Canon vs Nikon - Which One

Böwser wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
...
We all know that the Digital Rebel XSi has an edge on the very fine
Nikon D60.

It does?


And the Nikon D300 (for a big wad of cash) has an edge on the Canon 40D.

Yes, and it's more expensive, as well, as you say.


And nobody knows how th3 Nikon D700 will compare against the Canon
5DMKII (or whatever they will call it)

Based on the quantity of rumors that existed prior to each release,
the edge goes to the 5D II. (....sigh....)


But how do you think the new Nikon D90 Will share out against the
Canon 50D.

All I can tell right now is that the D90 is a little smaller. I think
we need to see if Canon's 'gapless microlens' technology really can
help. If it does, well... Let's wait for the test images.


And how will the new Canon 18-200 compare agaqinst Nikon 18-200.

Both will suck. Nikon's may suck a little less since it's an AF-S
lens, and the Canon uses a micromotor for focusing (geez, why?). But I
believe suckitude will reign here.

Why do you think these lenses suck? If true why can't they make a good
one at a reasonable price.

In article , Dave wrote:

On thing to consider is that 3rd partly lenses are always available in
Canon and Nikon fit, but the range is much more limited for other makes
of cameras. Hence that is a good practical reason to chose Canon or
Nikon and not Pentax or some other lesser makes. If you buy a cheaper
(i.e. not Nikon or Canon) you are more likely to want to buy cheaper
(i.e. 3rd party) lenses.

there's a lot of pentax k-mount lenses out there.

I always liked the concept of the Tamron Adaptal system, which was nice
for me as I changed from Practica M42 to Nikon, but I've since sold all
my Tamron lenses. But I think Tamron have abandoned that now, so if you
buy a new lens you have to order to fit a Nikon, Canon or whatever.

that doesn't work so well with electronic interfaces, although you'd
think it would be easier. in any event, there's a nikon-canon adapter
ring that translates the signals.

Böwser wrote:

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
m...
measekite wrote:

And how will the new Canon 18-200 compare agaqinst Nikon 18-200.

I'm sure it will do just as fine. I never thought Canon would be dumb
enough to build such a monstrosity, but I guess they felt left out
that Nikon was trying to steal the title from them for building the
crappiest lens ever.

Well, for me, the old 43-86 push/pull zoom was the worst zoom I've ever
used. Utterly horrible, and an incredibly popular lens from the slide
rule days.

I had one of those 43-86 zooms - and stuck it in my basement about 25
years ago. I found it a few years ago (and whether good luck or Nikon
build or the fact that I have a dry basement - it was fungus free). I
sold it online. The buyer was a Canon 20d owner using an f-mount
adapter, keen to try to find some interesting alternatives to Canon
glass. That might tell something - but perhaps not. The buyer gave me
good feedback on the auction, but never sent me a copy of a picture
taken with the lens.

measekite wrote:


Rita Berkowitz wrote:
measekite wrote:

And how will the new Canon 18-200 compare agaqinst Nikon 18-200.

I'm sure it will do just as fine. I never thought Canon would be dumb
enough to build such a monstrosity, but I guess they felt left out
that Nikon was trying to steal the title from them for building the
crappiest lens ever.



Rita

And just how crappy and why do you think the Nikkor 18-200 lens is.
Remember it is for the APC sensor.

It's what you would expect from such a wide range zoom. The Canon
version is sure to be just as bad or just as good, depending on your
opinion of the Nikon version. It's a lens I'd like to have when I don't
want to carry around a lot of lenses, knowing full well that the results
will not be as good as I could otherwise achieve.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:41:21 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: measekite wrote:
: We all know that the Digital Rebel XSi has an edge on the very fine
: Nikon D60.
:
: And the Nikon D300 (for a big wad of cash) has an edge on the Canon 40D.
:
: And nobody knows how th3 Nikon D700 will compare against the Canon
: 5DMKII (or whatever they will call it)
:
: But how do you think the new Nikon D90 Will share out against the Canon
: 50D.
:
: In your pocket you probably have a binary decision making tool.
:
: Flip it.
:
: Facetious? Yeah, maybe. But you should be looking to build a system
: for the long term (20 years, say). So the body-du-jour is not of much
: consequence.

And when you've gone some distance down one road or the other, there's little
point in looking back. My wife and I were Nikon users in the film era. But now
we have two XTi bodies and six Canon-compatible lenses. So I've put myself on
a waiting list for the 50D and may not even bother to read the details of the
D90.

