20D or 5D

Skip M wrote:



Heck, Stacey, the center doesn't look to hot, either...


It's useable... The corners and even the edges aren't.

--

Stacey

Bill Hilton wrote:
Douglas (Pixby) writes ...

(advice from his lawyer) "If your new Nikon gear is satisfactory, just
sell the Canon stuff and replace it"


As others pointed out, the Nikon consumer gear has the same operating
temperature and humidity range so you'll run into similar problems with
it. For you and anyone else who will use their cameras in extreme
conditions I'd suggest buying the professional grade gear instead of
the consumer grade stuff like the 20D. We have two 1D Mark II's and a
1Ds and they are weather-sealed against moisture and dust, for example.
Using them with the more recent Canon L lenses with the gasket at the
mount and seals on the switches means I can shoot in light rain or snow
without worry, something I've done maybe 12 days the past year in
Alaska and San Diego (remember the January rains Mark M? ... I was
there ... I would never try this with the consumer bodies.

It will be the same for you with the Nikon consumer gear ... I don't
know if something like the D2x is sealed or not (should be for $5,000
US) but if it isn't you'll run into similar issues.


A duly authorized agent of Minolta sold me a digital print system last
year which had an operating environment outside that in my print centre.


If the "print centre" is indoors then it's surprising that the
operating environment is out of spec. If it's outside or in an open
mall (I seem to remember something like this on the pier at Cairns when
I was there marlin fishing) then that's a different issue.

Bill

That's fine advise Bill. I got it from Canon after complaining about the
2, 20Ds I bought to do our annual Santa shoots last year. I returned one
of the 20Ds for a full refund which I offset against a 1D, Mk II. I
don't have an issue with the reliability of that camera, only the
accessories and lenses I use with it, which are the same ones I use on
the 20D.

What my issue is with, is the bull**** from Canon about how a (now
openly recognized as such)consumer grade camera is promoted as being
suitable for "Enthusiasts and Professionals" when it is not.
Particularly in light of a pure consumer camera like the FZ20 Panasonic,
happily shooting 500 shots a day - using it's internal flash when the
20D Canon fries it's electronics doing the same thing. I'm bloody angry
that I listened to even more of their bull**** and bought a 1D, II when
I was stupid enough to actually believe them.

The Nikon D2X produces "better" (and no I can't quantify that) colour
reproduction than the Canons do. I much prefer the look of a print from
the Nikon than one from the 1D. Also I am very impressed with Nikon's
Speedlights and the only (so far) Nikon lens I have. If all the lenses I
intend to buy are as good as this, I don't believe the FF sensor is of
any value to me. Certainly the Canon Speedlights are of highly
questionable value to a working Photographer, as several other have
reported in this group.

The print centre I put the Minolta system into is indeed in a seaside
environment. It is impossible to air condition a busy shop and still
have foot traffic (read that as customers) through it. It is also of
questionable value to give someone prints made and kept in a low (as in
40%) humidity when they take them out into 90% humidity and bring them
back stuck together a few hours later.

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

In article , says...
Heck, Stacey, the center doesn't look to hot, either...


It's useable... The corners and even the edges aren't.

You've got a different definition of "usable" than I do.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

wrote:


I call you a Nikon Nutcase because that is what you are. Don't like
it? Want me to stop? I hereby reveal to you the secret: stop acting
like one.

Some time ago I decided not to respond to anyone hiding their identity
by using Google to post insulting and defamatory remarks about those who
are easily identified.

Stop acting like a coward... I realized now, your attitude is endemic
from socially and economically disadvantaged Canadians. Must be
something to do with the snow... froze your brain perhaps?

The kill file grows, yet again.

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:



Heck, Stacey, the center doesn't look to hot, either...


It's useable... The corners and even the edges aren't.

--

Stacey

It stands to reason that even a mediocre center would deteriorate to poor,
or even unusable, edges. That center wouldn't even qualify as mediocre, in
my opinion.

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

wrote:



I call you a Nikon Nutcase because that is what you are.

What's comical is you also called me one and I don't even shoot with a
nikon! I guess anyone who doesn't use your BRAND and doesn;t blindly ignore
any problems your BRAND may have has to be a "Nikon nutcase"?

--

Stacey

Brian Baird wrote:

In article , says...
Heck, Stacey, the center doesn't look to hot, either...


It's useable... The corners and even the edges aren't.

You've got a different definition of "usable" than I do.

As you seem to have a different definition of "mushy".
--

Stacey

Skip M wrote:



It stands to reason that even a mediocre center would deteriorate to poor,
or even unusable, edges.

Why? If this is from camera shake etc as people have tried to blame it on,
does camera shake somehow effect the edges/corners more than the center?

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:



It stands to reason that even a mediocre center would deteriorate to
poor,
or even unusable, edges.

Why? If this is from camera shake etc as people have tried to blame it on,
does camera shake somehow effect the edges/corners more than the center?

Camera shake is a guess...to explain what is clearly a blurry picture in all
areas of the frame.
I don't know what caused it, but there is no debating the fact that the
entire frame is not in keeping with the well-known and solidly-establish
capability of that lens. It has been established (via the macro sample)
that the sensor is perfectly capable of rendering the center well. The
sensor cannot magically thrash the center portion of one shot, while nailing
the center of another, without some screw-up happening, or a faulty lens.
The shot itself, in this case, HAS to be at least a PART of the problem. As
I have said repeatedly...this doesn't fully explain the corners, nor does it
excuse them. I have never claimed that the focus acounted fully for
anything, and certainly not the full explanantion of the corners. Any
poorly focussed, or poorly secured camera will lead to WORSE everything.

In article ,
writes
In message mf8Pe.8609$Us5.7168@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Of course it is logical.
But I would like to know if the presence of the 50 ISO also goes with
perhaps a sensor with improved basic sensitivity. If the sensor is NOT more
sensitive, then it would logically have to work as described. But if
they've managed to actually increase sensitivity in the sensor, there could
be other reasons for "hiding" the 50 setting.

I don't say it isn't as he said...I just want to know if the sensor itself
differs at all in this regard.

Well, the bottom line is that you can always expect to be able to do
something like that; the cost is a stop of highlights. There is no
issue of sensitivity; to the degree that a camera can do ISO 100; it can
do lower ISOs better in all other ways, at the cost of decreasing
highlight headroom. There is absolutely nothing "fake" or "negative"
about this other than the loss of headroom. In fact, if your image
doesn't need the headroom that is lost, pulling ISO 100 to 50 gives a
better quality ISO 50 than if the camera itself had an ISO 50 setting
with the same highlight headroom as the other ISOs.

Sounds logical. It is similar to the position in recording audio tapes -
to get the best S/N ratio, turn up the music signal to just before the
onset of clipping; the noise is at a constant level, so the higher the
signal (to the point before quality is affected) the better the ratio.

Thanks for the thought - the analogy had not occurred to me before.

This is generally,
with all ISOs except the one or two highest on most cameras. ISO 1600
with +2 EC, when used on a low contrast scene, has less noise and more
accurate color and luminance than ISO 400 exposed "normally". The image
is digitized at ISO as it would if ISO 400 were 14-bit instead of 12-bit
RAW data.

Even more extreme. Of course, you have the issue of how to get this
right in the heat of the moment. I guess this is where prior experiment
and experience comes in....

David
--
David Littlewood