sharpness' of a lens.

My best,

Mike

Tim,

Assuming you are not trolling... To pass any meaningful comment, we'd need to know much more about the set up and shot details. While I am sure I could look at the originals and find that EXIF data (assuming you didn't strip it out), I don't have the time to do that today.

I also have a D7000 and sold that stock lens; as I didn't find it any better (in terms of sharpness at least) than the other DX lenses Nikon sell, so simply didn't need it.

Your pictures show a different color balance (typical in my experience for Canon shots) and I suspect THAT might be what you are seeing?

Unless you push the envelope you won't see any difference between any camera like this. You are shooting in a safe zone with those shots... The D7000 will score over something like the 360 design, as when the Canon has stopped working due to low light, the D7000 is still storming on and taking good shots. Oh yes, lets not forget that the D7000 shots will be enlargeable to prints that will cover the side of a room, whereas the 360's shots are going to begin to tail off in quality over about 10x8". That's not a criticism of the Canon, so much as a statement about Megapixels.

Casper's comment might read as a little harsh, but the point is well made - your tests won't show any great difference as you are not stressing anything in the set up.

Go BIG with the Nikon (do these tests in deep twilight and don't shoot in low quality as the shots you posted are - such small JPG files??? YUK!!!), try it all again using RAW and *don't* resize the results down when you convert to JPG and I think THEN you'll *see* the reason Casper says what he did with your own eyes.

pointless,

not worth debating

learn to use the camera and return in six months, or better yet, buy a point and shoot.

OK guys,

recently got the new Nikon D7000, fantastic camera, only with stock 18-105 VR ED NIKKOR lens for now, sadly the image sharpness seems to be lacking. All stock settings, (image style (SD))

So anyway fixed a backfocus issue with 17 points of fine tune. decided id setup tripod and shoot an old basket ball for sharpness, same exposure and fstop on both cameras

Nikon d7000 crop one (100% crop)

Canon crop one (100% crop, same image size)

canon side crop

nikon side crop

all images here

https://picasaweb.google.com/117854228680974001556/SharpnessTest?feat=directlink

basically, I'm thinking there might be a restriction of the lens to the camera sensor (sensor quality > lens quality) really it all boils down to I'm not seeing all the imperfections I used to see on the canon when blown up then I am now with the nikon.

Not saying its a bad camera, just I'm a little disappointed ATM.

EDIT- 2 originals, original size (4k)