Canon - Nikon Observations

David J Taylor wrote:

snip

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

Cheers,
David

Tamron has released their 18-270 VC, is that close enough?

See "http://tinyurl.com/tamron-18-270-VC". $590.

The review is at
"http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp"
and it's not as horrible as you might expect. They say the AF is slower
than a Canon or Nikon 18-200, but the optics don't seem to be any worse.

SMS wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

snip

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

Cheers,
David

Tamron has released their 18-270 VC, is that close enough?

See "http://tinyurl.com/tamron-18-270-VC". $590.

The review is at
"http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp"
and it's not as horrible as you might expect. They say the AF is
slower than a Canon or Nikon 18-200, but the optics don't seem to be
any worse.

Not close enough - 15mm and 18mm are rather different wide-angles.

(and to John as well).

David

David J Taylor wrote:
SMS wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

snip

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

Cheers,
David

Tamron has released their 18-270 VC, is that close enough?

See "http://tinyurl.com/tamron-18-270-VC". $590.

The review is at
"http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp"

and it's not as horrible as you might expect. They say the AF is
slower than a Canon or Nikon 18-200, but the optics don't seem to be
any worse.

Not close enough - 15mm and 18mm are rather different wide-angles.

Just stick on a Canon WD-H72, and you'll be at 14.4mm. Remember
everything our old P&S friend was saying about adapters.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:05:37 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:44:35 GMT, measekite
wrote:

One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me think
the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

Keep in mind that the 18-200 is considered to be a consumer grade
all-in-one lens, so don't expect it to be on the same level with more
specialized ones. If you are interested in ultimate image quality,
you shouldn't even be considering an 18-200 from anyone.

This is what I am trying to compare. I want to print the following size
with moderate cropping: 12x18, 16x24, and 14x21 using an Epson 3800
printer. I want the best image quality that I can afford for less than
$800 plus the cost of a body.

After reading many reviews between Canon and Nikon I feel at this point
that Nikon has more lenses that go with the small sensor body and produce
somewhat better image quality and are built better than Canon but others
can argue differently.

I also know that an 18-200 provides a great deal of convenience over a
multi lens approach but the reviews are just not great and the compromises
are many. The lens cost is around $600.

So I ask if the following for a little bit more $$ might be closer to
getting the prints I am looking for using a D90 body.

In the place of the 18-200 you would use the following two lenses.

optical/build/price value
The AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR ****/***/**** at $560 along
with thr * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED ****/***/*****
at $150.

The total cost would be $710 or $110 more and less convenience for better
images.

Now the question to you out their in photo land is will these two lenses as
a substitute bring me significantly closer to my objective of print
quality where is will be well worth it go give up the convenience.






Even so, you should be looking at actual images made with that lens
rather than somone's test charts of a particular copy of it. You may
find that it is quite suitable for your purposes.



For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then read
many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will find their
final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

In some cases, the opposite is true. It depends on the lens and, in
some cases, who is reviewing it.


I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.

All in all, Nikon and Canon make very comparable products. Go with
the one that feels best to you - you'll be much happier in the long
run.

True but just for kicks I looked at a review of a Pentax kit lens and the
reviewer's results were higher.











As savageduck says: Go buy!

I would advise buying soon, before the prices go up.

With the economy the way it is I think prices will go down some.

Cheers,
David

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:38:48 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area where
the technology is developing rapidly, so there's a tendency for later
lenses to be better than earlier ones because the state of the art in
general has improved. I know nothing about these two specific zooms,
but it wouldn't be surprising if Canon's was better simply because it
was made a few years later. And it wouldn't surprise me if in a few
years Nikon produce one which is better than Canon's, or say a
15-300mm which is as good.

In areas where the technology is developing rapidly which maker is
best for what in which price range is just a game of leapfrog.

Agreed in general, but in the case of the 18-200mm VR/IS lens, Canon seem
to have been simply late in getting their lens to market. Both lenses are
compromises, and Nikon and Canon have made slight different design
compromises. Canon's lens is not, if I may paraphrase, "three years
better".

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

It seems we both read the same article and yes it was said Nikon has the
advantage in the wide and Canon has the advantage in the long. Nikon
also has the advantage in auto focus and Canon in IS.

