michaelmallon.net

i have to say that the single biggest gripe i have working in a college photography department is the number of people who argue about canon v. nikon when it comes to digital photography.

i would have expected a bigger argument over digital v. film, but most people are in agreement that for anything you would shoot with film smaller than 120, digital is just as good as the equivalent film, and in a lot of instances, better.

people are starting to agree on digital v. film, time for a new arbitrary series of debates, ccd v. cmos, canon v. nikon, full-frame sensor (double-frame 35mm movie film same as 35mm still photography film) v. sub-size sensor (aps-c size, original 35mm movie film size, half the area of double-frame 35mm film), blah, blah, blah…

to all of these people, please, shut up already.

i’m sick of hearing the same arguments over and over ad infinitum (and believe me, they are always the same arguments, even mine that i present here on this page!), and when all is said and done, the choice is completely subjective as the truth of the situation is that they’re so damn equal its nearly impossible to tell the difference between the two, especially if someone just stuck two identical prints in front of you and asked you to determine which one was the nikon, and which one the canon (assuming they came from similar cameras feature/sensor wise with equivalent lenses)

ken rockwell does a great job of busting this myth at his page on camera resolution here and i highly recommend anyone interested in this stupid debate go read the page as he’s the first person i’ve seen that has compared the competing cameras using a controlled real-life scene to measure and compare resolution and noise among as opposed to the supposed “experts” that shoot those arbitrary test charts or resolution targets.