If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
news "Skip M" wrote in message news:70xhf.9733$dv.5648@fed1read02... "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message ... "ian lincoln" wrote in message news Absolutely not. I own a lens. One was enough. Someone else mentioned the sigma/canon problems. REchipping etc. If you have ever held a brand new top end sigma lens in your hand and watch the end fall off. Then again after returning from sigma for repair. Their cheap dx lenses for digital cameras are the very worst. If you must go non manufacturer brand go tamron or tokina. Trust me when i say sigma sell most cos dealers like 'em. They like em cos they are cheaper than the other brands but still have a better markup not because of any optical or build quality merits. A co-worker owns a Mercedes Benz that has been nothing but constant headaches. It's a real lemon. Mercedes must be really lousy cars, all of them. Actually, DaimlerChrysler has acknowledged that they have some severe quality issues, especially when it comes to electronics, and the perception is even worse, so that probably wasn't the best analogy you could have used... I won an 18 month-old 300C, quality has been very, very good. I know Daimler-Chrysler is having quality issues, as well as BMW. Perhaps I should have used Honda as an example (I know someone who has a real lemon of an Accord) but I think you got my point Yeah, I did. As an aside, one reason the pres. of the Chrysler component of D/C was promoted to the head of DaimlerChrysler was that he had spearheaded the drive to improve Chrysler's quality and quality control. Most of Mercedes' problems, and those of BMW, too, have been electronic in nature. Mercedes, in fact, looks like they are going to drop the electronic braking systems. They don't show up on the upcoming S class... The issues with Sigma, however, have been too widely reported to be discounted as a minority of disgruntled users. Before the local camera store was taken over by Calumet, they refused to sell Sigma, because they had so many problems with both the lenses and Sigma's after sales service. What Ian said is correct, at least on the count of Sigma offering better markups, and they offer bigger "spiffs" (commission paid by the mfr instead of the retailer) than other aftermarket suppliers. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
"Rich" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:14:21 +0100, (Philip Homburg) wrote: In article , Rich dfs wrote: Euro cars score third of three in reliability tests. But it's nice to know you can sit in luxury while you wait for the tow truck. Are you saying that just the cars that don't work get exported from Europe to the US? No, I'm saying European cars on average (the world over) score lower than Japanese, American and perhaps even Korean cars in terms of number of breakdowns and defects. -Rich Over the life span of a vehicle, I believe that the American cars now are the equal of the Japanese cars in TCO. The Korean cars are getting there too - I own a Kia Sedona I bought three years ago and my son drives the Hyundai Elantra we bought four years ago. Both have been extremely reliable. My 1 1/2 year-old Chrysler 300C has been extremely reliable also, this car is the fruit of Chrysler's merger with Daimler. It's solid, quiet, fast, and reliable. If only it didn't cost so much. Even though I don't own one presently, I am a bigger fan of European cars than any other make. Having spent three weeks in Greece this summer and doing the same eight years ago, I got to see and drive in quite a few cars that I'll never have a chance to do here. The island I stayed on with family has a heavy presence of French cars. They don't sell them here in the US anymore, the quality years ago when they left the market here was terrible. They certainly have turned that around from what I've seen in Greece. The cars take quite a beating there and they just keep going. The Citroens, Renaults, Peugeots, and even the Fiats and Alfas. The SEATs from Spain and Skoda from the Czech Republic (owned by VW AG) are really nice too. I wish they sold them here, I would certainly consider buying any of them. They are quite stylish too. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
Skip M wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message . .. Skip M wrote: "nick c" wrote in message om... Skip M wrote: "Per Ting" wrote in message . .. How these two compare, the price of cannon is slightly higher, but in terms of quality how do they compare. I am thinking of D70s with 18-70 kit lens and 20D with 17-85 IS lens. How do the lenses compare? Any suggestion for better wakl around lenses to go with each? I have heard good things about Sigma 18-50 and 18-200 lenses. Thanks As far as which camera, that's one only you can answer, really. The pixel count is close, but in favor of the Canon, the noise issue is a wash, the Nikon is a little better at low ISO, the Canon is better at high ISO. Lens lines are pretty much equally deep, with consumer and pro lenses both wide and tele. Canon has more stabilized lenses, but only in the far reaches of the tele world, both have a good selection of zoom lenses that have stabilization. If