Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:17:18 -0600, Howard Larson
wrote:

DD wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems :

In article ,
says...

[snip]
The D70 compared with 300 D?? The D70 is a much better camera.

I know that, you know that, but the vast majority of newbies don't.

[snip]

Do you really know that? If so, you are simply contributing to the
noise when you could be educating those of us in the vast unwashed.

Physically, it seems to be a better camera. Sensorwise, probably
about the same. However, the conundrum is that the Rebel XT
is still a "lesser" camera physically and egonomically than the D70
but has a better sensor. But then for the average buyer, the kit
lens (18-70) for the D70 is a far better lens than either iteration of
the Canon 18-55mm. Tough choices, huh?
-Rich

Bettor sensor? For what purposes? I don't like the way Canon sensors
render images.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

In article ,
says...
How does a lens get classed as luxury?


Price.

Nah. It has a mint coat for a lens case and an air-conditioned lens
hood.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:iD0if.9916$dv.3260@fed1read02...
"nick c" wrote in message
...
snip

No argument there, but quality is not the criterion for inclusion in
"L"dom. Exotic elements, defined as exotic types of glass such as
fluorite, or low dispersion glass, are needed for the lens to be
considered an "L", according to Canon's own literature. The 60mm
Macro
has this type of glass, but I guess it is not included because it is
an
EF-S lens. (?) Makes little to no sense to me...


The 10-22 "S" lens has S-UD glass and it isn't labeled as a "L" lens. I
don't think the 60mm Macro "S" lens has either S-UD (or UD), or
fluorite
glass.


I was thinking about that one, just going from a memory that ain't what
it used to be.

I don't know if lens build quality alone may be a criterion for
labeling
a "L" lens, but I tend to think it may be. For example, the 14mm f-2.8
"L" lens and the excellent 35mm f-1.4 "L" lens doesn't have either
fluorite or S-UD glass yet they are "L" lens. However, they, like the
17-85 lens have aspherical elements. I'm equally puzzled.


My wife -ahem-"rearranged" our bookcase the other day, and I can't find
my lens lit. from Canon, but I thought the 35mm f1.4, at least, had UD
glass. If not, I'm just as puzzled as I ever was.

Got a new one for you Skip. I was thinking about the 85 f-1.2L lens and
thought to look it up in Canon's EF lens catalog and found this lens
doesn't have either fluorite or S-UD glass but it has one huge
aspherical
element.

Yeah, I just looked at the Canon Museum, and found the same thing...back
to
build quality as the primary, if not sole, criterion for "L" status.


I have read that all L lenses are sealed against the elements, and that is
the primary qualification of an L lens. Whether this is correct or not, I
don't know.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
. ..
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:iD0if.9916$dv.3260@fed1read02...


Got a new one for you Skip. I was thinking about the 85 f-1.2L lens and
thought to look it up in Canon's EF lens catalog and found this lens
doesn't have either fluorite or S-UD glass but it has one huge
aspherical
element.

Yeah, I just looked at the Canon Museum, and found the same thing...back
to
build quality as the primary, if not sole, criterion for "L" status.


I have read that all L lenses are sealed against the elements, and that is
the primary qualification of an L lens. Whether this is correct or not, I
don't know.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


I'd sure like to know how they sealed the trombone slide on the 100-400
f4.5-5.6 IS USM...bellows?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:45:38 +0200, DD wrote:

In article ,
says...
How does a lens get classed as luxury?


Price.

Nah. It has a mint coat for a lens case and an air-conditioned lens
hood.

The red stripe. German generals had the same thing on their pants
legs.
-Rich

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:48:46 +0200, DD wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:17:18 -0600, Howard Larson
wrote:

DD wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems :

In article ,
says...

[snip]
The D70 compared with 300 D?? The D70 is a much better camera.

I know that, you know that, but the vast majority of newbies don't.

[snip]

Do you really know that? If so, you are simply contributing to the
noise when you could be educating those of us in the vast unwashed.

Physically, it seems to be a better camera. Sensorwise, probably
about the same. However, the conundrum is that the Rebel XT
is still a "lesser" camera physically and egonomically than the D70
but has a better sensor. But then for the average buyer, the kit
lens (18-70) for the D70 is a far better lens than either iteration of
the Canon 18-55mm. Tough choices, huh?
-Rich

Bettor sensor? For what purposes? I don't like the way Canon sensors
render images.