The convenience seems great but the combo of the 16-85 and the 55-200 may
provide significant better image quality for about the same money. And at
a later time one can upgrade the 55-200 to a 70-300 but I do not know if
the image quality will be substantially better.


Cheers,
David

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:18:36 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:21:51 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:34:18 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

Print size isn't the only consideration, and there are things besides
the number of pixels that determines that. The D700 at 12 MP has
less noise, thererfore it produces cleaner images and it has a better
feature set overall than the 5DII.
Feature sets are somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Both bodies are
rich in them.

In terms of objective feature sets like autofocus, metering, and flash
capability, the Nikon is clearly better.

In your view.

In anyone's objective view. If you look at the specifications for
the above things, the D700 is simply more capable than the 5DII.

Not really. Notwithstanding the better high ISO performance and the frame
count the 5D2 does produce higher quality prints and has more cropping
discretion than the D700. Unfortunately when the D700X is released the
price will be out of line just like the D3X.


One of the "complaints" you hear from Canon users is that the 5DII isn't
really a significant improvement over the original 5D other than
resolution and some added high tech bells.

And a better LCD and Viewfinder.

However, the 5DII shoots movies and has a better live view mode than the
D700.


But I'd like to examine the noise statement. Arguably, the 700 is
better at high ISO noise reduction- but by how much? Certainly,
you'll not be finding any reputable reviewer saying there's a
significant difference below some threshold, say ISO 400. Or will
you?

Most dslrs will do quite well below ISO 400. One of the reasons for
buying a "full frame" camera is that they perform better at high ISO
than crop sensor bodies. Therefore, the place to compare FF cameras
with one another is at the high ISO end.

(The other main reason for buying a full-frame camera is that it gives
you better wide-angle performance and more control over DOF than a
crop body.)

At lower ISO and normal print sizes you won't find that much
difference in actual quality between a D300 and a D700, for example.
Both are excellent.

You've written sensibly, but not addressed the question.

What was the specific question I didn't address?

Savageduck wrote:

All kidding aside. I thing the Mac exposure, other than the "Seinfeldt"
placement, was due to the early adoption of Macs in professional movie
and TV production and the familiarity of production staff with Macs.
Though today there is little to choose from, given that production
software can be run on most platforms without issues.

It's still an issue. I have a nephew who's a producer and also a
freelance editor. A lot of stuff like commercials and simpler movies can
be made using Apple's Final Cut Pro, which is a lot cheaper and easier
to use than the professional Avid products, but it runs only on the Mac.

One big annoyance was when Apple dropped the Cardbus slot from their
notebooks (beginning with the Intel platform boxes) because the high end
digital movie cameras use memory cards that can be inserted directly
into the notebooks slot on scene, backed up, and reviewed. Now there are
add-on readers for these cards, but they're expensive and not USB bus
powered. This caused some editors to switch to Avid on the Windows
platform, though now very few Windows boxes have CardBus slots, so the
decontenting has been equalized.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:01:10 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

On 2009-01-13 16:32:00 -0800, measekite said:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:05:37 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:44:35 GMT, measekite
wrote:

One of the lenses that I am interested in is the 18-200.
http://www.photozone.de/
does not rate this lens very high. Reading their reviews make me think
the compromises are just to much and yet you like yours.

Keep in mind that the 18-200 is considered to be a consumer grade
all-in-one lens, so don't expect it to be on the same level with more
specialized ones. If you are interested in ultimate image quality,
you shouldn't even be considering an 18-200 from anyone.

This is what I am trying to compare. I want to print the following size
with moderate cropping: 12x18, 16x24, and 14x21 using an Epson 3800
printer. I want the best image quality that I can afford for less than
$800 plus the cost of a body.

After reading many reviews between Canon and Nikon I feel at this point
that Nikon has more lenses that go with the small sensor body and produce
somewhat better image quality and are built better than Canon but others
can argue differently.

I also know that an 18-200 provides a great deal of convenience over a
multi lens approach but the reviews are just not great and the compromises
are many. The lens cost is around $600.

So I ask if the following for a little bit more $$ might be closer to
getting the prints I am looking for using a D90 body.

In the place of the 18-200 you would use the following two lenses.

optical/build/price value
The AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR ****/***/**** at $560 along
with thr * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED ****/***/*****
at $150.