you're going to shoot architecture, Canon offers some exotic tilt and shift lenses that Nikon doesn't. Some people like the ergonomics of one over the other, again, that's something best left up to you. The Canon 17-85 IS is a better lens, somewhat, but its main claim to fame is the IS feature, one that the Nikon lacks. Skip, I recall reading a magazine article where the reporter was interviewing someone in the Canon hierarchy. The 17-85 "S" lens was mentioned along with other lenses and the Canon person said if it were not for the 17-85 lens being a "S" lens, the lens is so good it would be have been released as an "L" lens. I have the 17-85 lens and it's almost always on the 20D camera. As to it being good enough to be labeled an "L" lens ... shrug. But it is a darn good lens. 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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
ian lincoln wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message . .. I believe you must have BOTH aspherical and fluorite to qualify for L. There are low dispersion lenses that aren't L. I believe water or at least dust protection is required to qualify also. Well Ian, I'm not as sure about what it takes to be labeled a L lens as I used to be. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
In article ,
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote: Over the life span of a vehicle, I believe that the American cars now are the equal of the Japanese cars in TCO. Interesting. I don't have detailed statistics on TCO. But in my experience, when cars get older, TCO goes way up for lots of Japanese cars because of the cost of parts. I guess that in Europe TCO for most US cars will be a bit of a problem because of full consumption. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message news On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:55:28 GMT, "ian lincoln" wrote: "nick c" wrote in message m... I believe you must have BOTH aspherical and fluorite to qualify for L. There are low dispersion lenses that aren't L. I believe water or at least dust protection is required to qualify also. No to all of the above. I suggest you get and read: _"EF Lens Work" III: The Eyes of EOS_ by Canon For example the 400mm f/5.6L has no fluorite elements. The 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM has a huge chunk of fluorite and a multilayer Diffractive Optical element (DO) but doesn't rate an "L". Here is what Canon has to say about "L" lenses. pp34 of the above book: "L Lenses Where Dreams Are Crystal Clear. The bright red line engraved on the lens barrel . An L for "luxury." The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional, designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging. "L." This name is reserved only for those few lenses that can meet stringent standards of performance, using fluorite (an artificial crystal), a ground and polished aspherical surface, UD, super UD lenses or other special optical materials. Optical design with out compromise together with optical theory and precision engineering technologies that are steeped in tradition as they are cutting edge. And the result of our relentless pursuit of these ideals is the L series of Canon EF lenses." L is for Luxury. That's what I remember reading, but the 14mm f2.8 only has one aspherical element, and no UD, S-UD or fluorite elements. The 28mm f1.8 also has one aspherical element, no exotic elements and is not an "L." Is the distinction in construction only? -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
"nick c" wrote in message
... Skip M wrote: "nick c" wrote in message . .. Skip M wrote: "nick c" wrote in message news:_KydnZxQX8ms2RvenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast. com... Skip M wrote: "Per Ting" wrote in message .. . How these two compare, the price of cannon is slightly higher, but in terms of quality how do they compare. I am thinking of D70s with 18-70 kit lens and 20D with 17-85 IS lens. How do the lenses compare? Any suggestion for better wakl around lenses to go with each? I have heard good things about Sigma 18-50 and 18-200 lenses. Thanks As far as which camera, that's one only you can answer, really. The pixel count is close, but in favor of the Canon, the noise issue is a wash, the Nikon is a little better at low ISO, the Canon is better at high ISO. Lens lines are pretty much equally deep, with consumer and pro lenses both wide and tele. Canon has more stabilized lenses, but only in the far reaches of the tele world, both have a good selection of zoom lenses that have stabilization. If you're going to shoot architecture, Canon offers some exotic tilt and shift lenses that Nikon doesn't. Some people like the ergonomics of one over the other, again, that's something best left up to you. The Canon 17-85 IS is a better lens, somewhat, but its main claim to fame is the IS feature, one that the Nikon lacks. Skip, I recall reading a magazine article where the reporter was interviewing someone in the Canon hierarchy. The 17-85 "S" lens was mentioned along with other lenses and the Canon person said if it were not for the 17-85 lens being a "S" lens, the lens is so good it would be have been released as an "L" lens. I have the 17-85 lens and it's almost always on the 20D camera. As to it being good enough to be labeled an "L" lens ... shrug. But it is a darn good lens. 