I've read all the arguments about how sensors render images.
Aside from noise, size and pixel count which are quantifiable, no one
seems to be able to offer solid explainations for preferring one
sensor to another. Perhaps other forms of measurement are needed?
-Rich

In article ,
says...

I've read all the arguments about how sensors render images.
Aside from noise, size and pixel count which are quantifiable, no one
seems to be able to offer solid explainations for preferring one
sensor to another. Perhaps other forms of measurement are needed?

I think I have actually reached the point where I can tell if an image
was shot with a Canon or a Nikon DSLR. They have different looks.

I find that the Canon images look very sterile, whereas the Nikon images
are closer to that of film.

Of course this is where someone jumps in and asks me to point out which
is which on a website somewhere!

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

Matt Clara wrote:
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:iD0if.9916$dv.3260@fed1read02...

"nick c" wrote in message
...

snip

No argument there, but quality is not the criterion for inclusion in
"L"dom. Exotic elements, defined as exotic types of glass such as
fluorite, or low dispersion glass, are needed for the lens to be
considered an "L", according to Canon's own literature. The 60mm

Macro

has this type of glass, but I guess it is not included because it is

an

EF-S lens. (?) Makes little to no sense to me...


The 10-22 "S" lens has S-UD glass and it isn't labeled as a "L" lens. I
don't think the 60mm Macro "S" lens has either S-UD (or UD), or

fluorite

glass.


I was thinking about that one, just going from a memory that ain't what
it used to be.


I don't know if lens build quality alone may be a criterion for

labeling

a "L" lens, but I tend to think it may be. For example, the 14mm f-2.8
"L" lens and the excellent 35mm f-1.4 "L" lens doesn't have either
fluorite or S-UD glass yet they are "L" lens. However, they, like the
17-85 lens have aspherical elements. I'm equally puzzled.


My wife -ahem-"rearranged" our bookcase the other day, and I can't find
my lens lit. from Canon, but I thought the 35mm f1.4, at least, had UD
glass. If not, I'm just as puzzled as I ever was.

Got a new one for you Skip. I was thinking about the 85 f-1.2L lens and
thought to look it up in Canon's EF lens catalog and found this lens
doesn't have either fluorite or S-UD glass but it has one huge

aspherical

element.

Yeah, I just looked at the Canon Museum, and found the same thing...back

to

build quality as the primary, if not sole, criterion for "L" status.



I have read that all L lenses are sealed against the elements, and that is
the primary qualification of an L lens. Whether this is correct or not, I
don't know.


I don't know what's what with Canon either but here's what Canon has
published in their EF Lenses For EOS Cameras catalog.

"Dust and Water-Resistant Construction."
"The EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 500mm f/4L IS
USM, EF 600mm f/4L IS USM lenses and all subsequent L-series lenses are
highly dust and water resistant."

Lens, Dust and Water-Resistant Construction, is identified by the DW-R
code when reading literature that references the construction of a
particular lens.

Looking through the EOS catalog the lenses identified with the DW-R code
are 16-35 f/2.8L USM, 17-40 f/4L USM, 24-70 f/2.8L USM, 70-200 f/2.8L IS
USM, 300 f/2.8L IS USM, 400 f/2.8 IS USM, 400 DO f/4 IS USM, and the 600
f/4 IS USM lens.

The L-series and DO lenses that do not illustrate the identifying DW-R
code are the 70-200 f/2.8L USM, 70-200 f/4L USM, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS
USM, 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, 14mm f/2.8L
USM, 35mm f/1.4L USM, 85mm f/1.2L USM, 135mm f/2L USM, 200mm f/2.8L USM,
300 f/4L IS USM, and the 400mm f/5.6L USM.

[Shrug ......]

Well, there is a difference in the way the two companies approach
making an image, if that is what you mean. There is a Nikon look and a
Canon look, but with either one there are so many user adjustments
available that the final result can look radically different from what
the manufacturer intended. The differences are caused by the slightly
different ways the two manufacturers handle white balance, what they
think optimum contrast is, etc. One will be slightly warmer, one will
be slightly less contrasty, etc. Then you get to throw in whatever,
Adobe or somebody else does to these.