Canon/Nikon any REAL difference????

"Charlie Ih" wrote in message
...

There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens
for the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras
yet AFAIK. Let us know otherwise. Of course you can use Sigma lenses on
both.

It's a DX lens (i.c. small image circle) and costs over $1000. I think I
would pass or get Sigma's. The reason why Canon doesn't have a lens like
that is simple. The 1D Mark II has a bigger sensor. They are not committing
to any sensor sizes other than full 35mm frame.

"Charlie Ih" wrote in message
...

There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens
for the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras
yet AFAIK. Let us know otherwise. Of course you can use Sigma lenses on
both.

With Canon 1D Mark II, you only need a 16mm lens to do the same trick and
Canon has plenty of those L lens. Way to go Nikon. When will they beat
Canon?

In article QDLEc.8662$IQ4.6693@attbi_s02, says...
How about the noise level at a 200 ISO setting for the Canon verses the
Nikon

About the same.

But how do you do it on a Rebel? Comparing a lens that solves a problem on
a D70 to a lens that solves a problem on a 1D Mark II isn't a reasonable
comparision.

I own Nikon (D70 and D100) because of the 12-24.

Tom
"leo" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Charlie Ih" wrote in message
...

There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens
for the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras
yet AFAIK. Let us know otherwise. Of course you can use Sigma lenses on
both.

With Canon 1D Mark II, you only need a 16mm lens to do the same trick and
Canon has plenty of those L lens. Way to go Nikon. When will they beat
Canon?

I remember that the original poster was asking for an entry DSLR. Canon 1D
Mark II is definitely not an entry DSLR. With its price, you can buy
more than 5 Canon 300D or Nikon D100.

I think that Canon and Nikon may have different philosophy and/or
strategy. Canon may believe that the 300D class cameras are just
a transition and eventually, like many expressed their interests on
this NG, that all DSLR's will go to full frame. Since this is just a
transition, why bother with those special lenses.

Nikon on the other hand may think that now is good time to make the
change. Removing the film format restriction (dictated by 35 mm movie
film format and as a compromise, using "double frame"), you can
make DSLR more versatile than the film SLR with comparable performance.
I think that a sensor of the size with a "magnification" factor
or 1.5 or 1.6 is probably optimal, in term of ISO speeds and total
resolution. In theory the size of the camera, body and lenses,
can be greatly reduced because of the smaller sensor size.

Kodak may also think that now is a good time to move photography
forward with digital technology by upgrading 35 mm camera performance
to near that of 2x2 cameras. Maybe their Pro-14c/n is such
an attempt.

Of course none of them have achieved their goals yet. Canon needs
to reduce the price of their full frame cameras to that of 300D or
100D. Nikon needs to increase the sensor resolution to 10 to 11 MP.
More important, Nikon needs to greatly reduce the camera size.
Kodak of course needs to reduce the sensor noise specially at
high ISO speeds and further increase the total pixel count to
perhaps 16 MP. Both Nikon and Kodak need a new set lenses
to match the new sensors. If people like these new cameras,
it is good business for them too.

I wish they all succeed and we all benefit. Those insist on full
frame can use Canon. Canon is more close to its goal except the
price. If Nikon can reduce the camera size and upgrade its
performance, many can enjoy Nikon. If Kodak can reduce the
noise and further increase the total pixel count, porfessional
and/or serious amateurs will love that. Good luck to all of
them.

This is purely my speculations and I hope I did not offend
anyone.


In article . net,
leo wrote:
"Charlie Ih" wrote in message
...

There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens
for the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras
yet AFAIK. Let us know otherwise. Of course you can use Sigma lenses on
both.

With Canon 1D Mark II, you only need a 16mm lens to do the same trick and
Canon has plenty of those L lens. Way to go Nikon. When will they beat
Canon?




--
Charles S. Ih
302-831-8173, FAX 302-831-4316

In article ,
Charlie Ih wrote:
I wish they all succeed and we all benefit. Those insist on full
frame can use Canon. Canon is more close to its goal except the
price. If Nikon can reduce the camera size and upgrade its
performance, many can enjoy Nikon. If Kodak can reduce the
noise and further increase the total pixel count, porfessional
and/or serious amateurs will love that. Good luck to all of
them.

This is purely my speculations and I hope I did not offend
anyone.

The obvious alternative is to have two sizes with a single lens mount.
Provide 10Mpixel full frame sensors for 'medium format' quality and
10Mpixel APS sized sensors for sports and consumer applications.

DX wide angle lenses should be smaller and lighter than the equivalent
full frame version. For telephoto it doesn't matter, in both cases you
want the best lenses that can be built (with an APS sized sensor you can
use shorter lenses, which again is more convenient).



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:38:23 -0400, Chuck wrote:


Go read the threads , scary !
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcf...conf=DCConfID3


Chuck
Chuck,
Thanks for the link. I am shooting nikon for 5 years now and I love it!
Now I even have found a home.

But really I think you can by wonderfull lenses and cameras for both
systems. And for me it is very much a questions of usability. On a nikon
the knobs are doing exactly what I expect them to do and I always
have issues with a canon (yes I know I could probably learn it). The only
thing I do not like is that the cameras are not build for left-eyed
people. I do not think canon is better in that respect. But let me know if
I am wrong.

Paul

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Mike Brodbelt wrote:

[Snip]
arrive within 5 years. If Nikon has stuck with the APS sensor, I think
they'll be at a serious disadvantage then, and if they go for a bigger
sensor at a late stage in the game, they'll have a lot of annoyed DX lens
owners.

The 12-24 DX is usable on a 35mm body in the 16/18-24mm range[1][2]. The
17-55 DX is usable in the 35-55mm range[3]. The 10.5 DX is not usable on
a 35mm body.

[1]: http://www.bythom.com/1224lens.htm
[2]: http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS12-24DX_rev00.html
[2]: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html

--
Jose Marques

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
But how do you do it on a Rebel? Comparing a lens that solves a problem
on
a D70 to a lens that solves a problem on a 1D Mark II isn't a reasonable
comparision.

I own Nikon (D70 and D100) because of the 12-24.

Tom

The point is we are not being stuck with 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor. You can't
be sure if Canon can't make a prosumer version of the 1DM2 with the same
1.3x sensor for half the price. Therefore, an over $1K lens that can only be
used for APS size camera is not _my_ cup of tea. There's always a Sigma lens
for 12-17mm to use with 300D if someone is desperate.

I could have waited for a mythical camera from the future.

Or I could have bought a D100 and 12-24 and taken thousands of photos.

There is always something that 'could' be available in the 'future'. I made
a decision with which I am pleased. The D70 and 18-70 combo is also
amazing. Makes a nice pair of bodies.

Not arguing -- everyone should choose what works for them. Like I did!

Tom
"leo" wrote in message
. net...
"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
But how do you do it on a Rebel? Comparing a lens that solves a problem
on
a D70 to a lens that solves a problem on a 1D Mark II isn't a reasonable
comparision.

I own Nikon (D70 and D100) because of the 12-24.

Tom

The point is we are not being stuck with 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor. You
can't
be sure if Canon can't make a prosumer version of the 1DM2 with the same
1.3x sensor for half the price. Therefore, an over $1K lens that can only
be
used for APS size camera is not _my_ cup of tea. There's always a Sigma
lens
for 12-17mm to use with 300D if someone is desperate.