Bob

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:35:36 -0700, measekite wrote:
:
:
: Doug Jewell wrote:
: measekite wrote:
: We all know that the Digital Rebel XSi has an edge on the very fine
: Nikon D60.
:
: And the Nikon D300 (for a big wad of cash) has an edge on the Canon 40D.
:
: And nobody knows how th3 Nikon D700 will compare against the Canon
: 5DMKII (or whatever they will call it)
:
: But how do you think the new Nikon D90 Will share out against the
: Canon 50D.
:
: And how will the new Canon 18-200 compare agaqinst Nikon 18-200.
: It should be interesting reading reviews in the upcoming months.
: Put it this way - regardless of which brand you buy, it won't be long
: and then there will be a camera from the other brand which will be
: better, and you'll be tempted to say "i wish I bought xxxx instead".
: But then the brand you bought will have a new model and you'll say
: "I'm glad I bought xxxx".
: Then there's the Sony and Pentax offerings, which arguably offer
: better features for the money than the Nikon & Canon cameras.
: I'd suggest have a hands-on with as many cameras as you can and make
: your choice that way. At the end of the day, every DSLR on the market
: today is bloody good - the differences are splitting hairs. Use them
: and get a feel of which seems to be the nicest for you to use, and
: purchase according to that.
:
: Maybe but I think that Digital SLRs will mature to the same point as
: their film predecessors. When that happen you will find much more time
: between models and the newer cameras will settle for being evolutionary
: instead of revolutionary.

But only until technology advances bring about the next revolutionary change.
In the case of film SLRs, the revolutionary change was the onset of digital.

Bob

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:23:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
: On Aug 27, 8:45*pm, measekite wrote:
: We all know that ...
:
: Frankly both Canon and Nikon are fine cameras. I have had both.
:
: Reviews are good, but almost all are intentionally or
: unintentionally slanted.
:
: For anyone considering buying one, I suggest the following.
:
: 1. Decide what YOUR needs are. How are YOU going to use the camera?
:
: 2. Take a look to see what is currently on the market, that fits
: those needs.
:
: 3. Research those the meet the needs and then get the top few models
: into YOUR hands. Take some photos (use your own media) and compare
: the results. Which is best? Which meet YOUR needs. Which felt
: comfortable in YOUR hands? Which were easy and intuitive for YOU to
: use.
:
: 4. It is not likely that you and I have the same needs, same size
: hands, same experiences etc. So my opinion is not really worth much
: once you get it down to the likely candidates.
:
: 5. Yea, what is important is the final product. But I may make MY
: best product with a Canon and you may make YOUR best product with a
: Nikon. So the on-line photos and opinions are not nearly as
: important as YOUR personal real life opinions.

I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software. Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop), tricky to learn (Gimp), or
operationally clumsy (Gimp, Picasa). Canon's best product (Digital Photo
Professional) is easy to use, more capable than one might expect, and free
with any EOS camera. I know nothing abut Nikon's competing products, except
that I've read that they charge upwards of $100 for their best one.

Many of the 3rd-party products go beyond what the camera manufacturers
provide, of course. But if you're reasonably careful with exposure and
composition, you may find that you rarely need the added functionality. Hence
the quality of the manufacturer-supplied software may well matter to you.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software. Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

photoshop is only expensive if one buys the full version, which is
generally overkill for most people. photoshop elements uses the same
adobe camera raw engine and is more than adequate for the average user.

Robert Coe wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software. Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),

Photshop Elements is quite affordable ( $100) and more that powerful
enough for most amateurs. (And amateur being serious photographers).
The only reason I got CS3 was for much better print color control.

tricky to learn (Gimp), or

And a PITA in a 16bit/color world as some strains of GIMP are fully 16
b/c but this is not in all the filters; or the v. with all kinds of
filters don't have 16 b/c. Last v. of GIMP I tried did not have real
time feedback while using the unsharp mask, making that pre-print
critical operation extremely tedious. Not sure if that has been
addressed or in which 'strain' of GIMP, but suffice it to say that I'll
not revisit GIMP for a long time...

operationally clumsy (Gimp, Picasa). Canon's best product (Digital Photo
Professional) is easy to use, more capable than one might expect, and free
with any EOS camera. I know nothing abut Nikon's competing products, except
that I've read that they charge upwards of $100 for their best one.

IMNHO, camera co's are great at making cameras. Graphic co's are great
at making image processing s/w; and Adobe are king of that particular heap.

I've just discovered, for example, that Nikon's scanning s/w for the
Nikon 9000 scanner does not function well on the Mac. Cannot perform
film strip offsets with reliability or repeatability. So, scanning with
the WinXP machine and transferring to the Mac for photoshop. I guess
I'll have to DL VueScan for the Mac... (3rd party scan s/w) as Nikon
can't get this right... (yes, the s/w is up to date with DL's from
Nikon). Just hope my WinXP license for VueScan is valid on the Mac.

Many of the 3rd-party products go beyond what the camera manufacturers
provide, of course. But if you're reasonably careful with exposure and
composition, you may find that you rarely need the added functionality. Hence
the quality of the manufacturer-supplied software may well matter to you.

Do not concur. See above.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:


I'd add that the decision criteria should include the cost, functionality, and
ease of use of the manufacturer-supplied RAW processing software. Third-party
alternatives can be expensive (Photoshop),


photoshop is only expensive if one buys the full version, which is
generally overkill for most people. photoshop elements uses the same
adobe camera raw engine and is more than adequate for the average user.


It does not support adjustment layers and standard layers. Without
those features a photo editor is not very valuable.