The total cost would be $710 or $110 more and less convenience for better
images.

Now the question to you out their in photo land is will these two lenses as
a substitute bring me significantly closer to my objective of print
quality where is will be well worth it go give up the convenience.



Even so, you should be looking at actual images made with that lens
rather than somone's test charts of a particular copy of it. You may
find that it is quite suitable for your purposes.


For some reason if you read many reviews for Nikon lenses and then read
many reviews for comparatively price Canon lenses you will find their
final verdicts on the Canon lenses are higher.

In some cases, the opposite is true. It depends on the lens and, in
some cases, who is reviewing it.


I always thought Nikon was the one to beat but maybe that was in
yesteryear.

All in all, Nikon and Canon make very comparable products. Go with
the one that feels best to you - you'll be much happier in the long
run.

True but just for kicks I looked at a review of a Pentax kit lens and the
reviewer's results were higher.

OK! I give up. That wasn't "just for kicks" that was to throw more
into this never ending mix of indecision.

You actually have no intention of buying a camera of any type do you?

I plan on buying a Nikon and most likely a D90. I just mentioned Pentax
because I saw a link to the review and was curious.

People criticize others for think the world is just Nikon and Canon and do
not think of Sony (Minolta), Pentax, Olympus and others.

Many years ago I had a Minolta. I did not especially like it but the
image quality was fine. I wanted a Nikon. So I bought one with a 50mm
1.5 and a Nikkor 105mm 2.8.

I had a lot of difficulty understanding why my Minolta 55mm 1.5 produce
sharper results than my Nikkor 1.4 when I shot both units and take the
same shot at the same time. Go figure.



Each time it seems you have reached the purchase threshold, you step
back from the brink and pull out another review and/or opinion. More and
more you present yourself as an armchair warrior.

Who cares?

Each of the DSLR bodies you have considered are capable of producing
fine prints, cropped or not. The lenses you have considered, if used
properly with any of the brand matched bodies will produce images and
prints you should be satisfied with.
You have placed budgetary constraints on your lens selection. Work
within your budget and don't make unrealistic demands of lenses, which
if used properly will work for you.

If I did not have budget constraints I would probably get a Canon 5D/2.

Until you make the commitment to spend what it takes to own the very
best to give you the potential to produce the prints you imagine you are
capable of, there is little point in trying to present yourself as this
demanding perfectionist.

There is certainly a technical aspect to photography in the selection of
equipment. However the end result requires more experience, skill and
talent than perfect equipment.
With all photography the most important piece of equipment is located
directly behind the viewfinder.
Without a camera and lens combination manufactured by anybody, in front
of that piece of equipment, there is no hope of producing an image of
any type.

Now you need to push yourself away from the reviews and BUY A DAMN
CAMERA, GO AND SHOOT and print your fine massive prints.

SMS wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
SMS wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

snip

Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. G

Cheers,
David

Tamron has released their 18-270 VC, is that close enough?

See "http://tinyurl.com/tamron-18-270-VC". $590.

The review is at
"http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp"

and it's not as horrible as you might expect. They say the AF is
slower than a Canon or Nikon 18-200, but the optics don't seem to be
any worse.

Not close enough - 15mm and 18mm are rather different wide-angles.

Just stick on a Canon WD-H72, and you'll be at 14.4mm. Remember
everything our old P&S friend was saying about adapters.

Use /two/ third-party components and compromise my camera even further - I
rather think not, old chap! G

David

measekite wrote:
[]
The convenience seems great but the combo of the 16-85 and the 55-200
may provide significant better image quality for about the same
money. And at a later time one can upgrade the 55-200 to a 70-300
but I do not know if the image quality will be substantially better.

My feeling is, that in practical use:

16-85 + 55-200 provides a greater zoom range and slightly better image
quality than the 18-200, ignoring correctable distortions.

70-300 provides a different zoom range to the 55-200, with marginally
better image quality, ignoring correctable distortions.

but I haven't measured these lenses.

If wide is important to you, go for the 16-85mm lens. It has a good
reputation. If telephoto is important, why bother with the 55-200 at all,
just go straight for the 70-300 or save up? If you must have a wide range
now, or the convenience of the single lens matters, get the 18-200mm.

(All lenses VR).

David