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. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message news On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:55:28 GMT, "ian lincoln" wrote: I believe you must have BOTH aspherical and fluorite to qualify for L. There are low dispersion lenses that aren't L. I believe water or at least dust protection is required to qualify also. No to all of the above. Reading the above and the quoted paragraph below i am right on the money. I suggest you get and read: _"EF Lens Work" III: The Eyes of EOS_ by Canon For example the 400mm f/5.6L has no fluorite elements. The 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM has a huge chunk of fluorite and a multilayer Diffractive Optical element (DO) but doesn't rate an "L". Here is what Canon has to say about "L" lenses. pp34 of the above book: "L Lenses Where Dreams Are Crystal Clear. The bright red line engraved on the lens barrel . An L for "luxury." The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional, designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging. "L." yup rugged quality build, dust and weather sealed. This name is reserved only for those few lenses that can meet stringent standards of performance, according to readers of this group some L lenses shouldn't qualify using fluorite (an artificial crystal), I mentioned this a ground and polished aspherical surface, UD, super UD lenses or other special optical materials. I mentioned these Optical design with out compromise together with optical theory and precision engineering technologies that are steeped in tradition as they are cutting edge. And the result of our relentless pursuit of these ideals is the L series of Canon EF lenses." L is for Luxury. That seems to be rather subjective qualification. From reading this group there are lenses that don't meet the optical performance but have L specifications. There are non L specifications that perform very well. ile no fluorite element but lots of DO elements. It would seem despite how well a lense performs if it is EF-S it does not qualify. I think it is the ruggedising of the lense that seems to be the crucial factor. All other factors, optical performance, fluorite seem to be optional. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
Skip M wrote:
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message news On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:55:28 GMT, "ian lincoln" wrote: "nick c" wrote in message om... I believe you must have BOTH aspherical and fluorite to qualify for L. There are low dispersion lenses that aren't L. I believe water or at least dust protection is required to qualify also. No to all of the above. I suggest you get and read: _"EF Lens Work" III: The Eyes of EOS_ by Canon For example the 400mm f/5.6L has no fluorite elements. The 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM has a huge chunk of fluorite and a multilayer Diffractive Optical element (DO) but doesn't rate an "L". Here is what Canon has to say about "L" lenses. pp34 of the above book: "L Lenses Where Dreams Are Crystal Clear. The bright red line engraved on the lens barrel . An L for "luxury." The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional, designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging. "L." This name is reserved only for those few lenses that can meet stringent standards of performance, using fluorite (an artificial crystal), a ground and polished aspherical surface, UD, super UD lenses or other special optical materials. Optical design with out compromise together with optical theory and precision engineering technologies that are steeped in tradition as they are cutting edge. And the result of our relentless pursuit of these ideals is the L series of Canon EF lenses." L is for Luxury. That's what I remember reading, but the 14mm f2.8 only has one aspherical element, and no UD, S-UD or fluorite elements. The 28mm f1.8 also has one aspherical element, no exotic elements and is not an "L." Is the distinction in construction only? I'm slowly coming around to thinking the "L" designation primarily means the design and construction of a "L" lens is in a manner unique when compared to Canons normal lens line. That would support what I was told by Canon tech service, if it were not for the diffractive optics of their DO lenses, they too would have been labeled as "L" lenses. So, instead of a red band, the lenses are green banded. Both color bands imply the same meaning of overall design and construction quality. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 611 | November 20th 05 03:04 PM |
Nikon Capture 4 on a Mac...ARRRGH!!!! | Amr | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | October 30th 05 06:04 PM |
Interesting... | Rox-off | Digital SLR Cameras | 35 | August 29th 05 04:58 AM |
cheapest place to buy dslr bodies: Nikon D70s / Canon EOS 20d/350D | John | Digital SLR Cameras | 26 | July 30th 05 09:51 PM |
New Canon EOS 350D and Nikon D70S | Jim Waggener | Digital Photography | 4 | April 21st 05 01:53 PM |