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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

"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

"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

"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.

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.